By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Hollywood anti catholic bullshit needs to stop

epicurean on 08 January 2018
Alara317 said:
When the Catholic church is squeaky clean, then and only then may it be free of criticism.

That's fair. 

I don't think any organization is squeaky clean, though. (I'm also not Catholic).



Owner of PS4 Pro, Xbox One, Switch, PS Vita, and 3DS

Around the Network
setsunatenshi on 08 January 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
setsunatenshi said:

I think you're a bit confused about what free speech means. Any entity is free to put a movie that paints in any light they see fit any topic. It's actually the OP's suggestion that free speech should be limited by what he/she perceives as offensive.

So please clarify your point, otherwise I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing for.

Voicing discontent is also free speech. I didn't say anything should be censored, but your comment came off quite rude. Anyhow, Hollywood isn't exactly in the position to morally criticise the church.

I 100% agree voicing discontent is free speech. I objected mostly to the usage of "needs to stop" which can be interpreted with an unspoken "or else".

The same way you interpreted my original comment as "quite rude", I interpreted this topic as supporting censorship. Maybe I'm wrong and you're right, Maybe you're wrong and I'm right... hell, maybe we're both wrong. But one thing is factual... the catholic church at some point in time literally would (try) police speech, actions and thought, but thankfully those days are long gone now.

"Hollywood" is not an entity, it's a more or less independent group of artists that create an entertainment media that we all somewhat enjoy. Pretty sure there's no dogma there except for what makes them profit :)



VGPolyglot on 08 January 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
VGPolyglot said:
My stance is not that God does not exist, but that I'm not going to believe in any god until they're proven to exist. However, I can say with almost 100% certainty that the Abrahamic God as described by the holy texts cannot exist because of the contradictions that exist within the writings.

These contradictions are widely aknowledged by catholics however. My bible even calls attention to the contradictions in the footnotes. The bible was written by humans, of course it's full of contradictions. If you'd want to start with the more or less historical work, you'd have to start with Jozua, but even then the book of Judges is where they started getting the general gist right.

I wasn't commenting on whether or not the contradictions were acknowledged by Catholics though, I was commenting on the validity of the texts in the pursuit of a credible being.



Ganoncrotch on 08 January 2018
epicurean said:
Ganoncrotch said:

Again you want to read my other post on here. VGchartz isn't going to be the turning point for people to start to look at the facts.

You're right (and that goes both ways), but that was a ridiculously easy picture to discredit yourself, and I don't know if I even believe the adam/eve narrative.

you mean the creation days part? or the meme? but yeah when it comes to "discrediting" who is giving out the credits here? Santa fans? They are as much value as your believes to me.



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

OneTime on 08 January 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
VGPolyglot said:
My stance is not that God does not exist, but that I'm not going to believe in any god until they're proven to exist. However, I can say with almost 100% certainty that the Abrahamic God as described by the holy texts cannot exist because of the contradictions that exist within the writings.

These contradictions are widely aknowledged by catholics however. My bible even calls attention to the contradictions in the footnotes. The bible was written by humans, of course it's full of contradictions. If you'd want to start with the more or less historical work, you'd have to start with Jozua, but even then the book of Judges is where they started getting the general gist right.

 

THat is theologically incorrect.  The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit working through the human scribes.  This is why the Bible is considered infallible.



Around the Network
WolfpackN64 on 08 January 2018
Ganoncrotch said:

Self regulation of child sex abuse, good stuff.

Anyways look people have believed in adult Santa for thousands of years, I'm not going to try to change your mind over the course of a forum thread and don't jokingly suggest that if someone showed you evidence to change your mind that you would. You have faith to believe, things like this test that faith, be strong, keep believing!

I can understand the scepticism. To be honest, I've left the church for 6 years because of what happened. I have a family member who was misused by a priest. He has a mental disorder which means it took years for him to tell the whole story.

Recently, even though the case is expired, his parents were asked to a meeting with the bishop. They were offered an sincere apology and monetary compensation for the psycological aid that he had to receive. It came late, very late. But at least it goes to show they it seriously. The national catholic newspaper (run by the church) has a big "report abuse" section on the main page. They're starting to compensate for cases that have long been closed and instead of shuffeling offenders around, some are being thrown out of the church.



ArchangelMadzz on 08 January 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

No it isn't. If someone provides a God with a specific and unique definition then it can be tested.

Again, there's no reason why this argument is giving the 'necessary being' all of these traits. It's giving the being these traits just because it can. 

But even if we go ahead and say that this philosophical idea is fact, And this being of infinite power of time and space and knowledge of every atom in the universe (jeez) existed, the idea it was doing things for 9 billion years then made this rock, and waited 5 billion years to make some special monkeys and require us to have a pope and wear these special robes and rituals and can only have sex in a certain position etc etc because???? You also have to follow this or bad things will happen..

To go back to your original response this is why I show little respect to Catholicism/religion because the fact that people can read that and their bullshit meters don't go off and not see it's just a system to control people's actions just blows my mind.

The necessary being is the prime mover. Not the being that literally moves everything. For then we wouldn't be contingent (moved and mover), but solely determined (moved).

Why can't he move everything? Considering the concept of a necessary being has been invented for the argument, we can add any attributes we want.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

epicurean on 08 January 2018
Ganoncrotch said:
epicurean said:

You're right (and that goes both ways), but that was a ridiculously easy picture to discredit yourself, and I don't know if I even believe the adam/eve narrative.

you mean the creation days part? or the meme? but yeah when it comes to "discrediting" who is giving out the credits here? Santa fans? They are as much value as your believes to me.

The meme. It just shows a lack of knowledge on the subject.



Owner of PS4 Pro, Xbox One, Switch, PS Vita, and 3DS

donathos on 08 January 2018
WolfpackN64 said:

donathos said:

The argument for a "necessary being" is funny to me. Besides "begging the question," it seems to make no claim as to the nature of this supposed "being," apart from any other singular event or phenomenon (not even to the point of being sensibly described as a "being" in the first place). When pressed on the subject, WolfpackN64 says, "I never said it had to be sentient, interpret being in a wide sense here." Well, if we're not discussing a sentient being -- if we allow ourselves "wide sense" enough to encompass the Big Bang -- then we're no longer discussing the concept of God in any meaningful manner, let alone some specific God like Yahweh. The defense of the argument reduces to "the argument contends nothing in particular," so..

I gave the possability for a wider interpretation not because I believe in such an interpretation. But because I actually want to give people who think otherwise space to argue along the lines of the same argument. I don't mind atheïsts, only when they bring no decent arguments to the table I start to get annoyed.

But my point is that, if you think that such an interpretation of your argument is permissible, then your argument doesn't make much of a claim -- does it? If your "necessary being" could be the Big Bang (whether that's your particular "interpretation" or not), then you haven't advanced an argument for anything that we would sensibly describe as a "god."

Really though, you've mentioned a couple of times, I think, that the Catholic Church was a force for good in the Middle Ages -- that things would have been worse otherwise -- and I'm interested in your thoughts about that.



WolfpackN64 on 08 January 2018
ArchangelMadzz said:
WolfpackN64 said:

The necessary being is the prime mover. Not the being that literally moves everything. For then we wouldn't be contingent (moved and mover), but solely determined (moved).

Why can't he move everything? Considering the concept of a necessary being has been invented for the argument, we can add any attributes we want.

Because if he did, we would not be contingent beings and there would not be a chain of causation and effect, but an endless chain of effects. That means God would move everything we do, including posting on this forum.