Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

true, not everything belongs to me teehee ;)

Well, if that's the case you'd better delete the offending tracks (the copyright edited tracks) before the mods get to it. It wouldn't bode well for you if you don't.

Otherwise, yeah there are tuts all over the place to help you get going (Here at NG, over at OCR, I'm damn sure there's more but those are the places I personally know of).

No he doesn't. Stop getting my hopes up like that.

Personally I think this is a pretty good idea for a thread. Unfortunately I don't have any sites to contribute right now, but the thread could potentially be useful for us job-seekers.

I'd post this track on the OCR plagiarism thread, but it seems to already have been taken care of here. Glad that one was nipped before it sunk into the depths of obscurity.

At 3/10/11 06:53 AM, Zendra wrote:

At 3/9/11 08:23 PM, Gario wrote: Being hypocritical is a better word for it. If a religious person walks up to you and starts giving you shit then it's fair game, but if you purposefully aggravate them when their minding their own business then you're just being an asshole. Most religious people aren't ready for a full on religious debate in the middle of their routine day (no more than most non-Christians are ready for a full explanation for their reasoning behind their non-belief), so you're not accomplishing anything more than pushing the stereotype that atheists hate religious folk.

Don't change the context here. You're creating scenarios, scenarios that I never kick-started. I find the reasoning of the Greek philosopher a good one - that's personal, because I can relate to certain questions.

Try saying this to religious people:

Everyone else kick-started the scenarios, and you came in the middle of one with that statement. The thread deviated from antagonizing zealots to religious in general, so I assumed you were coming from that angle.

So, quit the drama, you're bringing in scenarios, while I was just saying that if you happen to walk into one and no matter what happens and you happen to discuss the never-ending discussion, that I find the reasoning specified above a very good one and most likely will bring up.

I didn't catch you saying that the first time, but that's fine. A paragraph isn't really that dramatic, but to each his own.

Now put on your diaper and poop somewhere else.

I don't need no diaper to poop - my pants work just fine.

At 3/9/11 12:23 PM, Zendra wrote:
It's not to be snotty or anything like that.

Being hypocritical is a better word for it. If a religious person walks up to you and starts giving you shit then it's fair game, but if you purposefully aggravate them when their minding their own business then you're just being an asshole. Most religious people aren't ready for a full on religious debate in the middle of their routine day (no more than most non-Christians are ready for a full explanation for their reasoning behind their non-belief), so you're not accomplishing anything more than pushing the stereotype that atheists hate religious folk.

I've already talked about the epicurean dilemma at some length in this forum, so I don't feel the need to do so again. The short answer is this...

"...or can but does not want to."

You may wade through the Theism vs Atheism thread for more details on it.

lol, Hey Bubbleman. I'm pretty sure my last response from OCR still applies, but I'll let the people of Newgrounds speak for themselves.

Best of luck with it.

Absolutely - cherish any and every victory we have on the piracy front, no matter how big or small.

At 3/7/11 10:34 PM, Psil0 wrote: Jeese, I feel like I was old when I started producing music for this site (which was 16 btw).

Don't feel bad, I wasn't even a teenager when I started producing music for this site (I was a teenager when I started producing music, however). I guess I'm one of the few old men on here.

And no, no one cares how old you are - the only thing that matters is that you produce quality work.

At 3/7/11 02:45 PM, bcdemon wrote: If the religious side wasn't so close-minded, I would probably converse more with them. But most of them ignore you once you question them. I had a friend in high school who was not a church goer. 20 something years later she befriends me on Facebook, a few days go by and she makes a comment about how god saved this but let something else die (can't remember exactly), so I asked her why her god didn't save both? She deleted my friendship.

Well that's... silly. Talk about insecure faith if she needed to shut you out because of a question :\

Generally speaking, close-minded religious = not too bright/lazy religious. I mean no offense by that, either (well, I mean minimum offense), it's just how people who don't spend the time to learn their faith defend themselves from opposition (apart from simply leaving it, but that's not too common due to Pascal's Wager). If you don't spend the time to learn what your faith is then you won't have the answer to many, many questions. Since this creates a problem in their mind, they choose to shut it out rather than tackle it.

