Student kidnaps Eucharist - commits mortal sin

[Professor Chaos]

Lily wrote

Who claimed that Catholics all over the world should be livid? I certainly didn't.

Duh, Phil! She clearly didn't say that

Lily wrote

It is simply too bad that you don't understand why every single Catholic in creation would be livid (a weak word in this context) over this act.

Link.

Since Lily is probably still pretending to have me on ignore after I called her out 4,358 times for referencing posts of mine after making that hilarious claim, somebody else can post this and wait for her batshit response about how that quote is totally different from the way that Studge portrayed it.

[nkb]

Professor,
Don't forget, all the Catholics that don't take transubstantiation all too seriously, aren't really Catholics. A simple "No True Catholic" argument magically makes her statement valid (in Lily's world).

Lily wrote

So what is your actual question? Make it a good one because you have really exhausted my patience with you.

When was the last time you got laid ?

[nkb]

Lily,
Still waiting for an answer.

Who forced Christians to read Pharyngula?

[Philboid Studge]

Lily wrote

You attribute to me some position I do not hold and never did --

Lily wrote

Who claimed that Catholics all over the world should be livid? I certainly didn't.

Lily wrote

It is simply too bad that you don't understand why every single Catholic in creation would be livid (a weak word in this context) over this act.

I don't know whether you're ignoring the Prof (or perhaps yourself). Upon further review, however, I see you did say that "livid" wasn't a strong enough word. Therefore I'm wrong and you're right and and I think a spanking is in order.

You don't know what the Church teaches. You have made that abundently [sic] clear over and over again.

I know one thing that the Church teaches that you seem to have forgotten: Catholics are supposed to be guided by the love of Christ in their interactions with atheists. That's why I often tell you I love you, so that you can keep up the pretence. Maybe you haven't forgotten it, but just haven't learned it yet -- you are after all quite new to the flock.

[dogpet]

WickFut wrote

When was the last time you got laid ?

19.04.05

Philboid Studge wrote

I thought the person who claimed that Catholics all over the world should be "livid" over the desecrations would have an insight.

What I actually said was:

Lily wrote

It is simply too bad that you don't understand why every single Catholic in creation would be livid (a weak word in this context) over this act.

Should means ought. I didn't claim that because I have no particular right to tell people how they ought to feel. A fairly intelligent reading of that post will demonstrate that I claimed that every Catholic (=believes in the Real Presence and Transubstantiation) would be livid. The difference is not subtle, Studge. I was trying to get at the visceral reaction to desecration. Most humans do not allow what they hold dear to be trashed without protest.

Since belief in the Real Presence and in Transubstantiation are the distinctive beliefs that set Catholics apart from Protestants, your non-believing Catholics aren't Catholics in anything but name. Why would they or should they be livid over something they don't believe in?

Of course, you can't ask a straightforward question or stay on topic. So who can know what you are really talking about? I guess this is the "insight" you thought I might have but who can tell with you?

And we go 'round and 'round in circles.

Philboid Studge wrote

I know one thing that the Church teaches that you seem to have forgotten: Catholics are supposed to be guided by the love of Christ in their interactions with atheists. That's why I often tell you I love you, so that you can keep up the pretence. Maybe you haven't forgotten it, but just haven't learned it yet -- you are after all quite new to the flock.

You tell me that you love me because it amuses you, as do all your various mockeries. I don't mind. It is silly but harmless.

Christ loved sinners; he did not love sin; it cost him his life. That love is not a warm, fuzzy feeling. It is an act of the will that demands the ability to distinguish between good and evil. Mockery of what is good, hate, contempt, such as Myers demonstrated, and the abuse of other humans are evil. Those who praise such things are not helped by anyone pretending that those things don't matter. They do.

I will not pretend that black is white, up is down, and evil is good. You would do well to stop fooling yourself.

[nkb]

Lily,
Who forced Christians to read Pharyngula?

[nkb]

nkb wrote

Professor,
Don't forget, all the Catholics that don't take transubstantiation all too seriously, aren't really Catholics. A simple "No True Catholic" argument magically makes her statement valid (in Lily's world).

Lily wrote

A fairly intelligent reading of that post will demonstrate that I claimed that every Catholic (=believes in the Real Presence and Transubstantiation) would be livid.
...
Since belief in the Real Presence and in Transubstantiation are the distinctive beliefs that set Catholics apart from Protestants, your non-believing Catholics aren't Catholics in anything but name. Why would they or should they be livid over something they don't believe in?

We can read Lily like a cheap Hustler paperback.

[psychodiva]

LillyButt is getting so good at backtracking

Lily, your argument is actually sound in regards to "real" Catholics. In order to be a no true Scotsman argument Lily would have to have failed to connect the thing she claims no true Catholic would believe in ( Eucharist as the body of Christ) and what makes someone a Catholic. The Eucharist is a CENTRAL part of thier dogma, without it Catholic theology would be muddled beyond belief. I think she is correct to say you must accept it in order to be a Catholic.

[Rhinoqulous]

I'm calling you out Captain, no True© atheist would ever defend Lily.

[Broga]

CAPTAIN-OBVIOUS wrote

Lily, your argument is actually sound in regards to "real" Catholics. In order to be a no true Scotsman argument Lily would have to have failed to connect the thing she claims no true Catholic would believe in ( Eucharist as the body of Christ) and what makes someone a Catholic. The Eucharist is a CENTRAL part of thier dogma, without it Catholic theology would be muddled beyond belief. I think she is correct to say you must accept it in order to be a Catholic.

Captain, I once tried to deal with Lily (in my early days here) as a serious and decent person. She will waste your time. She doesn't know what she is. She hasn't even read her Roman Catholic heroes and is quite prepared to slag them off when it suits her. To defend Lily is to defend nothing because Lily herself doesn't know what she is defending. If the Pope told her that black was white; that atheists were saints; that St Peter was an idiot then Lily would be there pretty damn quick. She has understood very selectively and, just so you know and be warned, she regards me as clinically insane. You will have to make up your own mind on that.

Lily cannot be defended, or even understood. What you can do if you find it in your being is to express sympathy for this sad, bitter and narrow woman who appears to live a life defined by celibate priests and a malicious and lying Pope.

This is just a thought. Please educate me on this (if you feel like it of course) if I'm wrong.
Wouldn't the Catholic cracker would deserve some kind of respect from every one else who is not a Catholic? The cracker is just a cracker for us and for many other people who aren't Catholic but let's take for a minute the example of a flag that represents a certain country. For example. What do you guys think about these people who have burned the American flag in the past, some other have burned the Mexican flag, the Russian flag, etc. Don't you guys/gals think that that is disrespecting those people who are patriotic and proud of their flag and country?
Like I've said many times before in this forum: I am not patriotic at all but I like to respect the country flags because I know that they mean something very important to those who are patriotic.

Rhinoqulous wrote

I'm calling you out Captain, no True© atheist would ever defend Lily.

CAPTAIN-OBVIOUS wrote

Lily, your argument is actually sound in regards to "real" Catholics.

Indeed, it is. But what a hoot! nkb must have trotted out the "new true Scotsman" fallacy, that he is addicted to. (I have stopped reading him on this thread-- if I have to defend non-Hindus eating beef one more time, I will stick my head in the nearest oven. But I digress).

He flips a coin before "responding" to me. If it comes up "heads", he trots out "circular logic"; "tails" he trots out the "no true Scotsman fallacy". That's as predictable as rain showers in spring. I pay no attention.

Still, I thank you for adding a sane voice to this particular subject!