Monday, March 08, 2010

Bellisario admits he's a troll

If any of our Romanist friends should care to object, I really could care less about what any of you think about anything. I just like to post the obvious about Bellisario to yank your chains so I can watch all of you fly off the handle.
It's all about provoking Bellisario to see what dumb comment he will make next

 So this post is very simple.  TurretinFan says about Bellisario: 
That's the very definition of a troll.
Bellisario responds:
An (sic) your point is?
No point, man.  Just yanking your chain. 

69 comments:

Alex said...

Interesting how you take more issue with Bellisario being a troll than with Steve Hays promotion of masturbation.

Well at least I know of one protestant who finds masturbation to be objectionable, and that is Zipper. What a sorry state of affairs for you people.

Matthew Bellisario said...

You got it! The fact is I don't take any of you clowns seriously in your little three ring circus! TF pats Swan on the back and he pats Steve Hays on the back, who knows what Steve Hays does concerning patting, and the rest of the gullible minions all sit around cheering them on. If I am considered an annoying troll among this band of misfits, then I am not too worried. You simply are not a substantial factor for me to worry about. I had like 15 hits come from this blog over to mine in reference to Swan's last article. Its not like your opinions really amount to much.

Matthew D. Schultz said...

Alex,

Interesting how you regularly turn threads into a discussion about masturbation. The more you do that, the less inclined I am to read what you write in general. I suspect I am not alone on this.

Rhology said...

Let's all say it together!

1...2...3...MASTURBATION! WE ROMANISTS LIKE TALKING ABOUT IT! IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN IT'S FUN. WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT IT!!!!! WOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!1

Alex said...

Schultz,

I don't really care. I'm not selling anything.

What this is about is that Beggars All expects Matt to come out and make some sort of list of worthless Catholic Apologists, meanwhile one of your own clearly violates sound moral principles by arguing in favor of masturbation, and none of you seem to have a problem with that. The only two protestants I have ever seen here to take issue with a member of the inner circle are Edward and B.J.; meanwhile the rest of you (and perhaps them as well) either agree that something as easily condemnable as masturbation is moral (as most protestants that I have come into contact with in the real world would not agree with), or you are too much of a coward to voice take Steve on. You seem to find my comment important enough to respond to, despite it not being even remotely relevant in your opinion, but you don’t find a fellow protestant’s endorsement of an intrinsically evil act important to respond to. Very interesting indeed!

At the same time I don't see you taking issue with Steve for always attacking Catholics for the sex abuse scandal when it is relevant.

Again, why should I be concerned with your disapproval? What should make your opinion that important to me?

Furthermore, is masturbation, in your opinion, morally permissible? Is Steve’s continuous assult on Catholics who likewise take issue with the horrendous sins and crimes against the innocent also lead you to be less inclined to read what he has to write?

You see, I don’t have a problem taking on fellow Catholics who I believe are wrong (take the bloviating know-it-all bully Mark Shea for instance, where I have opposed him and his comments even at Triablogue).

You really would do better if you were not so transparent.

steve said...

Alex said...

"At the same time I don't see you taking issue with Steve for always attacking Catholics for the sex abuse scandal when it is relevant."

To the contrary, I attack the Roman Church on a wide variety of fronts. The sex abuse scandal is just one of many.

However, as long as Catholics don't have a good defense on this front, it's worth repeating that objection. Catholics shouldn't be allow to move onto other issues when issues like this remain unresolved.

This is an issue which goes to the institutional identity and institutional integrity of the Roman church. And Catholics define themselves in institutional terms. Their solidarity with the "one true church" of Rome. That makes them complicit.

Alex said...

That you are not persuaded by rational arguments to the contrary does not mean that a reasonable person would not be as well. I do not find you any more reasonable than I find Mark Shea; therefore, the fact that you do not find it reasonable for me to agree with the Church’s position on the abuses against those who have violated those teachings is not very important to me. Simple fact is you cannot persuade someone of the truth of things with sound reasoning when they are hell bent on holding the irrational line. This has more to do with your self-induced psychosis than with my reasoning. Nothing which has happened has proven that the Church itself is in error. The Church has taught that these acts are immoral. The Church has not taught that bishops will be automatically freed from acting against the teachings of the Church. That we have one bishop that acts against the teachings of the Church today can very easily change tomorrow with a more faithful bishop. It has been obvious that you have failed at making a sound argument showing the inconsistency here. The only thing you have shown so far is that there are immoral bishops and priests.

steve said...