Not everyone is an apologetic for their religion, so I wouldn't expect everyone to be able to answer an atheists/non-Christian's common questions. In an ideal world it wouldn't be too much to ask them to simply bring their questions to someone who could answer their questions, though, rather than ignoring the statement altogether. They get their answer and can pass it on, if the atheist is interested. Everyone wins.

Meh, as long as there is an atheist and a religious person on the planet there will inevitably be one person ignoring the inquiry of others.

At 3/7/11 03:53 PM, nothingisgranted wrote:

I'm not really sure if I would qualify as an atheist.
In all honesty, I really don't believe in anything.

I think that qualifies you, on this board. At least that's what I've been told, anyway.

Ha... I just got on Soundcloud for a completely unrelated purpose. How serendipitous. Alrighty, I'm in.

I'm afraid no one has ever saved me from a life threatening situation before. That's why I'm now dead.

Scary stuff.

That's why you do what you can to redirect the listeners to your music. Hence why everyone here is trying to do just that for xKore, mr-jazzman and the others affected by this on her tracks. If/when the listeners find the comment they will probably look at the original track to clarify if it's really the original artist, thus generating publicity.

Yay.

At 3/6/11 08:47 PM, GruntWorthy wrote:
One thing is for sure, she has gotten all the stolen artists far more exposure than anyone of them had before.

Ah, isn't that the truth. Just saw xkore with his 1000th favorite tag (congratulations on that, by the way), and I'd like to think that this thief had something to do with that. Considering everyone took prompt action when they found the stolen music, I think this will benefit the artists in the long run.

Not that I endorse what s/he did, at all - but it's nice to see the silver lining in the clouds from time to time.

I've sent you a PM discussing my qualifications, and I'll post here to show my interest, as well. I'd be grateful to write music for your project.

Soundcloud is one thing (e-penis... er, e-vagina isn't that big of a deal), but getting a record deal off of it? Shit, now it's getting serious - especially since she'll need to steal more music and possibly file copyrights for the music to keep the deal going.

If she hasn't done this to xkore and the other artists already (it can happen - original files and postmarks alone are not enough to prove ownership), I'd fork over the 35$ or so to get the copyright on US records, then pursue this woman. She's going to need the copyrights to the tracks if she's going to get her own record deal, so don't dick around with this. You can lose your rights to your own IP, if you're not careful. Getting your copyrights recorded in the US Copyright office with a small fee is easily worth saving your IP, there.

Not sure if you can retroactively attack her for copyright infringement, but this will help stop her from causing more damage to your stuff. It also looks better when presented to the record company when it's on file, I'm sure.

If the person is active on Soundcloud (by the sound of it she is) then the best action is private. You never know - the person might simply comply with demands to take the music down, or at the very least direct the listeners to the proper place of origin (that might be even better than a mass takedown, considering her popularity). Of course directing people to the proper sources via the comments section is important, too. If nothing else, directing people to the source on the comments page will turn the situation into free publicity for the original artist.

Of course it's always best if the thief works with the artists, but that rarely happens, and since this is so damn common the admins tend to take their sweet time removing the offending artist from the site; I mean look at this fellow, here... so much blatant plagerism, and yet he's still up... >:(

Anyhow, I hope this gets resolved.

Actually, my old preacher did talk about salvation and damnation equally, so I guess that made him an 'equal opportunity' preacher, eh? Too many people took offense to his sermons, though, and he was essentially exiled from that parish by popular demand. Sad.

To the OP, I'd say I can't understand what it is with many religious people (and conversely those whom have responded with a heavy anti-religious disposition) and their desire to enforce their will upon others through coercion and intimidation. If I inquire about other people's beliefs I will ask them their disposition. If they ask me mine I answer honestly. If nothing else is said I will leave it at that, while if the other person insists on questioning my faith I will simply defuse the statements. There, done deal.

People that intimidate others into accepting what they believe really do not look at the bigger picture. There are only two responses that come from this action - either the recipient backlashes and shuts the religious (or anti-religious, if that's the case) out by either stonewalling or spewing a sort of diatribe, or the recipient will tentatively accept the belief until the condition that the cause of intimidation is removed. Neither of these reactions are good, if your goal is to convert as many people to what you believe as possible.

Enjoy life with others while practicing your faith. Respond to questions about your religious disposition without hurting other's dispositions. This is the most effective form of preaching with the most desirable results - people believe in action, not words.

stop fakin' and give us the real paragan9x bakc i knew him back in highchool and i know your not him k thx bye.

