Best "Have you heard the news" stories.

[KAWDUP]

Doesn't Opus Dei have over a million members?

Hardly nobody.

You mean in the over 1 billion Catholics of the world?

 

[Thumb]

You mean in the over 1 billion Catholics of the world?

So you're going to argue percentages? What does that prove, it means 1 in 1000 = nobody?

 

[Michchamp]

So you're going to argue percentages? What does that prove, it means 1 in 1000 = nobody?

it means "Just shut up, and don't say anything bad about catholics, period, because there are no bad catholics."

 

[KAWDUP]

So you're going to argue percentages? What does that prove, it means 1 in 1000 = nobody?

If you meant the Catholics in Opus Dei, you could have said that, and then it would have excluded just about everyone on this board and an even bigger percentage of Catholics in the US.

You didn't, and I said that the number is much less than you might think, which does bring percentages into the mix. I stand by what I said - are you changing anything based on your understanding of "devout" now?

 

[KAWDUP]

it means "Just shut up, and don't say anything bad about catholics, period, because there are no bad catholics."

Riiiight, I'm sure, that is exactly what I meant. You really believe that?

There are plenty of bad Catholics, maybe a few more devout ones, and many less Catholics that believe and actively follow 100% of church doctrine.

So have you done an exhaustive poll, or are you just being a smart ass?

 

[redandguilty]

Aren't we talking about the kind of Catholic that solicitors will leave alone because they're hopeless?

Edit: I just used the wrong "they're". I'll correct it. But I won't sweep it under the rug without leaving evidence.

 

[redandguilty]

it means "Just shut up, and don't say anything bad about catholics, period, because there are no bad catholics."

Actually, I said "nobody" thinking "nobody's perfect". Even if you disagree with the validity of the standard, I doubt anyone is batting 1.000.

 

[Michchamp]

Riiiight, I'm sure, that is exactly what I meant. You really believe that?

...

I guess I don't know what to believe then.

he said the kind of catholics he has a problem with... not sure what there is to pick apart, or WHY ELSE you and red would start doing that.

Thumb... I don't think you should've used the word "devout," because that allowed the "Semantics Boys" (that's my new name for Red & KAWDUP) to to drive a wedge into this thread that otherwise wasn't there.

seems to me you have a problem with the catholics that won't just live and let live, and instead have to force their own moral viewpoints on other people, either by judging them, or voting to enact their moral viewpoints into law, i.e. ban access to legal abortion, birth control, etc.

there are a lot of those, and whether they could or should be termed "devout" or not... they are jerks for sure, and we'd be better off socially if they kept their own beliefs on such non-issues to themselves, and instead voted and got engaged over real political issues.

 

[redandguilty]

Thumb... I don't think you should've used the word "devout," because that allowed the "Semantics Boys" (that's my new name for Red & KAWDUP) to to drive a wedge into this thread that otherwise wasn't there.

Hang on. If there's anyone hanging their argument on semantics, it's not me. Thumb was talking about those who adhere "100% to church policy or doctrine". I claimed that included "nobody". Now I don't care if you treat the use of "100%" and "nobody" literally or if you read those terms as approximately correct. Just be consistent. I figured I was good either way. If Thumb was being approximate with his "100%" then my "nobody" works as an approximate. BUT if you want to be literal, it still works. Nobody is 100%. Approximately nobody is near 100%. I'm not the one being a stickler about this, I'm just matching the tone of the conversation.

 

[KAWDUP]

I guess I don't know what to believe then.

he said the kind of catholics he has a problem with... not sure what there is to pick apart, or WHY ELSE you and red would start doing that.

Thumb... I don't think you should've used the word "devout," because that allowed the "Semantics Boys" (that's my new name for Red & KAWDUP) to to drive a wedge into this thread that otherwise wasn't there.

seems to me you have a problem with the catholics that won't just live and let live, and instead have to force their own moral viewpoints on other people, either by judging them, or voting to enact their moral viewpoints into law, i.e. ban access to legal abortion, birth control, etc.

there are a lot of those, and whether they could or should be termed "devout" or not... they are jerks for sure, and we'd be better off socially if they kept their own beliefs on such non-issues to themselves, and instead voted and got engaged over real political issues.

Wow, that is an awful lot of words to put in everyone's mouths. I can only answer what was posted - I am not like you discerning every possible meaning and motive in an attempt to come up with what was really meant all along.

This is the sarcastic stupidity that you posted:
<it means "Just shut up, and don't say anything bad about catholics, period, because there are no bad catholics.">

I was supposed to discern this <seems to me you have a problem with the catholics that won't just live and let live, and instead have to force their own moral viewpoints on other people, either by judging them, or voting to enact their moral viewpoints into law, i.e. ban access to legal abortion, birth control, etc.> from the drivel you posted or Thumb's postings?