Alex said...

"Nothing which has happened has proven that the Church itself is in error."

Which says it all. Your denomination could never ever do anything sufficiently evil to discredit its claims.

"This has more to do with your self-induced psychosis than with my reasoning."

Your "good German" allegiance to the church of Rome is interchangeable with the psychosis of a cult member, be it Scientology, Heaven's Gate, &c.

Alex said...

Which says it all. Your denomination could never ever do anything sufficiently evil to discredit its claims.

I'm sorry, but where has the Church promoted evil in regards to pedophilia?

I can only find in her documents that such acts are morally reprehensible. I do see that some bishops and priests act against the teachings of the Church. I think that your issue should be with them. Join me in directing your outrage against those who commit and/or support evil.

Rhology said...

Blind man,
Hiding and reassigning pædophiles IS the very definition of "those who commit and/or support evil."

Alex said...

You see Steve, your problem lies in your inability to formulate sound analysis as to how cooperation in evil comes about. Perhaps if you began to refrain from endorsing masturbation and contraception (along with whatever other sinful behavior you endorse) you can begin to see the light.

Alex said...

Blind man,
Hiding and reassigning pædophiles IS the very definition of "those who commit and/or support evil."


Idiot,

Direct your outrage at those who directly aided in the hiding and reassigning of pedophiles. Engaging in fallacious reasoning is of no help.

So, do you also support the moral evil of masturbation, or do you just prefer to focus on other moral evils possibly not so close to home?

Rhology said...

Alex said:
MASTURBATION!!!!1MASTURBATION!!!!1MASTURBATION!!!!1MASTURBATION!!!!1MASTURBATION!!!!1MASTURBATION!!!!1MASTURBATION!!!!1MASTURBATION!!!!1MASTURBATION!!!!1MASTURBATION!!!!1MASTURBATION!!!!1MASTURBATION!!!!1MASTURBATION!!!!1MASTURBATION!!!!1MASTURBATION!!!!1

Um... thank you?

steve said...

Between "Masturbatory Matt" and "Peeping Alex," I suppose it comes as no surprise if some Catholic epologists feel right at home in a denomination with a pink priesthood.

steve said...

Alex said...

"Join me in directing your outrage against those who commit and/or support evil."

The papacy, Roman episcopate, Catholic epologists...

Edward Reiss said...

"So, do you also support the moral evil of masturbation, or do you just prefer to focus on other moral evils possibly not so close to home?"

Do you think it is worse for a boy or girl to touch him or herself, or for the hierarchy to move pedophile priests, after they victimize children, to another parish where he can continue to find,illegal, immoral "love"?

This is what the whole masturbation shtick is, well, laughable. You are trying to change the subject because these peccadillos keep cropping up in the hierarchy, who are supposed to be passing the tradition instead of making passes at each other, or worse, children.

Also, Steve does not speak for "protestantism"--which last I heard is a subjective mish-mash of what ever a protestant thinks at any given moment and which has a tenuous at best grasp of reading comprehension.

Steve does not speak for other protestants, but for himself. (BTW, isn't that an out when a RC prelate says something un-RC? Sauce for the goose....) However, the hierarchy does speak for RCism, which is united in faith and practice. Thus comparisons to the hierarchy and Steve miss the mark by a long shot.

Alex said...

Okay Rhology, and we Catholics are the immature ones.

Are there any protestants who frequent these blogs morally opposed to masturbation? I mean, I can somewhat respect the wrongful argument that any sexually related activity must be maintained within a marital relationship with one's partner, but contraception might be permissible under rare circumstances. I find it odd though that for protestants it is morally permissible to masturbate yourself.

Turretinfan said...

Alex:

Have you ever shown any "protestants" where the Bible tells people not to do what you are suggesting is immoral? It might be helpful in persuading them to see things your way, assuming that they don't already.

-TurretinFan

zipper778 said...

I think Edward nailed it.

I think is a whole big mess that was started by some Roman Catholic readers here that have no interest in intelligent dialogue about the topic but wish to throw insults and unimpressive arguments. Let's grow up, admit when we're wrong and move onto the subject at hand. Matthew Bellisario is a troll.

Alex said...