I guess you can see this as publicity, really. There is no bad publicity, especially when you have really awesome stuff to show off, so I don't see the haters as that bad, necessarily :)

Good advice. Sometimes when it comes to a particular song you're having trouble with you may simply try approaching the material differently and see what comes from that (medium of composing, be it by score, instrument or DAW, can greatly change your writing style, and actively writing a piece anachronistically, like writing the middle or end before the beginning can help generate new ideas).

Sometimes it's a good idea to stand back and look through some of your music and actively study it for patterns. If you find one that's particularly persistent you can actively avoid it, or work on variations of it, for your next track, just to see where that takes you.

The trick to writer's block is not to try any one 'tried and true' method of breaking it, since you honestly can never know what will dissolve it. Try many different things and see what happens.

Q: How did you discover music?

A: I discovered the joys of music when I stopped the NES classic 'Megaman 3' at the intro screen and danced to the awesome track for hours on end. That was the beginning of my musical interest and, in turn, my musical career.

Q: What first inspired you to make music?

A: Listening to various soundtracks, heavy metal and VG tunes, I heard patterns and interesting combinations of motives. I decided to learn about what made music tick and got deeply into Music Theory. From that standpoint I decided to put the theory to good use and really start composing my own tracks.

Q: What is in your opinion, the definition of music?

A: Opinions aside, music is technically an aural pattern response mechanism where the brain associates particular sound patterns to particular emotions and response, which is enforced and reinforced by social application of these same patterns in society.

Unfortunately, outside of that I really don't have an opinion on the definition of music.

Q: When it comes to writing your music without really much to inspire you, where does it start? Where does the first note come down and where does the song end?

A: The first note will almost invariably be middle 'C', 'cause it's just so damn easy to hit, lol. From there, I generally form interesting harmonic clusters and tinker with interesting melodic patterns. If any of these things stick out I will embellish them and for a piece of music around them. This is if I have a blank sheet and no influence, of course - with influence my process is very adaptive to it.

Glad to be a part of this.

"...the one, only, true, and universal church having unity, visibility, indefectibility, apostolic succession, universality, and sanctity..."

Ah, you got me. Give me a good slap for that, it was poor form. Here's the reasoning (I know what you're thinking, bear with me for a second). Because any/all religions believe that they are the 'one true' religion (if you believe that your beliefs are correct, then you believe this - even pluralistic religions believe that other religions, when they deviate from a premise, is wrong - they just try to accept them despite their errors), this is a redundancy when talking about religion. This can be left out without affecting the meaning (Occam's Razor has secretly been applied).

True, I did so to make my argument look better and I shouldn't have done that. (that was totally not the Christian thing to do... ah well, tu quoque's got my back on this one, HA)

At 2/17/11 12:48 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 2/16/11 02:29 AM, Gario wrote: No, wrong again. [...]

I don't want to elbow my way in here... but, it seemed to me that everything after "no, wrong again," was exemplifying what Imperator said.

That paragraph is admittedly incorrect (damn you, lack of edit button). It's not false, but it doesn't address Imperator's statement correctly - I was going to wait for him to respond before I fixed it, but I guess I'll fix it here, since you brought it up. That's the problem with long posts - you often get lost in them and mix up messages.

Definitions tend not to exist for the benefit of one heavily biased group over another.
If the definition is based on the principle of apostolic succession, they're all Catholic.
If the definition is based on the claim being accurate or true, that's another matter entirely.

If the definition is based on the principle of 'apostolic succession' then they're all Catholic. If it's based on "..the ... universal church having unity, visibility, indefectibility, apostolic succession, universality, and sanctity..." then those that defected can't be a part of that definition (The Orthodox defected, not the other way around).

If you want to get into 'definitions' the word Catholic (Universal) was used to represent the unity between the Eastern and Western churches before the Schism (which I explained in detail in the other post), so it really didn't have anything to do with apostolic succession OR indefectability (or following the head of the Church, for that matter). Both Eastern and Western churches, as time went by, used the word synonymously with their church, so inevitably it ended up defining their own church rather than meaning 'Universal' (this happens in language often enough - look at the word 'Gay', for example). Because of the separation of the churches the word developed differently for each one until there came a definition that the Roman Catholics used (the one I'm referring to) and the one the Orthodox Church used (the one Imperator is referring to).

