New Vatican leader raises celibacy question

[CountDeMoney]

Tamas, it's obvious that you've got substantial issues regarding the topic of religion.  Your young heart is full of hate and cynicism, lost in the wilderness. 
I want you to know: we're all here for you.

I am NOT going into the confession booth with you, old man.

But I'm playing Enigma in the background.

[Berkut]

Everyone in this thread should stop arguing and go play this game, because it is fucking cool as shit:

http://www.cardhunter.com/

[The Minsky Moment]

There can be no doubt that each of the canonical gospels was influenced to some degree by oral tradition, since even the earliest was written several decades after the death of Christ.  Nevertheless, at least as the synoptic gospels are concerned, they seem to bare enough core similarities and have been written earlier to have a greater claim toward being authentic than later texts influenced by other traditions.

All the texts are authentic - IIRC no one claims the Nag Hammadi texts are forgeries.
The similarities between the synoptics do suggest they came out of a similar textual tradition.  That doesn't give them a higher claim to authenticity or priority. 

[Razgovory]

I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Your whole approach to this is wrong.  I don't have religious beliefs because I don't believe in magic of any kind.    However, I don't feel any need to bash those who do believe in magic, of any stripe, and I acknowledge that I have met many believers who are sincere and do a great deal of what I consider "objective good" (including doing favors for my ailing, magic-believing parents).

If you want to make an effective argument against a believer, use what I call the Berkut Argument (because he expressed it most clearly here): point out that their beliefs are actually 99.99+% identical to yours - they are disbelievers in millions of gods/magical beings and all the associated stories; the only (and trivial) difference is that they make exceptions to their general disbelief in magic, and you do not.

This will highlight the similarities between beliefs and mitigate the effects of the differences.  Since they are so much like you, you need no longer feel contempt for believers.

Well the contempt thing was in Raz`s head. And I judged that argument as often used and thus well known. 

Contempt was Garbon's word.  You simply said that it was your theme.

[derspiess]

Tamas, it's obvious that you've got substantial issues regarding the topic of religion.  Your young heart is full of hate and cynicism, lost in the wilderness. 
I want you to know: we're all here for you.

  Prayer Circle!!!

[Ed Anger]

Tamas, it's obvious that you've got substantial issues regarding the topic of religion.  Your young heart is full of hate and cynicism, lost in the wilderness. 
I want you to know: we're all here for you.

  Prayer Circle!!!

I'll send him a Robert Tilton prayer cloth.

[Razgovory]

I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Your whole approach to this is wrong.  I don't have religious beliefs because I don't believe in magic of any kind.    However, I don't feel any need to bash those who do believe in magic, of any stripe, and I acknowledge that I have met many believers who are sincere and do a great deal of what I consider "objective good" (including doing favors for my ailing, magic-believing parents).

If you want to make an effective argument against a believer, use what I call the Berkut Argument (because he expressed it most clearly here): point out that their beliefs are actually 99.99+% identical to yours - they are disbelievers in millions of gods/magical beings and all the associated stories; the only (and trivial) difference is that they make exceptions to their general disbelief in magic, and you do not.

This will highlight the similarities between beliefs and mitigate the effects of the differences.  Since they are so much like you, you need no longer feel contempt for believers.

This is untrue, you do believe in magic.  When I first started showing signs of sciatica, you were among the people suggesting seeing a chiropractor, claiming that it worked for you (this was shortly before you decided you so much better then me, you didn't need to talk to me).  The thing is, chiropractic medicine is based on the ideas of life forces and universal and innate intelligences that reflect 19th century spiritualism.  It is a then, a magical discipline.

[Barrister]

I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Your whole approach to this is wrong.  I don't have religious beliefs because I don't believe in magic of any kind.    However, I don't feel any need to bash those who do believe in magic, of any stripe, and I acknowledge that I have met many believers who are sincere and do a great deal of what I consider "objective good" (including doing favors for my ailing, magic-believing parents).

If you want to make an effective argument against a believer, use what I call the Berkut Argument (because he expressed it most clearly here): point out that their beliefs are actually 99.99+% identical to yours - they are disbelievers in millions of gods/magical beings and all the associated stories; the only (and trivial) difference is that they make exceptions to their general disbelief in magic, and you do not.

This will highlight the similarities between beliefs and mitigate the effects of the differences.  Since they are so much like you, you need no longer feel contempt for believers.