Do you think it is worse for a boy or girl to touch him or herself, or for the hierarchy to move pedophile priests, after they victimize children, to another parish where he can continue to find,illegal, immoral "love"?

Finding it worse for one person to violate another does not mean that another unrelated sin isn't a sin, or shouldn't be considered a sin. Or does it in your moral universe?

I have spoken out against pedophiles, and I speak out against those who promote other moral evils such as masturbation, contraception, homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, etc.

Which is worse, homosexuality between consenting adults, or pedophilia or rape? Why are you protestants so obsessed with pointing out that homosexuality is immoral when what two men do in the privacy of their own home is none of your business? Get the point?

That you find my objection to masturbation to be laughable due to your ignorant idea that if I find masturbation to be immoral then I must not find rape to also be immoral, or more immoral, proves to me that you are a fool.

Also, I never said that Steve speaks for protestantism. What I have said is that none of you seem to find masturbation to be objectionable. If one were to do a survey of protestants on this blog, the insistent silence is very telling.

Alex said...

Alex:

Have you ever shown any "protestants" where the Bible tells people not to do what you are suggesting is immoral? It might be helpful in persuading them to see things your way, assuming that they don't already.

-TurretinFan


Where does the Bible state that anything immoral must be explicitly stated in Scripture?

I believe that the proper approach to morality is that where there is doubt, don't do it.

Alex said...

Zipper,

Have you been reading the same blog? Or have you been ignoring Steve's and Rhology's comments?

Turretinfan said...

"Where does the Bible state that anything immoral must be explicitly stated in Scripture?"

That seems to be your concession that Scripture doesn't provide a basis for your condemnation. Given that you know we make the Scriptures our rule of faith and life, you should not be surprised that your unsupported condemnation isn't readily accepted.

"I believe that the proper approach to morality is that where there is doubt, don't do it."

The primary reason for doubt are obstreperous condemnations by those who lack Scriptural warrant for their condemnation.

Even if warrant exists for your condemnation, it should be apparent to everyone here that you aren't aware of it and can't provide it.

Rhology said...

Where does the Bible state that anything immoral must be explicitly stated in Scripture?

And the point goes whizzzzzzing by Alex's head.


As for my "immature" conduct, I'm making fun of you by satirising your obsession with mentioning MASTURBATION every chance you get. The humor might be a little more complex than you're used to, though.

Alex said...

Even if warrant exists for your condemnation, it should be apparent to everyone here that you aren't aware of it and can't provide it.

And you lack scriptural warrant for the idea that anything to be regarded as immoral must be explicitly stated as so in Scripture.

Secondly, we have already discussed the Onan incident, and the fact that any sexually related act outside of coitus has been universally condemned until very recently adds considerable credit towards our position on Onan. The best anyone can do is what B.J. has done in stating that coitus interruptus, as the sin which condemned Onan, uncertain.

Besides, the natural law and logic easily demonstrate that any and every sexually related act which violates the inherent dignity of the human person/couple by artificially separating the unitive from the procreative ends is immoral. The fact that you cannot address this issue with any sense of rational activity, which we presume that God has endowed upon man in order to know the good and act accordingly, is something that will cause any communication towards you to fall on dumb ears.

steve said...

Alex said...

"I believe that the proper approach to morality is that where there is doubt, don't do it."

To my knowledge, Catholic casuistry is all over the map on that question, viz. probabilism, probabiliorism, equiprobabilism, prohabiliorism, tutiorism, and compensationism.

Alex said...

Steve, if it's to your knowledge, that is already suspect. Perhaps you can provide an example.

Hurry because my wife has already started dilating, so I don't have all day...then again I could, you never know. I'm certainly not going to spend much time here.

louis said...

Alex,

I am sure some of us disagree with Steve on this point and think it's a sin. But there hasn't really been a relevant time to come out and debate it. Could you please let this issue go now and stop hijacking these threads?

Matthew D. Schultz said...

Alex writes:

I don't really care. I'm not selling anything.

Yet you go on to write over 300 words in response to me that suggest you do care.

You seem to find my comment important enough to respond to, despite it not being even remotely relevant in your opinion, but you don’t find a fellow protestant’s endorsement of an intrinsically evil act important to respond to. Very interesting indeed!

Why am I obligated to respond to Steve Hays on this point? That's not obvious.