After clearing that up I don't see what Imperator is accusing me of/attacking me for. It never was about the benefit of 'one group or another', it's just what arouse from constant usage as such. The word 'Gay' wasn't attached to homosexuals arbitrarily, nor was it done to benefit either the gays or straights. It was just a common word that was commonly associated with them and nothing else, so the word itself began to mean 'homosexual'. Not a precise analogy, but it's close enough to get the point across.

There is nothing wrong with either of these two definitions, at this point - to arbitrarily say that one is correct and the other one is not is stupid. When I was speaking to Aviewaskewed I was using the Roman Catholic definition, and there should be nothing wrong with that as long as I made that clear (which I did when he initially brought this up) - that is my prerogative.

Hopefully that's more satisfactory, Bac. The rest of his post (claiming that they were indeed the same word, implying that Catholics believe that the pope is the only successor of the apostles, etc.) I believe was addressed correctly in my other post, so the rest should hold up fine.

Interesting scenario. Like many others, on the one hand I feel for the teacher's thoughts and on the other she should not have posted the things she did (since they were not directed, though, I'm feeling it might be an overreaction to have her fired, but that's just me). As a former teacher who taught GED mathematics, I can understand her frustration. There are a lot of students who simply don't care about it.

As a teacher I found the best thing to do was to make the students absolutely responsible for their actions. Since this was adult education I wasn't going to force them to show up, but there are time requirements for them to fill out, so if they were not there (or they were not doing any schoolwork in that time) they wouldn't get credit for the time. Mind you, I was strict, not mean - I never got angry at my students for irresponsibility, but there was never a time that I 'let them slide', either. I guarantee you, like it or not the students stopped slacking off and actually did their work in class, and a surprising number of my students succeeded because of it.

The trick is consistency, though. If one teacher is very lax and lets the students get away with whatever they want and another teacher is as strict as I was it's not going to work. The lax teacher (holding the lowest standards) will be the baseline, and the students will understandably be upset at the strict teacher for not following the baseline. If students were consistently held accountable for their work (or absence of it) then I could guarantee that the school system would improve quite a bit.

There obviously are other factors involved, too (parents giving motivation at home, students having a goal, etc.), but teachers play a critical role in this. Unfortunately the teachers need to be working in concert or else it's not going to work - Munroe's experience will be the result.

At 2/16/11 11:31 PM, LaForge wrote: Gee, it seems I've stumbled upon a question that can't be answered with "God did it!".

A post that begins with the word 'Gee'. I'm sure we're going to get literary gold from this one.

Who created God? You know damned well he couldn't have created himself. That would imply he was there before he was there.

If the universe had a beginning, then obviously God had a beginning, and I'll bet you bible fuckers would be hard pressed to answer this one away.

No one. He always was, or at least that's what Christians have always believed. There are countless passages in the Bible that either explicitly state this or imply it. Ever wonder why Jesus was nearly stoned for saying 'Before Abraham existed, I AM'? That's an implication that time does not affect His existence, which implied that He was claiming to be God (either that or the Pharisees were the most terrifying Grammar Nazis on the planet).

Looks like you lost your bet. What do I get for it?

It sounds like then the system needs some massive reform then if they can't stop breaking the law in an immediate fashion. If they have to debate how they're going to stop breaking it.

Reform to what? There are problems with a central power (corruption in a high place is shown to be very bad, historically) and there are problems with the more distributed route (things go much, much slower, like this pedophilia thing). Because public opinion is... well, uneducated, for a lack of a better term, that route is unpractical.

I'm sure the Church sees the problems you're presenting, but it's really quite a difficult scenario to solve, here.

Oh, I'm sure there is. I just doubt their anything but self-serving reasons.

I disagree, but at this point it's only because of a little dogmatic faith in the system. I can't argue my point, from here, since we're now talking about the motives behind a monolithic organization - neither of us can ultimately read people's minds. Is it a series of errors with good intentions or organized disruption to the rest of the world?

Can't say.

At 2/16/11 02:25 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
I do, you misunderstand what I mean by "The Church" I don't mean the Catholic Church, I mean ANY and ALL Christian Churches. Because I'm tired of the dishonest argumentation of many Christians where they act like their religion is solely and wholly contained within the Biblical text and that somehow the Church is absent from any sort of imposition or interpretation of what it means to be of that particular faith.

