Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Gnostic Christian Bishop

Indulgences; moral or immoral? How much for a rape Pope Francis?

Recommended Posts

Indulgences paid for some cool basilicas so I think they're moral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree; this is the perfect place for blind advocacy of beliefs. If not in a place where the sanctity, rationality, and validity of such beliefs are to be debated, then where else should such debates take place?

As for preaching, we all preach our doctrines. You cannot expect a person who is a true believer to abandon their ideals for the purpose of "debate". Instead, they must speak from their heart, and pour forth all their beliefs as honestly as they believe them. If this does not take place, no debate can possibly take place that is worth having.

Whether you disagree or not, is entirely irrelevant in this given situation.

 

Granted, debates are often held by two or more parties firmly entrenched in a belief or opinion, while they all try to convert the other side(s) to change their minds. In such a situation, there is bound to be continous, and repeated, squabbling over arguments where all sides harp on things they themselves hold true and obvious. It is unrealistic to expect anyone to simply change their mind because you have a different opinion, but that is no excuse to alienate or insult other people that debate in a civilised manner.

 

In this case, we see examples of outright insultive behaviour and that is not acceptable, which is (probably) why Lilshu felt the need to stress that in his comment. I can not speak for Lilshu, but that is my interpretation of his post. That said, I do not need to interpret Lilshu to get to my point, and to do that, I intend to have a minor flashback to the beginning of this post.

 

Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant. We are never going to allow people to insult other people intentionally because of a difference in opinion, and we are not going to allow that to continue either. If you feel that alienating your fellow forum members is okay, which it seems like you due to you disagreeing, then you are free to think that, but have the decency to be silent about it. We are not going to have a discussion on whether or not it should be fine to insult other people intentionally, just for believing something else. We are not going to allow that to happen. If you absolutely feel the need to discuss it, then do not bother. The way we hold debates is not relevant for the topic of this thread, and your view on how the Staff moderates is not really relevant for the Debate Section at all.

 

Now get back on track and debate the topic in this debate, rather than how the Staff moderates or the Staff's perception of basic, respectful, treatment of fellow forum members. This off topic nonsense is not acceptable, and I am just going to take action against it if some of you want to pursue it further.

 

..and yes, I am very serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude whichever old member you are this is great it's such a shame your audience is so small

I looked back and noticed that I forgot to thank you. Apologies and thanks. Regards DL

 

dude whichever old member you are this is great it's such a shame your audience is so small

This, this, this, this, this, this, and many other google results that I didn't feel like screenshotting suggest that it's just a guy with more than a little spare time. -.-

Says one after just wasting his. One who does not like freedom of speech. That aside, if you want a list of where I go, --- I have one for my fans. Regards DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude whichever old member you are this is great it's such a shame your audience is so small

This, this, this, this, this, this, and many other google results that I didn't feel like screenshotting suggest that it's just a guy with more than a little spare time. -.-

Says one after just wasting his. One who does not like freedom of speech. That aside, if you want a list of where I go, --- I have one for my fans. Regards DL

I like freedom of speech. I also have too much time on my hands; it's nothing to be ashamed about, and it wasn't intended to be offensive. Also, I'm a big fan, so can I have a list?

Edited by Guitarguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indulgences paid for some cool basilicas so I think they're moral

Yes. People could then pay the church for beating up on the temple prostitutes The same prostitutes that the Pope of the day used to built St. Peter's , --- as one example, from a prone position. --------------------- Only immoral a holes will think that that outcome to indulgences is in any way moral. ----- As the Pope keeps lying to us. Regards DL

 

dude whichever old member you are this is great it's such a shame your audience is so small

This, this, this, this, this, this, and many other google results that I didn't feel like screenshotting suggest that it's just a guy with more than a little spare time. -.-

Says one after just wasting his. One who does not like freedom of speech. That aside, if you want a list of where I go, --- I have one for my fans. Regards DL

I like freedom of speech. I also have too much time on my hands; it's nothing to be ashamed about, and it wasn't intended to be offensive. Also, I'm a big fan, so can I have a list?

Made me blush.

Only after I get a nice long post, ---- here, ---- as to why you are a great fan of mine. Regards DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude whichever old member you are this is great it's such a shame your audience is so small

This, this, this, this, this, this, and many other google results that I didn't feel like screenshotting suggest that it's just a guy with more than a little spare time. -.-

Says one after just wasting his. One who does not like freedom of speech. That aside, if you want a list of where I go, --- I have one for my fans. Regards DL

I like freedom of speech. I also have too much time on my hands; it's nothing to be ashamed about, and it wasn't intended to be offensive. Also, I'm a big fan, so can I have a list?