The issue is how you and Bellisario repeatedly bring it up when it's completely irrelevant to a discussion at hand. It suggests you don't have any serious arguments to offer in favor of Catholicism. Instead you want to engage in a logical fallacy of well-poisoning or some such thing (all the while claiming that your opponents don't engage in logical argumentation!).

There are a lot of lay-Catholic epologists out there and few hours in the day. When you act like this, you reduce your credibility, and the chance that people will read your material.

But if you don't care, okay. I'm fine with spending my time reading other defenders of Catholicism.

Furthermore, is masturbation, in your opinion, morally permissible?

If you want to go start a post or thread over at another blog, I'll make a comment. Not that it would be obligated to do so, but I see no reason to follow the red herring at Beggars All.

Alex said...

Louis, maybe Matt will post something about it over at Catholic Champion, and we will see how many of you will take issue with Steve there. It is interesting that all of you are silent when Steve or someone else brings up something irrelevant against Catholicism.

Rhology said...

It is interesting that all of you are silent when Steve or someone else brings up something irrelevant against Catholicism.

That's right. It's b/c we're too busy thinking about MASTURBATION all the time.

Turretinfan said...

"And you lack scriptural warrant for the idea that anything to be regarded as immoral must be explicitly stated as so in Scripture."

I only need Scriptural warrant for positions I advocate. I don't advocate the "explicitly stated" position.

- TurretinFan

louis said...

I don't recall Steve bringing up anything irrelevant as obsessively as you have been. I know you guys would like to think the pedophile priest issue is irrelevant to other claims about the Roman church, but it isn't.

Alex said...

The issue is how you and Bellisario repeatedly bring it up when it's completely irrelevant to a discussion at hand.

And your comment here is also irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But you seem more concerned with my taking issue with Steve Hays endorsement of an intrinsically evil act, proving that there isn't a single protestant here who would take issue with one of their own (which has been my objective by way of this perfect example), on a post that is related to the demand for Matt to hold other Catholic Apologists accountable to what they say or omit. How nice.

We do have serious arguments in favor of Catholicism. Anytime you want to discuss them you can make your appearance over at Catholic Champion. I'm sure Matt would not mind. If you do, I'd suggest that you leave these types of fallacious arguments behind. That I have nothing serious to say here about what interests you, does not mean that I haven't made any serious arguments in favor of Catholicism before. That you are presenting this facade of being an objetive observer is truly interesting.

Alex said...

Louis,

Am I understanding you correctly that a protestant advocating immorality is irrelevant, but the Catholic Church having taught that pedophilia is a grave sin, even advocated against it, is relevant?

Besides, the issue present here has now overwhelmingly become Steve's advocation of masturbation. Turretinfan has asked that I prove it's immorality biblically. Rhology has been fixated on writing masturbation over and over again. If it were so irrelevant, then why in the world do all of you still feel the need to discuss it? Back to the main point, why do all of you find it important for Matt to publically dismiss Catholic Apologists, but you can't control one of your own?

Turretinfan said...

"Turretinfan has asked that I prove it's [sic] immorality biblically."

I've simply pointed out that you can't do so. You practically admit that you can't, insisting that you should be allowed resource to "natural law" instead.

Rhology said...

Rhology has been fixated on writing masturbation over and over again.

Um, no, that would be you guys who keep bringing it up in totally unrelated threads.
See, I told you that satire was above your head. It's predictable and pathetic.

louis said...

Alex,

"Am I understanding you correctly that a protestant advocating immorality is irrelevant, but the Catholic Church having taught that pedophilia is a grave sin, even advocated against it, is relevant?"

I am saying that the RC priest issue is relevant to the RC doctrine of the church, in a way that one man's immorality is not necessarily relevant to everything else he has to say.

"Besides, the issue present here has now overwhelmingly become Steve's advocation of masturbation. Turretinfan has asked that I prove it's immorality biblically. Rhology has been fixated on writing masturbation over and over again. If it were so irrelevant, then why in the world do all of you still feel the need to discuss it?"

Because we are trying to get you to stop talking about it, so that we CAN get back to other topics.

"Back to the main point, why do all of you find it important for Matt to publically dismiss Catholic Apologists, but you can't control one of your own?"

Not all or even most of us are doing that. Nevertheless, Matt himself publicly dismissed RC apologists; so it is relevant to ask him to name names. There has been no blog post about Steve that would call for us to dismiss Steve.

Matthew D. Schultz said...

Alex,

Thanks for that nice bit of uncharitable sophistry.