Alright, I see what you're saying. For future reference, though, you only caps the 'church' when you mean the Catholic church - that's traditionally what a capped 'Church' means. That's where the confusion comes from.

(Shit, that doesn't sound pretentious, does it? lol...)

Although your definition as well is not incorrect, but as you can see it's much further down the list. Just so we can not misunderstand anymore :)

We are totally clear now.

From their church? They don't have a 'church' in the sense that you're implying - there is no universal rules that they interpret the book from, or any hierarchy in their system, like 'The Church'. They are essentially scholars that read the text and gather what they can from it. If there is descent, either one party consents to the other or they start a new 'church'... which is the reason why there are so many of them.

Yes, but the Church acts as an organization of authority, and derives their authority from their interpretation of the book and what it means.

Hmm... from my outings to other churches, I'm going to have to disagree that any minister has authority in any sense other than the fact that they're the smartest people with the Bible, in any particular congregation (with the exception of Anglican and possibly Lutheran - they've got a system goin'). The only 'authority' there is would be that one person is better at interpreting than another, which really makes it an over the top bible study.

Again, I fail to see how anyone can honestly argue that the Bible is all you need when there are so many churches and so much descent about what it actually says to the point that we need all these different scholars and churches. My whole point was it's dishonest to say "The Bible is Christianity, the end" when it so clearly isn't.

It's not dishonesty, from my experience with Protestants. It's pure, unadulterated ignorance - they think that their view on it is "obviously" clear, so they get confused when something contrary comes up. It is fun questioning their views, though.

Don't get me wrong, Protestants - the views many of you hold are quite valid and logical. It's the fact that Protestants don't see that the Bible isn't that clear cut that's silly (and why I can't take Sola Scriptura seriously).

I think it still is because The Pope has not stopped being head of the Church. As I understand it he is still in charge so why then is it that he is not calling for the heads of everyone involved when these cases get brought to light? Why isn't he excommunicating all involved and offering them up for trial in whatever country they committed the crime? Why?

He doesn't have absolute power to do so, that's why. The Church is actually run more like a senate and executive power, except with less power than the president of the USA. He can talk all he wants, but if he makes open statements and people don't follow through it hurts him bad politically, both with Catholics and non-Catholics. There's something politically that's close to the 'Greenspan Effect' that happens with the Pope; when he talks, people take it very seriously (over when a bishop talks about something), but if he overplays that card no one will pay attention to him, Pope or not, thus killing his ability to make any change in the Church. It's not good for him to speak out in the Church until there will be action when he does (much like how Alan Greenspan couldn't arbitrarily make a statement about the economy and expect it to do anything, if there wasn't any inclination for the economy to do it).

Why there wouldn't be... well, I can't defend the Church, there. I can only hope they fix this soon alone with you. :/

Well then you CHANGE the damn doctrine because in the end you're in charge, you're supposed to be doing God's Will on Earth right?

Depends on the doctrine - this is a theocracy, not a monarchy. Supposedly God has the final say, not the Pope or any other member, and theologically speaking He won't change His mind on something He said. Bible and Oral Tradition? Nope - words + actions of God, Himself. An infallible statement from a previous Pope? Nothing can change that, not even another Pope, since it was supposedly God speaking through the Pope, not the Pope making the decision (hence why it's 'infallible'). Anything else can be adjusted and changed because interpretations are subject to human intellect and bias, but it has to be agreed upon in a counsel of Bishops.

Does anybody honestly think God wants to protect people that hurt children? It's nonsense. To me it's an archaic, backwards organization more worried about protecting it's traditions and it's silly laws, then about doing what is right and proper and being in compliance with the laws of others.

Many bishops would agree. Many others would not agree because they're "protecting the interests of the Church" (and thus won't follow through). Should we punish those that don't agree with accessory to pedophilia? That's an even muddier scenario that fewer bishops will agree with. What to do with them, then? So on and so forth...

The system is broken, and fixes will need to be made soon. I agree with you, there.

HEY, The Pope fixed that, actually. At least when it comes to the spreading of disease, anyway. Sheesh, get with the times.

I hadn't seen the proof of that.