Made me blush.

Only after I get a nice long post, ---- here, ---- as to why you are a great fan of mine. Regards DL

No no no, I'm this big fan.

FZnt1FL.jpg

 

Anyway, I should probably stop posting before Yuan disembowels me for being off-topic my lunch break is over.

 

VVVVVVRRRRRRRR VOOOOOOOOOOSH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. People could then pay the church for beating up on the temple prostitutes The same prostitutes that the Pope of the day used to built St. Peter's , --- as one example, from a prone position. --------------------- Only immoral a holes will think that that outcome to indulgences is in any way moral. ----- As the Pope keeps lying to us. Regards DL

You're making no sense.

 

You also still haven't show me proof that the church wastes its money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Define 'immoral'

The dictionary definition is quite adequate. No need to re-invent English. Regards DL

You're presumably intentionally misunderstanding the question because it's obvious theking wants to know how you specifically define immoral, or rather, why you think all of us are immoral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Define 'immoral'

The dictionary definition is quite adequate. No need to re-invent English. Regards DL

According to the dictionary definition, your beliefs on indulgences are immoral.

Good. Since I do not hold a belief in them that would make my position moral. Regards DL

 

Define 'immoral'

The dictionary definition is quite adequate. No need to re-invent English. Regards DL

You're presumably intentionally misunderstanding the question because it's obvious theking wants to know how you specifically define immoral, or rather, why you think all of us are immoral.

Us? Are you trying to bribe a better deal from God with indulgences? Regards DL Edited by Gnostic Christian Bishop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Us? Are you trying to bribe a better deal from God with indulgences? Regards DL

I was simply referring to the fact that according to you none of us are moral.

 

Good. Since I do not hold a belief in them that would make my position moral. Regards DL

If you don't have a position on indulgences then what is this debate even about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Us? Are you trying to bribe a better deal from God with indulgences? Regards DL

I was simply referring to the fact that according to you none of us are moral.

 

Good. Since I do not hold a belief in them that would make my position moral. Regards DL

If you don't have a position on indulgences then what is this debate even about?

I do not hold a view that they are real to God or the church. They are real in terms of the church making them available, ---- and the debate is to that view and the morality of bribing the judge/God for a lighter sentence. Regards DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Us? Are you trying to bribe a better deal from God with indulgences? Regards DL

I was simply referring to the fact that according to you none of us are moral.

 

Good. Since I do not hold a belief in them that would make my position moral. Regards DL

If you don't have a position on indulgences then what is this debate even about?

I do not hold a view that they are real to God or the church. They are real in terms of the church making them available, ---- and the debate is to that view and the morality of bribing the judge/God for a lighter sentence. Regards DL

Oh, so then you're just misinterpreting lilshu's question. He was talking about your beliefs regarding indulgences, which has nothing to do with your beliefs in God or whatnot.

Edited by reepicheep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Us? Are you trying to bribe a better deal from God with indulgences? Regards DL

I was simply referring to the fact that according to you none of us are moral.

 

Good. Since I do not hold a belief in them that would make my position moral. Regards DL

If you don't have a position on indulgences then what is this debate even about?

I do not hold a view that they are real to God or the church. They are real in terms of the church making them available, ---- and the debate is to that view and the morality of bribing the judge/God for a lighter sentence. Regards DL

Oh, so then you're just misinterpreting lilshu's question. He was talking about your beliefs regarding indulgences, which has nothing to do with your beliefs in God or whatnot.

Which is fine but you will note that he did not show why my view is immoral while I did to show why the churches view is immoral. If he will not argue his point, he may as well not waste his time making it. Regards DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Us? Are you trying to bribe a better deal from God with indulgences? Regards DL

I was simply referring to the fact that according to you none of us are moral.

 

Good. Since I do not hold a belief in them that would make my position moral. Regards DL

If you don't have a position on indulgences then what is this debate even about?

I do not hold a view that they are real to God or the church. They are real in terms of the church making them available, ---- and the debate is to that view and the morality of bribing the judge/God for a lighter sentence. Regards DL

Oh, so then you're just misinterpreting lilshu's question. He was talking about your beliefs regarding indulgences, which has nothing to do with your beliefs in God or whatnot.

Which is fine but you will note that he did not show why my view is immoral while I did to show why the churches view is immoral. If he will not argue his point, he may as well not waste his time making it. Regards DL

I wouldn't say argue so much as incoherently tying together some shoddy arguments as to why the alleged 'churches view' (which is more what you think the view is rather than what it actually is) is immoral. By being less incoherent than you I'd say that lilshu made a better argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Us? Are you trying to bribe a better deal from God with indulgences? Regards DL

I was simply referring to the fact that according to you none of us are moral.