You write:

And your comment here is also irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But you seem more concerned with my taking issue with Steve Hays endorsement of an intrinsically evil act,

Try to follow along, Alex. I take issue with you repeatedly raising it in completely irrelevant contexts.

And, no, calling you out on this behavior is not irrelevant.

proving that there isn't a single protestant here who would take issue with one of their own (which has been my objective by way of this perfect example),

Proving? Alex, what have you proved here? If you're going to use that kind of language you need to draw out the proof rather than just assert it as true.

That I have nothing serious to say here about what interests you, does not mean that I haven't made any serious arguments in favor of Catholicism before.

Did I say you haven't made any serious arguments in favor of Catholicism before? No. I said your behavior suggests you don't have any serious arguments to offer. I coupled this with remarks about credibility. You might very well have made some arguments in the past. But why I should take the time to read and consider what you write given the chance that it's going to just be another red herring is beyond me.

That you are presenting this facade of being an objetive observer is truly interesting.

Where did I present, or even imply, such a "facade"?

Alex said...

My case rests. I have other more important obligations to attend to.

Schultz, do you have an example which shows where I'm wrong? Where have I missed any of you taking on a fellow protestant like Steve who advocates an intrinsic evil act? Exactly!

Turdetinfan, we have discussed Onan before. I realize that it is easy to forget. Secondly, I think that the natural law arguments, as demonstrative of rational reasoning, has been good enough.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

I have a special file on WordPad where I keep this quote since it seems that I will have need of it often:

Uh, can someone explain to me; why are we talking about masturbation again in this thread?

Turretinfan said...

"Turdetinfan, [sic] we have discussed Onan before."

Yes. When we did, you couldn't even prove it opposed contraception, which was the topic at that time.

"I realize that it is easy to forget."

I suppose you mention this because you had forgotten it? I don't hold that against you.

"Secondly, I think that the natural law arguments, as demonstrative of rational reasoning, has been good enough."

As I've noted above, that's the only card you have available to play. However, as you know, our (this side of the Tiber) rule of faith and morals is Scripture. So, we're unlikely to accept arguments whose premises are all extra-scriptural.

- TurretinFan

Alex said...

I'd like to express to everyone who has commented how disappointed I am that you all find my irrelevant commenting more outrageous than one of your own promoting an intrinsically evil act. I'm sure that God's justice has been more offended by me not abiding by some perceived offense of etiquette than by the silence of His "sheep" over the promotion of sin. It probably would have been wrong of you all to speak out against the promotion of evil due to my grave injustice to blogger’s etiquette.

steve said...

Alex said...

"Steve, if it's to your knowledge, that is already suspect. Perhaps you can provide an example."

Does this mean you're unacquainted with the various schools of Catholic casuistry I cited?

Turretinfan said...

"I'd like to express to everyone who has commented how disappointed I am that you all find my irrelevant commenting more outrageous than one of your own promoting an intrinsically evil act."

Even if we granted your conclusion, he wasn't doing it here.

"I'm sure that God's justice has been more offended by me not abiding by some perceived offense of etiquette than by the silence of His "sheep" over the promotion of sin."

There's no sarcasm like self-righteous sarcasm.

- TurretinFan

steve said...

Alex said...

"Besides, the natural law and logic easily demonstrate that any and every sexually related act which violates the inherent dignity of the human person/couple by artificially separating the unitive from the procreative ends is immoral."

To the contrary, his natural law arguments were easily shot down in a previous thread, where they still lie smoldering in ashes.

Rhology said...

And I'd like to express to everyone who has commented how disappointed I am that you all find my irrelevant commenting more outrageous than one of your own promoting an intrinsically evil act, that of worshiping statues and crackers. I mean, are you a pagan?

Pilgrimsarbour said...

Alex,

If I may interject here--

I believe the issue is not Steve's opinion on this matter, but what does the Scripture have to say? You assert over and over again that the act is "intrinsically evil." Very well. Prove your assertion from Scripture.

I'll say this much: Onan's sin was his disobedience in not providing children on behalf of his brother. Opinions on the mechanism by which his disobedience was manifested vary. One opinion is that the mechanism is in itself neutral. I don't think the Scripture is clear on this. I think "Onanism" is a stupid concept. He didn't invent the thing. However, there is the question of the lustful fantasizing which accompanies the act. That is a legitimate matter for discussion as it relates to the mechanism, but for another time, on another post, and on another blog.