That's because many bishops and such have ignored the Pope, which is a problem with following through, not the Church ignoring the issue. Good job, bishops. >:(

This one I don't have a handy link as I saw it on Penn and Teller last year when they did a show on religion. They had a prominent Italian singer, or perhaps she was a writer, that was using her work to point out the problems and abuses she had with the church. This resulted in her work being banned throughout Italy, The Pope (this current Pope) saying all sorts of things about her character and calling for the censorship of her work, and she's been fighting a seemingly losing battle since. I'm sure we could look it up on Youtube...I'd have to get her name again to get follow up articles.

Ah. That's something that will be fix in time not because of the Church but because of other countries working around it. I'm surprised Italy complied, personally. All I can do is apologize, really - censorship like that is wrong, even in the Church. The Church should be above that sort of thing, but it still has some growing up to do (2000 years isn't enough, I see).

Frankly, the ideal situation would be the Church to simply ignore accusations they see as simply hurtful. Then they'd look like the mature players in that game.

The Church is not going to bend over for every demand immediately.

I think demands that they stop breaking internationally accepted laws like "don't molest kids" is something it's not to hard to "bend over" for.

When you have a lot of the bishops working against you to 'preserve the church' or something, it is.

At 2/15/11 06:36 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 2/14/11 07:01 PM, Gario wrote: Ah, complications and equivocations (not on your end, either - you make a good point). You understand that Roman Catholics and Orthodox members define the word 'Catholic' differently, right?

Actually, they define it the same, they just don't believe the other one is actually following the definition. Much the same way two successors to the throne claim the same lineage and try to refute the other's legitimacy.

The definition is different for the two. One definition is "...the one, only, true, and universal church having unity, visibility, indefectibility, apostolic succession, universality, and sanctity..." and the other is "...the conception of the church as the body representing the ancient undivided Christian witness...". They are very different.

Roman Catholics think the head of the Church is the successor of the apostles. You've flipped it. Same meaning, different words.

Wrong. The Roman Catholic Church (and those that follow it) believe that the head of the Church is the successor of a single apostle - Peter. The others are supposedly subordinate to his successor. The Orthodox churches do not believe that there is a single head of the Church that can ever be infallible.

Definitions tend not to exist for the benefit of one heavily biased group over another.
If the definition is based on the principle of apostolic succession, they're all Catholic.
If the definition is based on the claim being accurate or true, that's another matter entirely.

No, wrong again. The other churches all have apostolic succession under their belt, even the Roman Catholic Church will acknowledge that. The Roman Catholic Church is the only Church that follows from Peter's line, even the Orthodox Churches will acknowledge that. The difference is a theological one that stems from whether or not the other apostolic lineages should bow to Peter's authority. They say they shouldn't need to (they believe that each apostolic lineage should be equal), and obviously the RCC says that they should.

If you want to get into the details, the reasoning behind Peter as the head of the Church is in Matthew 16:18-19, if you're interested in why.

In the case of Roman Catholics who don't consider Eastern Orthodoxy "Catholic", they're not basing it on the principle of "catholicity", they're basing it on the claim of succession being the right one.

... see above. You're understandably not competent with the inner workings of the Christian religions, so why are you getting involved with a purely religious argument?

As is usual though, each thinks they're the "original" Catholic Church, and everyone else is wrong...

Um, there's no debate about that, not even among other non-Catholics - the Roman Catholic Church is the original one. Whether or not they're the right one is a different story, but I digress.

'Catholic' was used originally to represent that the East and the West were a universal church roughly in the middle of 800 AD, before the Schism. Due to geological differences, the theology of the East and West began to differ in key areas, so when a counsel was finally held after centuries of isolation both churches developed key differences that brought the Schism (the infallibility of the Pope being one of those issues, the other being the Filioque). After that, the continued isolation meant that the definition underwent further variations on each side, so the result is that two definitions formed out of the same one. That's often the process of how language evolves (geological separation), so it makes sense that the one word became two, over time.

Now that we've gotten a bit of history out of the way, let's bury the 'They're just finger pointing self righteous idiots!' argument. Whether or not you're right on that account, it has nothing to do with the separate definitions of the word 'Catholic'.

...and the belief you've got it right and everyone else can suck it is my definition of "catholic". Synonyms include asshat, douchebag, and fuckwad.