I answered his original concern saying that one can still be a good Catholic without agreeing with 100% of the church doctrine. He posted that they have no options. That is NOT true, not even a little bit. He feels sorry for those who can't have their own opinions about those subjects. My answer is why can't they? They can and do, and are devout at the same time.

Go back and read the first post I quoted if you don't believe me.

The point is there aren't very many of those to feel sorry for, unless of course you mean Opus Dei, and then let me tell you - I feel sorry for them too.

. . . and about your semantics comments. He even re-iterated that he used "devout" for a reason. Either he meant devout or he didn't. Why can't you see that helps call into question what was posted?

You want to discuss all the words you just put into everyone's mouths? Can do that also. Seems to me there are just as many atheists on this board who also aren't willing to live and let live, and are trying to "force" their own moral viewpoints onto everyone else.

How you got to politics, I'll never know, but that sword you are trying to cut me with cuts both ways. My term for you has always been, and still is "progressive elitist". You accept that one, and I will surely accept "Semantics Boy".

 

[Thumb]

First off, I never said I had a problem with any of them. Tinsel used the word "Devout", then it because an issue of whether or not I understood Catholicism, which I admitted I never have fully.

Then it was a dead thread for several days [13] and KAWDUP came along and put his spin on it, I replied that the conversation I was having was not about any old Catholic, and it devolved from there.

Now it's obvious Red and KAWDUP were offended, but such is the nature of a conversation regarding religion, someone is always going to be offended.

As far as context and everything goes, Red, when you posted "So you're talking about nobody. OK.", you were making a flip comment. I responded with one about Opus Dei, and KAWDUP responded with the math. As far as saying you were matching the tone of the conversation, maybe you were but before that the conversation wasn't really flippant or snarky.

 

[redandguilty]

How did this thread turn into MC whining about there being no bad Catholics and Catholics that won't live and let live? It was about those who won't live and let live seeing Catholics as less saveable than atheists.

 

[Thumb]

Wow, that is an awful lot of words to put in everyone's mouths. I can only answer what was posted - I am not like you discerning every possible meaning and motive in an attempt to come up with what was really meant all along.

This is the sarcastic stupidity that you posted:
<it means "Just shut up, and don't say anything bad about catholics, period, because there are no bad catholics.">

I was supposed to discern this <seems to me you have a problem with the catholics that won't just live and let live, and instead have to force their own moral viewpoints on other people, either by judging them, or voting to enact their moral viewpoints into law, i.e. ban access to legal abortion, birth control, etc.> from the drivel you posted or Thumb's postings?

I answered his original concern saying that one can still be a good Catholic without agreeing with 100% of the church doctrine. He posted that they have no options. That is NOT true, not even a little bit. He feels sorry for those who can't have their own opinions about those subjects. My answer is why can't they? They can and do, and are devout at the same time.

Go back and read the first post I quoted if you don't believe me.

The point is there aren't very many of those to feel sorry for, unless of course you mean Opus Dei, and then let me tell you - I feel sorry for them too.

. . . and about your semantics comments. He even re-iterated that he used "devout" for a reason. Either he meant devout or he didn't. Why can't you see that helps call into question what was posted?

You want to discuss all the words you just put into everyone's mouths? Can do that also. Seems to me there are just as many atheists on this board who also aren't willing to live and let live, and are trying to "force" their own moral viewpoints onto everyone else.

How you got to politics, I'll never know, but that sword you are trying to cut me with cuts both ways. My term for you has always been, and still is "progressive elitist". You accept that one, and I will surely accept "Semantics Boy".

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was about Catholics, just what I meant by "devout" Catholics. If you;re going to lecture about putting words into peoples mouths, I suggest you re-read this thread carefully starting at page 1. I made it perfectly clear I was not talking about Catholics in general.

 

[redandguilty]

First off, I never said I had a problem with any of them. Tinsel used the word "Devout", then it because an issue of whether or not I understood Catholicism, which I admitted I never have fully.

Then it was a dead thread for several days [13] and KAWDUP came along and put his spin on it, I replied that the conversation I was having was not about any old Catholic, and it devolved from there.

Now it's obvious Red and KAWDUP were offended, but such is the nature of a conversation regarding religion, someone is always going to be offended.

As far as context and everything goes, Red, when you posted "So you're talking about nobody. OK.", you were making a flip comment. I responded with one about Opus Dei, and KAWDUP responded with the math. As far as saying you were matching the tone of the conversation, maybe you were but before that the conversation wasn't really flippant or snarky.