This is untrue, you do believe in magic.  When I first started showing signs of sciatica, you were among the people suggesting seeing a chiropractor, claiming that it worked for you (this was shortly before you decided you so much better then me, you didn't need to talk to me).  The thing is, chiropractic medicine is based on the ideas of life forces and universal and innate intelligences that reflect 19th century spiritualism.  It is a then, a magical discipline.

[God, please forgive me for defending both chiropractic medicine and grumbler (who I like, but find his argumentative style annoying)]

Reporting that something works is different from reporting that something's claims are valid.  I know a few people who claim that chiros have helped them.  Maybe it's just the placebo effect.  Maybe there's some therapeutic value in massage/manipulation that is less that whats chiros claim, but still exists.

Grumbler saying "Hey, a chiro really helped me" doesn't mean he accepts as gospel everything they claim.  In fact when I linked an anti-chiro article to him all he said was "boy am I glad I got better before I read your article".

[Razgovory]

I must admit I regret participating in this thread. Just started as trolling, but looks like a lot of you are much more into the whole religion thing / too insecure in beliefs and drew offense over it. I am sorry.

Your whole approach to this is wrong.  I don't have religious beliefs because I don't believe in magic of any kind.    However, I don't feel any need to bash those who do believe in magic, of any stripe, and I acknowledge that I have met many believers who are sincere and do a great deal of what I consider "objective good" (including doing favors for my ailing, magic-believing parents).

If you want to make an effective argument against a believer, use what I call the Berkut Argument (because he expressed it most clearly here): point out that their beliefs are actually 99.99+% identical to yours - they are disbelievers in millions of gods/magical beings and all the associated stories; the only (and trivial) difference is that they make exceptions to their general disbelief in magic, and you do not.

This will highlight the similarities between beliefs and mitigate the effects of the differences.  Since they are so much like you, you need no longer feel contempt for believers.

This is untrue, you do believe in magic.  When I first started showing signs of sciatica, you were among the people suggesting seeing a chiropractor, claiming that it worked for you (this was shortly before you decided you so much better then me, you didn't need to talk to me).  The thing is, chiropractic medicine is based on the ideas of life forces and universal and innate intelligences that reflect 19th century spiritualism.  It is a then, a magical discipline.

[God, please forgive me for defending both chiropractic medicine and grumbler (who I like, but find his argumentative style annoying)]

Reporting that something works is different from reporting that something's claims are valid.  I know a few people who claim that chiros have helped them.  Maybe it's just the placebo effect.  Maybe there's some therapeutic value in massage/manipulation that is less that whats chiros claim, but still exists.

Grumbler saying "Hey, a chiro really helped me" doesn't mean he accepts as gospel everything they claim.  In fact when I linked an anti-chiro article to him all he said was "boy am I glad I got better before I read your article".

So you are saying Grumblers' endorsement of magic does not stem from belief from magic per se, but just his inability to tell the difference between magic and reality?

[The Minsky Moment]

So you are saying Grumblers' endorsement of magic does not stem from belief from magic per se, but just his inability to tell the difference between magic and reality?

No he is saying that something can work for reasons different from those proposed by its theoreticians.
For example, the theory behind supply side economics is mostly bunk; nonetheless tax cuts can still benefit a depressed economy.

[Barrister]

So you are saying Grumblers' endorsement of magic does not stem from belief from magic per se, but just his inability to tell the difference between magic and reality?

No that is not what I am saying.

[Eddie Teach]

Grumbler once saved himself from a tyrannosaur with a timely fireball spell.

[crazy canuck]

Grumbler once saved himself from a tyrannosaur with a timely fireball spell.

But only because his back was sufficiently aligned to allow the essence to flow through him with enough force to generate the spell.

[Razgovory]

So you are saying Grumblers' endorsement of magic does not stem from belief from magic per se, but just his inability to tell the difference between magic and reality?

No he is saying that something can work for reasons different from those proposed by its theoreticians.
For example, the theory behind supply side economics is mostly bunk; nonetheless tax cuts can still benefit a depressed economy.

I think Grumbler can defend himself.

[crazy canuck]

So you are saying Grumblers' endorsement of magic does not stem from belief from magic per se, but just his inability to tell the difference between magic and reality?

No he is saying that something can work for reasons different from those proposed by its theoreticians.
For example, the theory behind supply side economics is mostly bunk; nonetheless tax cuts can still benefit a depressed economy.

I think Grumbler can defend himself.

His reader is defective so no, I dont think he can.