Play nice, now. After all, stupid comments like that might make you look like a "loud mouth, religion hating asshole that could never ever admit to anything positive if they were to do it, or positive they currently do" who justifies my earlier question to Aviewaskewed.

'No True Scotsman'? Perhaps. It's not my flaw, though - I'm just repeating what others have defined it as. Blame the Church for that one :P

Unless you have a reason to repeat incorrect things, stop. Doesn't do anybody any good.

Do you have any baseline to say it's 'incorrect', other than the fact that you think the 'Church is bad' and possibly an argument from fallacy? Please let me know if I'm missing something - the 'Church is bad' argument is the only one I see up there which is a silly argument in this context considering you've taken this is entirely within the Christian churches. Unless you have a preference of one over the other, in which case it's just a baseless 'ad hominum' argument. Strangely enough, because of your post I went out and learned a whole lot about the evolution of the word 'Catholic', and it's not at all a name calling spectacle, like I first thought, so that knocks your argument from fallacy, too. Thanks for putting me up to that; I learned something.

History sucks, but it's a done deal. Just because you don't like the way you think the two meanings formed doesn't mean that they should just arbitrarily merge back to a single meaning. Your argument is an equivocation of a word with many meanings, so drop it.

During the service, before communion, the presiding priest articulated only Catholics should come forward and receive the sacraments, as they've accepted the true Word of God (or something closely resembling that). My family and I are protestant and took minor issue with being ceremonially excluded from what we view as a wholly christian endeavor. However, after a few sentences between us of the incongruencies within the religion we let it go. God's gift cannot be taken away or doled out by mere humans.

I don't know who said this, so I don't know whom I'm addressing. This is a misunderstanding, though, so I'd like to take a shot at clearing that up. Not all Christians partake in the Transubstantiation of the Eucharist, so to claim it's a 'wholly Christian' endeavor is a misconception. When a Protestant receives the eucharist, it is seen as a representation of unity and community, or that through the act of receiving the bread God will give you His graces (Lutherans favor that one). Catholics literally see it as receiving God in a physical sense, so they want to make sure that the person will be reverent toward the Bread. Sorry that you feel it leaves you out of it, but it's not the same ceremony that non-Catholic Christians hold.

It was a little pretentious of the priest to say that Catholics are the ones receiving the True Word. While any Catholic should believe that is true (there isn't much room for agnosticism in one's religious faith), it's not nice to provoke the others like that.

He (Jesus) didn't die for Catholics alone, but the ceremony missed the message in the details.

That's a non-sequitur statement. Most Catholics don't believe that, either. The Eucharist =/= absolute salvation. It's something that will help on your journey, but it isn't the end of your soul or anything if you don't receive it for the sake of respect.

At 2/14/11 09:37 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 2/14/11 06:04 PM, Gario wrote: To say they're one and the same is simply incorrect.

Uh oh, you didn't understand me. I'm not saying a Christian is a Catholic. I'm saying a Catholic is however, a Christian. There IS a difference, if you don't understand how Catholics are Christian, but Christians are not necessarily, or do not need to be Catholic...well, that's your problem. Fortunately though, I don't think it's a problem you suffer from, I think you're either misunderstanding me honestly, or misrepresenting my point to your ends.

It's most likely an honest mistake. That's all I was saying, too.

Or, in a basic logical chart, this is the problem you're claiming...

If 'Catholic', then 'Christian'
'Christian', therefore 'Catholic'

Except that's not what I claimed. If 'Catholic' then yes, you are 'Christian' by definition of the term. But not if 'Christian' therefore 'Catholic'.

Hold up...

:But it's not just the text. You people seriously need to stop acting like we're all retarded and ignorant of the fact that religion is also THE CHURCH who have INTERPRETED the text for their own ends forever.

That is the only line I'm talking about. Once you introduce the Church, to say it's a Christian organization implies all Christians, which is not right (and hopefully you can see what I'm talking about).

You're applying something that many Christians would take some serious offense to. I'm saying you should specify that you're talking about Catholics, if you're going to go that route, because you're straying heavily from what many other Christians swear to.

But the Catholics are still Christians.

Ahahaha... Actually, many Protestants have claimed otherwise (they've claimed that Catholics are not Christians... lol) - hence why I said they'd take offense. At least you and I know the truth about it. It's absurd, but that's the way they think. Strange, I know.