But the idea, as I see it, is that you constantly inject this topic into all kinds of threads that have nothing to do with it. You seem to be obsessed with this matter. Why is that?

Why don't you make a post on your own blog regarding this subject which you keep bringing up here ad nauseum. I would be willing to reply there if you thought a discussion with me would be useful, but I suspect you don't think it would since I don't fall in lock-step (necessarily) with Catholic teaching on this matter.

The truth is, if these guys are not interacting with you in the manner that you wish, I understand it completely. If it were my blog and some guy kept stopping by and scattergunning this topic all over my posts, even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with them, I would not answer him either.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

James,

If this keeps up, you'll want to make a new label to apply to your future posts and list it in the column to the right. May I suggest "Mechanism?"

Yours truly,

PA

steve said...

"Masturbatory Matt," "Peeping Alex," and dear old Dave clearly need to start a separate, group blog as a much-needed outlet to express their pent-up urges on this issue. It must be frustrating for them to lack a forum in which they can articulate their inner compulsions on this all-consuming concern of theirs. That would give them a dedicated forum to post their daily and hourly meditations on all things masturbatory. Indeed, they could make it their "Apostolate."

Tania said...

"I'd like to express to everyone who has commented how disappointed I am that you all find my irrelevant commenting more outrageous than one of your own promoting an intrinsically evil act".--Alex

If this is really troubling you and you are not brining this up just to be trollish (as Bellisario admitted), then perhaps it will be better to privately message Steve or create your own blog post on this matter in general (the first suggestion, you can get real replies from the actual person you think is in error... without having to derail multiple blogs on this matter).

Matthew Bellisario said...

Well it looks like my mission was accomplished. Thanks to Hays and Rhology for making my point as to how childish you guys are. Hays, who is obsessed with pedophilia, stomping around calling everyone names, Rhology acting like a 5 year old, while the rest of you applaud them in their stupor. I don't need to say anything to prove you are all a bunch of conceited charlatans who have no clue as how to argue anything rationally. Hey, as long as you guys are legends in your own minds, and in your own little 3 ring circus, that is all that matters, right?

Sincerely,
Troll

Pilgrimsarbour said...

Quite the contrary. I am applauding no one here and my argument is most rational. What's irrational is your response to what I've said which is, in reality, no response at all.

zipper778 said...

Alex, I have been reading the past couple of blogs and everytime masturbation comes up it's because a Roman Catholic brought it up. The first time I saw it I was like, whoa, where did that come from? I'm sure I missed something because everyone keeps saying that Steve thinks masturbation is okay. If he does, then yes I disagree with him but that's still not the point of this topic or the other topics where this keeps festering. I could derail a blog that a Roman Catholic posted by saying that Roman Catholicism wants its people to worship a piece of bread, a cracker, a man made object. Idolatry. But I don't need to go there because that is not the point. Matthew Bellisario admitted that he is a troll. If he wants to make a list of Roman Catholic apologists to avoid, that's in the other topic and it belongs there.

As far as Rhology, I don't like reading the childish posts. I'm sorry. We are children of God here and we need to show the world that. They need to know what Christ's love is, and that we are reasonable followers of Christ. That's our mission in life.

Matthew D. Schultz said...

Pilgrimsarbour writes:

What's irrational is your response to what I've said which is, in reality, no response at all.

Yes, it is mere rhetoric. There are no logical arguments or interaction with your points.

James Swan said...

Well, at least I know if I wanted more comments to the blog, which topic my Romanist readers are interested in.

Ironic, Steve Hays writes a boat load of material each week, some of which is on an intellectual level that goes over the head most, yet you two Romanists don't dare to even enter into a dialog with him on anything other than masturbation. That's not funny, it's sad.

I must say, I'm very disappointed with both of you. Every so often, I'll read something from Matthew (like I did recently) and think, "Hey maybe he's not so bad after all." And then, I get home to 85 blogger comments on masturbation. Do you mean to tell me you both are clinging to the bottom of the barrel where DA and Sippo rule? C'mon. Set your standards higher.

Tania said...

@Matthew D. Schultz and Pilgrimsarbour,

Hello to the both of you.

Question: Since when do trolls act rationally? :-)

Constantine said...

"Bellisario admits he's a troll"

He finally got the idea of SELF-authentication!!!! Hallelujah!