 

Good. Since I do not hold a belief in them that would make my position moral. Regards DL

If you don't have a position on indulgences then what is this debate even about?

I do not hold a view that they are real to God or the church. They are real in terms of the church making them available, ---- and the debate is to that view and the morality of bribing the judge/God for a lighter sentence. Regards DL

Oh, so then you're just misinterpreting lilshu's question. He was talking about your beliefs regarding indulgences, which has nothing to do with your beliefs in God or whatnot.

Which is fine but you will note that he did not show why my view is immoral while I did to show why the churches view is immoral. If he will not argue his point, he may as well not waste his time making it. Regards DL

I wouldn't say argue so much as incoherently tying together some shoddy arguments as to why the alleged 'churches view' (which is more what you think the view is rather than what it actually is) is immoral. By being less incoherent than you I'd say that lilshu made a better argument.

Yep. Even though it is all speculations, my speculations are automatically inferior to the speculations of others. It sure is tough when pre-judgement before facts are known is given. Regards DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Us? Are you trying to bribe a better deal from God with indulgences? Regards DL

I was simply referring to the fact that according to you none of us are moral.

 

Good. Since I do not hold a belief in them that would make my position moral. Regards DL

If you don't have a position on indulgences then what is this debate even about?

I do not hold a view that they are real to God or the church. They are real in terms of the church making them available, ---- and the debate is to that view and the morality of bribing the judge/God for a lighter sentence. Regards DL

Oh, so then you're just misinterpreting lilshu's question. He was talking about your beliefs regarding indulgences, which has nothing to do with your beliefs in God or whatnot.

Which is fine but you will note that he did not show why my view is immoral while I did to show why the churches view is immoral. If he will not argue his point, he may as well not waste his time making it. Regards DL

I wouldn't say argue so much as incoherently tying together some shoddy arguments as to why the alleged 'churches view' (which is more what you think the view is rather than what it actually is) is immoral. By being less incoherent than you I'd say that lilshu made a better argument.

Yep. Even though it is all speculations, my speculations are automatically inferior to the speculations of others. It sure is tough when pre-judgement before facts are known is given. Regards DL

Where did I say that? I said your speculation was based on shoddy arguments. Don't put words in my mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth noting, in the case that you really are serious, and have failed to notice this, that Lilshu is responding based on your 'dictionary definition' comment. A quick google search brings up definitions that certainly aren't what I would call immoral - the first one is to not conform with 'accepted standards' of morality, the second is to be contrary to 'established' moral principles. Most other definitions include some variant of 'accepted,' 'common,' or 'established.' What Lilshu's point is - or if not, it's now mine - is that by being different to what most people think - i.e. the 'accepted,' 'established' standard - you are in fact being immoral yourself.

 

Presumably that's not the definition of immoral you're using, though. Perhaps you should give your own definition as was originally requested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not re-write the dictionary as then the discussion becomes the definition of words. It has been sais that at the end of a philosophical discussion is when that should be done. If we cannot generalize to that point then there is no discussion possible. Regards DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not re-write the dictionary as then the discussion becomes the definition of words. It has been sais that at the end of a philosophical discussion is when that should be done. If we cannot generalize to that point then there is no discussion possible. Regards DL

This entire discussion is about how different people define morality...

Then give your answer on the morality of indulgences and bribing God's justice and we can see if a definition even has to be spoken to. Regards DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think it moral for churches to knowingly lie to their sheep as long as the sheep believe it. You are not your brothers keeper. No wonder I have had such a time with you. For evil to grow, all goods people need do is nothing. You have just justified Christians embracing barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that they should profit from God having his son needlessly murdered. You justify punishing the innocent instead of the guilty as long as the sheep believe it is in their best interest. Yuk. Regards DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think it moral for churches to knowingly lie to their sheep as long as the sheep believe it. You are not your brothers keeper. No wonder I have had such a time with you. For evil to grow, all goods people need do is nothing. You have just justified Christians embracing barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that they should profit from God having his son needlessly murdered. You justify punishing the innocent instead of the guilty as long as the sheep believe it is in their best interest. Yuk. Regards DL

Empty Accusations 2: The Accusationing.

 

But really. It's a debate. Not the place for ad hominems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God having his son needlessly murdered

I don't think anyone in the Roman Catholic Church considers the crucifixion to have been "needless". It's kind of a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.