What? How does it look like I'm offended?

 

[Thumb]

What? How does it look like I'm offended?

Because it's pretty rare for you to respond to a post with a flip comment. At least here, I don't read as much on the M board, but you usually have some sustenance to what you post.

If you were not offended, and I misread your tone, then I apologize.

 

[redandguilty]

Regarding matching the tone, I just meant that my language was as precise (or inprecise or unprecise if either of those were words) as the rest of the thread. I wasn't being a stickler about it. Tone's the wrong word. I should have said precision.

I just don't see how I'm getting called out over semantics or being offended.

 

[KAWDUP]

First off, I never said I had a problem with any of them. Tinsel used the word "Devout", then it because an issue of whether or not I understood Catholicism, which I admitted I never have fully.

Then it was a dead thread for several days [13] and KAWDUP came along and put his spin on it, I replied that the conversation I was having was not about any old Catholic, and it devolved from there.

Now it's obvious Red and KAWDUP were offended, but such is the nature of a conversation regarding religion, someone is always going to be offended.

As far as context and everything goes, Red, when you posted "So you're talking about nobody. OK.", you were making a flip comment. I responded with one about Opus Dei, and KAWDUP responded with the math. As far as saying you were matching the tone of the conversation, maybe you were but before that the conversation wasn't really flippant or snarky.

I understand what you are saying. I do hope I wasn't being snarky in answering you. You are right, I came in and put a spin on it after it had died out, because I haven't been able to be around much, and this did pique my interest because I think you misunderstand the relationship Catholics have with church doctrine, and if I was offended, it was only mildly (. . . and that only because it is hard for me to fathom what "any old Catholic" actually is).

I do emphasize semantics in many of my "discussions", for some very good reasons. I was on the debating and forensic teams in high school, and both my parents were very much into words, and word usage, being English majors. So . . . when I bring it up, it usually is the basis for debating given topics. If you want to have a serious discussion about a topic, agreeing on the terms and understanding the initial points being made are important.

Yes it devolves a bit - but I wouldn't expect much less on a political forum. While the argument may not convince anyone of the other sides position being right, you can't say it doesn't become a competition of sorts, and there are winners and losers in many of these discussions, at least as I see it.

 

[redandguilty]

Because it's pretty rare for you to respond to a post with a flip comment. At least here, I don't read as much on the M board, but you usually have some sustenance to what you post.

If you were not offended, and I misread your tone, then I apologize.

Not offended. And no worries. Getting offended makes me more serious, when I'm flip, it's a safe bet that I know I'm pushing something, not being careful with my argument, and having fun with it. My posts the 1st week SBee joined the board had some of that.

...but I did think there was some substance with my post. I think some fraction (maybe 10-40%) of the general displeasure with Catholics in the US stem from people attributing the behavior of other Christians to Catholics. When you talk about devout Catholics are you sure you're not just guessing wrong about the behavior of some other type of Christian? When I suggest there aren't that many devout Catholics, the substance is that I'm questioning whether or not we're actually talking about Catholics here.

 

[KAWDUP]

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was about Catholics, just what I meant by "devout" Catholics. If you;re going to lecture about putting words into peoples mouths, I suggest you re-read this thread carefully starting at page 1. I made it perfectly clear I was not talking about Catholics in general.

Pardon me for putting words into your mouth - it was unintentional. I lecture Champ all the time about that - so you are certainly right about that. Are you agreeing with his assessment of your meaning?

I did read the whole thing BTW but the comment that got me started in this thread was about Catholics. I was answering on that bases, and you answered back - so it looked to me like I was on firm ground.

 

[KAWDUP]

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was about Catholics, just what I meant by "devout" Catholics. If you;re going to lecture about putting words into peoples mouths, I suggest you re-read this thread carefully starting at page 1. I made it perfectly clear I was not talking about Catholics in general.

. . . and while we are on this subject. Your bolded statement in my response was an example of me putting words into your mouth?

He posted that they have no options.

<<No options on conception/birth control. No divorce. No option to support a gay/lesbian friends choices.

Those are my biggest turn-offs for the Catholic faith, and sometimes I actually feel sorry for people who never really get to have their own opinions on some of these things, lest they be ex-communicated.>>

These aren't your words above? I was totally using my statement about no options as it pertains to support for church doctrine on specifically the issues you mention (except for possibly divorce). A careful and thoughtful difference of opinion on either of the other two issues, would not get you ex-communicated, even 50 years ago. I even included a link to what differences, if they existed, would be considered "bad" enough to get you excommunicated.

Again, my apology stands if I made you feel as if I was putting words into your mouth with that statement - it was unintentional.