Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Lecherous popes


cathmom5 said...

It just seems to me that the attempt to compare NFP--used with the correct intent--and contraception is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to use contraceptions [sic]. Those "christians" who use contraception, I believe, know deep down they are morally wrong...Those "christians" must find a way to justify their disobedience of God's will by "taking down" the Church's moral stance--like the bully on the playground making himself feel better by making the others feel bad. Why else would this ignorant (in the dictionary sense!) argument keep coming up?


Well, if that’s what motivates Protestants, then by parity of logic, it just seems to me that the attempt by popes to defend “natural family planning” is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to fornicate with nuns and hookers without wearing a condom or fathering a kid out of wedlock. Popes who defend “natural family planning,” I believe, know deep down they are morally wrong. Lascivious popes must find a loophole to excuse their lechery. Why else would they concoct so many ad hoc distinctions? 

7 comments:

  1. Steve.

    Her comments perhaps aren't well thought out but I might ask what good it does to reach for something as colorful as this do to further the conversation?

    I think her point was that it seems to her that defenders of artificial birth control defend it because they want to use it. I think this must be the case for many. And, many defenders of NFP obviously want to practice it. I don't think either is controversial.

    Why then try to poison the well as you have done here?

    At any rate, I miss the point of your argument here and actually wonder if you are making an argument at all. I mean, by 'parity of logic' she could just respond and say, "Oh yeah, your pastor says it’s ok to use a rubber because he wants to use them to have relations with strangers all over town" Or something like that...and then you could respond with some kind scenario even more appalling and raise the ante.

    Odd that a random comment on another blog gets this heightened attention complete with a classic example of reductio ad absurdum and the meat of the argument presented, including exposing your lack of properly citing something in another post, goes ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I saw this blog referred to as 'the black hole of Christian apologetics' somewhere a few months ago and I am beginning to understand why...

    ReplyDelete
  3. WARREN SAID:

    "Her comments perhaps aren't well thought out but I might ask what good it does to reach for something as colorful as this do to further the conversation?"

    It's often useful to take a foolish position to its logical extreme.

    "I think her point was that it seems to her that defenders of artificial birth control defend it because they want to use it."

    Her point was to smear Protestants by imputing the worst possible motives to them, and do so in sweeping, indiscriminate terms.

    "Why then try to poison the well as you have done here?"

    That's rich considering the fact that she was poisoning the well, not me.

    "At any rate, I miss the point of your argument here and actually wonder if you are making an argument at all."

    It's called an argument from analogy. Look it up.

    "Odd that a random comment on another blog gets this heightened attention complete with a classic example of reductio ad absurdum and the meat of the argument presented, including exposing your lack of properly citing something in another post, goes ignored."

    Which begs the question, but as a loyal teammate, I expect you to cheer for your own team no matter what.

    ReplyDelete
  4. STEVEN SAID:

    "I saw this blog referred to as 'the black hole of Christian apologetics' somewhere a few months ago and I am beginning to understand why..."

    That would be David Waltz, the anti-Trinitarian. You're welcome to share the opinion of heretics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "It's often useful to take a foolish position to its logical extreme."

    Even good and true positions can be taken to a logical extreme.

    "Her point was to smear Protestants by imputing the worst possible motives to them, and do so in sweeping, indiscriminate terms."

    And, your response was to raise the ante and take that same approach even further.

    If you were so concerned with what she said why didn't you address her comment on that blog where she might see it instead of trying to 'one up' her by doing it even worse here?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Warren said...

    "And, your response was to raise the ante and take that same approach even further."

    A reductio ad absurdum. That's a perfectly legitimate type of argument.

    "If you were so concerned with what she said why didn't you address her comment on that blog where she might see it instead of trying to 'one up' her by doing it even worse here?"

    Once again, I realize that you're not very bright, but there's nothing unethical about a reductio ad absurdum.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I saw this blog referred to as 'the black hole of Christian apologetics' somewhere a few months ago

    That's so funny, because I saw Jesus' second coming referred to with the question: how do you know infallibly that He has not come again as the Bahais teach?

    I guess since someone said it, it must have some credibility, yeah?

    ReplyDelete