Religion

trotsky

(49,533 posts)

57. I agree it's illogical. But it's been your stance.

Tue Sep 25, 2018, 12:26 PM

Sep 2018

You have repeatedly tried to categorize canon law as an *organizational* feature, not a *religious* one.

It's all part of your quest to make sure that anything bad associated with religion is NEVER allowed to be about religion, and only about faulty humans. Simultaneously, you endlessly promote any "good" news about religion to be due to the religion itself.

The truth of the matter is, there are BAD religious beliefs just as there are GOOD ones. I'd love for you to answer a question for me. If you answer it one way, I'll never question you about it again. Here's a statement:

Canon law AND the notion that it supersedes secular law are BOTH religious beliefs, and BOTH have directly contributed to the scope and scale of the RCC sex and rape scandals.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Please answer "I agree" or "I disagree." That will clarify your stance completely.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

When Prophets Come Alive [View all] guillaumeb Sep 2018 OP

Muhammad, Jesus, Mary, Buddha, Rumi didn't exist. AZ8theist Sep 2018 #1

Rumi most certainly did exist cvoogt Sep 2018 #3

Someone claiming to be a "mystic"... AZ8theist Sep 2018 #5

I am not saying he claimed to be a mystic cvoogt Sep 2018 #7

William Davies, Sun Myung Moon, and David Koresh Major Nikon Sep 2018 #6

And you have a right to your own belief. guillaumeb Sep 2018 #9

There is little reason to think that Muhammad did not exist. rogerashton Sep 2018 #31

Mythical or historical figures, who MineralMan Sep 2018 #2

Mostly I agree cvoogt Sep 2018 #4

Who would read Rumi to Trump? guillaumeb Sep 2018 #11

Tell that to the 85% of your fellow humans guillaumeb Sep 2018 #10

I think I just did. MineralMan Sep 2018 #12

Well, no. Actually you told it to the small population at DU, guillaumeb Sep 2018 #13

Uff da! MineralMan Sep 2018 #14

Of course, Gil's immense fan club don't post their opinions at all. Mariana Sep 2018 #17

So secretive, in fact... trotsky Sep 2018 #20

I yam out here in the general population. 🤔 No secrets. eom sprinkleeninow Sep 2018 #27

Gil has explained that some of those Mariana Sep 2018 #30

I do encourage him publicly here. As it is evident. sprinkleeninow Sep 2018 #43

You are the only public member of his fan club marylandblue Sep 2018 #35

So GUIL is a partly secret or prosecuted prophet? Bretton Garcia Sep 2018 #38

Yes. Persecution is an occupational hazard of being a prophet. marylandblue Sep 2018 #42

So maybe Guil is an ancient prophet "come to life," literally? Bretton Garcia Sep 2018 #46

Okay I can dig it. Only I have no inkling of who the others are. sprinkleeninow Sep 2018 #44

The nice thing about the internet is that they can all come here marylandblue Sep 2018 #15

Well, they could. guillaumeb Sep 2018 #16

Well, I don't expect that, of course. MineralMan Sep 2018 #32

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. trotsky Sep 2018 #18

Funny, coming from you. guillaumeb Sep 2018 #19

Point out the fallacies I've used, gil. trotsky Sep 2018 #21

I just did. guillaumeb Sep 2018 #22

Good lord you don't even understand what the fallacies are. trotsky Sep 2018 #23

Were you addressing yourself? guillaumeb Sep 2018 #24

Not when you use it incorrectly, no. trotsky Sep 2018 #25

This may, or may not, help: guillaumeb Sep 2018 #26

Yet that's not what you're doing, gil. trotsky Sep 2018 #29

No, it did not help. guillaumeb Sep 2018 #34

The narrative that the religious beliefs of the RCC (i.e., canon law)... trotsky Sep 2018 #47

And in case you have forgotten, guillaumeb Sep 2018 #50

But you didn't acknowledge it being a religious belief. trotsky Sep 2018 #53

So a post about RCC Canon Law is not about religious belief? guillaumeb Sep 2018 #56

I agree it's illogical. But it's been your stance. trotsky Sep 2018 #57

I was speaking of your assertion, not mine. guillaumeb Sep 2018 #58

Because you haven't answered. trotsky Sep 2018 #60

But I did answer, guillaumeb Sep 2018 #62

Please link to these alleged posts. trotsky Sep 2018 #63

Do you agree or disagree with my bolded statement, guillaumeb? trotsky Sep 2018 #73

That's why I named Guillaumeb's fallacy after you marylandblue Sep 2018 #36

I am flattered, but confused. guillaumeb Sep 2018 #37

Your claimed intent is irrelevant marylandblue Sep 2018 #39

Your response is fallacious, unless you can prove some type of mind reading ability. guillaumeb Sep 2018 #40

After claiming intent is part of every fallacy, and that I could not impute intent to you marylandblue Sep 2018 #41

Your response dismissed my explanation because you claimed to have an insight into my intent. guillaumeb Sep 2018 #49

Check. You can question other people's intent, but nobody can question yours. eom. marylandblue Sep 2018 #51

I question, but you made an asssertion. eom guillaumeb Sep 2018 #54

Check. marylandblue Sep 2018 #59

No, you asserted that in spite of my statements, guillaumeb Sep 2018 #61

Yes, and you asserted that I made a fallacy marylandblue Sep 2018 #64

Circularity in evidence. guillaumeb Sep 2018 #65

The circle includes you, so I take it you admit your intent? marylandblue Sep 2018 #66

No, I am outside of the circle. guillaumeb Sep 2018 #67

You just made the same claim here marylandblue Sep 2018 #68

No, I claimed to be a mind reader. eom guillaumeb Sep 2018 #69

Which means you claimed to know his intent marylandblue Sep 2018 #70

If someone chronically engages in whataboutism and tu quoque, guillaumeb Sep 2018 #71

You have your own patterns which allow others to intuit your intent marylandblue Sep 2018 #72

guillaumeb's fallacy trotsky Sep 2018 #48

Did "Muhammad, Jesus, Mary, Buddha or Rumi" have any flaws? trotsky Sep 2018 #8

I do not necessarily belive in profits Doreen Sep 2018 #28

It is simplistic, guillaumeb Sep 2018 #33

😍 sprinkleeninow Sep 2018 #45

Beautiful Thoughts Karadeniz Sep 2018 #52

A nice response. guillaumeb Sep 2018 #55