Pilgrimsarbour said...

Now James, aren't you inflating that comment figure just a bit? I mean, 58 is not 85. Kinda reminds me of that "33,000 Protestant denominations" story that keeps going around.

Just yankin' yer chain! ;-)

Edward Reiss said...

Alex,

"Finding it worse for one person to violate another does not mean that another unrelated sin isn't a sin, or shouldn't be considered a sin. Or does it in your moral universe?"

And masturbation was unrelated to the topics you keep bringing up. Nor do you know my "moral universe". But if the RC one is to obsess about masturbation you can have yours.

"I have spoken out against pedophiles, and I speak out against those who promote other moral evils such as masturbation, contraception, homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, etc."

Except that all the RCs here have been one-note Charlies of late. This makes it look like a personal issue for you guys as opposed to a moral issue.

"Why are you protestants so obsessed with pointing out that homosexuality is immoral when what two men do in the privacy of their own home is none of your business? Get the point?"

The difference is the priests are, well, priests so they have a higher standard to attain. Also, RCs are always pointing to their Church as a symbol of unity in doctrine, practice etc. I think letting people serially abuse children under their care is pretty darn serious--much more serious than touching one's self. To behave otherwise is to be morally obtuse.

"That you find my objection to masturbation to be laughable due to your ignorant idea that if I find masturbation to be immoral then I must not find rape to also be immoral, or more immoral, proves to me that you are a fool."

No, I am just pointing out that your outrage seems rather selective.

Oh yeah, calling me names only makes me think you know you are wrong and want to change the subject to me. So keep 'em coming. Keep changing the subject from the shortcomings of the "One True Church" and focus on a small group's opinions.

"Also, I never said that Steve speaks for protestantism. What I have said is that none of you seem to find masturbation to be objectionable. If one were to do a survey of protestants on this blog, the insistent silence is very telling."

Perhaps the "silence" is due to the fact you guys introduce the topic where it is not even under discussion. "Did you see the Gold Medal Hockey Game?" Answer: "Steve Ray believes masturbation is OK! DID YOU HEAR THAT?!?!?!?!"

Such antics really do make it look like you have something to hide.

Edward Reiss said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Edward Reiss said...

Alex,

You you never said Steve speaks for Protestantism. Here is what you wrote in this very thread:

"Am I understanding you correctly that a protestant advocating immorality is irrelevant, but the Catholic Church having taught that pedophilia is a grave sin, even advocated against it, is relevant?'

See? Steve as a protestant tells us something about protestantism (which as RC apologists are wont to do, becomes monolithic when it becomes convenient, and hopelessly divided when it it is convenient...).

QED.

It is almost like you are kicking against the goads or something.

Alex said...

My last (2) posts James. No need to suspect that I will say anything further here on the subject.

It would be one thing if this site was a bastion of intellectually honesty, but it is not. Double standards! The reason why I keep talking about Steve's endorsement of masturbation lately is because this is one of the most obvious sins which are part of the larger corruption of humanity due to sexual immorality. You (and your buddies) have taken the time in the past to attack the Catholic Church in general, which condemns such sexual immoralities, due to some who claim membership in her and violate her teachings. You have requested that we publically dismiss fellow Catholics who err.

However, you have one of your own buddies endorsing a perverted act of self abuse, thereby offending the justice and honor of God, and you cowardly turn your head. You also have people like Edward who makes various extreme leaps in logic by stating that if I comment on Steve's sick endorsement of sin then I must be obsessed with the sin that I am arguing against. The homosexuals constantly employ this line of poor argumentation. It just can't possibly be the case that for a few moments out of my day (for a couple of days) I concern myself with confronting a pervert and those who give aid to his immoral positions. According to Edward's state of mind, if there is another sin which is worse or more serious than the one I'm commenting on, then there is no reason to address the lesser sin. I guess only those sins perceived by Edward as being really really bad are truly offensive to God. This is quite amusing given the protestant's dismissal of venial and mortal sins. I was under the impression that Protestants believed that God finds all sins offensive to His justice. Perhaps Edward is an anomaly, but judging the interaction I’ve seem here, he isn’t that much of an outlier. Then there is the other fallacy that priests are ordered to a higher standard, and therefore sins committed by non-priests are not as bad and not worthy of discussion??? Or because there is worse evil elsewhere, we should turn a blind eye when one of your own protestant brethren promotes that which offends God?