No, by definition there is not a single Catholic that is separate from the Church. If you're not a part of the Church then by definition you are not a Catholic. There are Christians that are not a part of the church, and are therefore not Catholics, at all, which would make them very separate entities.

They however, are not seperate from their church. Which was the overall point I was trying to make. To argue that Christianity, or Judaism, or any other religion with a "holy book" can simply say "whatever in the text is all you need to know" is either ignorant, or worse, a damn liar.

From their church? They don't have a 'church' in the sense that you're implying - there is no universal rules that they interpret the book from, or any hierarchy in their system, like 'The Church'. They are essentially scholars that read the text and gather what they can from it. If there is descent, either one party consents to the other or they start a new 'church'... which is the reason why there are so many of them.

The closest thing you'll get to a 'church' is their own personal biases, which creates interpretations.

And yeah, it's ignorance, for sure.

Explain to me how it's any more "boring" or "tired" then the violence argument, and the pathetic defenses that keep getting retreaded to somehow apologize for violence in the name of religion(s)?

Oh, I thought you were going somewhere else with that, honestly. My bad.

Bullshit. The Pedophilia Issue is a great recent example of the Church still wanting to sweep mistakes under the rug whenever possible and act like it's above judicial punishments and laws of the countries it operates in.

But again, I say the pedophilia issue where it's been proven this was known up to the upper levels of Church authority and the only action that was taken was to move the offenders to somewhere else and somehow hope or presume they wouldn't do it again. Or maybe they just hoped they'd be more sneaky next time and not get caught.

Yes, that is a problem they need to deal with, now. Unfortunately, the Church is currently cannibalizing itself with people whom have differing opinions as to how to solve problems. Back to my 'dissemination of power', the Bishops, Arch-bishops and even Cardinals have been working against each other and the Pope, whenever they see fit. To show that one Cardinal, Arch Bishop or anyone else is involved in this only shows how one member has acted on it, which isn't right.

An example of this sort of action. Seems relatively harmless, but things like this show that the Church isn't acting in concert, anymore. I absolutely agree with you that the Pedo Priests should be in jail and those that helped them should be tried for the crimes (I'm guessing that's the official position now, too - not sure). However, because the Church is not acting as a whole anymore it's more difficult to 'Blame the Church' on it than you'd think.

Mostly... the banning of contraceptives (even in the case of couples where one is HIV Positive or carrying some other incurable STD but the other is not)...

HEY, The Pope fixed that, actually. At least when it comes to the spreading of disease, anyway. Sheesh, get with the times.

Contraceptives to prevent babies are still a no-no, though. Not that it's the same thing, but they do teach Catholics to practice natural family planning (has a 99% efficiency rate, much like condoms). They're trying to give some options to help with birth control... it's just that most Catholics don't do it, which results in...

BABIES!

or hey, the censorship of the arts or news that's critical of the Vatican within Rome.

I'm sure this is true, but I haven't heard about it in recent news (Ironic, I know). Care to link for me? I'm curious, actually.

But there's certainly enough for me to be pissed off at I feel that the current Church has shown little, to no inclination to curb unless they get caught and threatened.

The Church is not going to bend over for every demand immediately. It's a bit too big for that - the followers would get confused, the hierarchy would separate, etc.. It simply can't do it in a timely fashion. Not all of the things that people don't like about the Church can change, either, like 'Oral Tradition', so in some cases it might really be a non-negotiable issue (fortunately for you, most of those Traditions strictly apply to Catholics and shouldn't affect other people much).

They still didn't fix a lot of the issues I currently have. Seems to me they mostly just fixed the ones that they couldn't ignore anymore.

Shame your issues weren't changed the way you wanted them to be. They actually might have had more pressing concerns, or perhaps they still feel that they're right, at this point in time, despite your concerns. Those that you listed are current concerns in the Church, coincidentally, but overall just because someone wants the Church to do something doesn't mean that their opinion on it is 'right', either. I'm no Church Apologetic, so I can't say, but there might actually be a reason why some of the things you disagree with exist.

Fix the unwritten one about "pedo priests aren't immediately defrocked and turned over to judicial authorities" and some of the ridiculous ones that ARE written about birth control and we can start to talk.

Not my place. I'd fix that first one in a heartbeat. The second one is only applicable to artificial birth control, so... yeah. Take that as you will, for now.