(continued below)

Alex said...

(continued from above)

The double standard requires that we only focus on the short comings of the perverse members of the Catholic Church who violate her teachings...and to further the violence towards intellectual honesty, we are also required to fallaciously attribute such immoralities to the entire Church via hasty generalizations and faulty moral reasoning despite said Church's opposition to those very immoralities. Meanwhile, we ignore the perverted mindset of Steve Hays because we are to accept your belief that Hays' material is of the intellectual caliber that it goes over the head of most (at least over your head).

I have pointed this all out. I think that this has been the easiest demonstration of a double standard imaginable. Fact is the standard here is the battle cry of Death to Rome! Anything in service of attacking the Catholic Church will not be challenged here, no matter how fallacious. However, don’t you dare even attempt to challenge one of the Alpha and Omega&Co. hierarchy. I will humbly accept my small imagined peccadillo of offending blogger etiquette, and leave you to ponder the rest. Not being allowed to post here might be an impressive punishment to you, but I'm obviously not troubled by the ultimatum. I cannot in good conscious claim that this blog has been, in any way, beneficial to me as a challenge to my journey towards truth.

One would only hope though that after I'm gone you would at least feign the credibility of intellectual honesty and maintain your resolve not to discuss me any further since I'm both a troll and irrelevant to any topic at hand. I'm sure that this will not be the case. My fault of not honoring proper decorum of blogger etiquette is much more offensive than the promotion of sin. The sort of "civil disobedience" I have engaged in is truly much more important and offensive as an issue to criticize than both Steve Hays’ promotion of sin (as admitted here by a few protestants), and the intellectually dishonest assaults upon the Catholic Church by others.

If maintaining personal integrity to all things good and true is of no importance to you, well then, to paraphrase Clark Gable: Frankly my dear James, I don’t care.

If anyone feels the need to make an honest challenge of what I have said can do so on my blog. I typically ignore fallacious reasoning because it is impossible to persuade such folks.

Matthew D. Schultz said...

What a steaming pile of sophistry!

Alex, all of your points have been addressed already. Now you're just repeating yourself with the additional benefit of lacing your comments with personal attacks and claiming that any additional response to you would be intellectually dishonest.

Well, congratulations. You've just tanked your credibility with at least one reader of this blog.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

He could have at least served his steaming pile on silver trays.

steve said...

Alex said...

“However, you have one of your own buddies endorsing a perverted act of self abuse, thereby offending the justice and honor of God…”

Of course, that simply begs the question. Alex takes the position he does because Mother Church tells him to. Alex is a good little boy who always does whatever Mama tells him to do.

“…and you cowardly turn your head.”

An obvious reason why team members of Beggars All, or some of the commenters, decline to weigh in on this issue is because they simply don’t share Alex’s masturbatory infatuation.

“The double standard requires that we only focus on the short comings of the perverse members of the Catholic Church who violate her teachings...and to further the violence towards intellectual honesty, we are also required to fallaciously attribute such immoralities to the entire Church via hasty generalizations and faulty moral reasoning despite said Church's opposition to those very immoralities.”

Except that Alex is comparing the incomparable. In Protestant theology, Protestant doctrine is separable from the Protestant organizations (e.g. denominations, seminaries, colleges) which institutionalize its doctrine. If, say, a Protestant institution were corrupted, that wouldn’t logically reflect on Protestant theology inasmuch as there was never a one-to-one correspondence in Protestant theology between our doctrines and the particular organizations which institutionalize our doctrines. Protestant institutions come and go. The theological tradition is portable.

By contrast, Catholic theological tradition is inseparable from its institutional identity. The “one true church.” Hence, everything sticks to the Roman church.

If the Roman Church has policies which promote various forms of abuse, then that indicts the institutional church. Likewise, if the Roman Church, in the face of abuse, engages in a cover-up, then that also indicts the institutional church.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

Likewise, if the Roman Church, in the face of abuse, engages in a cover-up, then that also indicts the institutional church.

It also reflects poorly, if in most cases unfairly, on the membership of such a church who have to go to the civil authorities in order to hold their church hierarchy accountable. This is especially true of a church hierarchy that refuses to hold itself accountable to God and His people by merely moving the bad actors from place to place instead of disciplining them.

Edward Reiss said...

Alex,

"Edward who makes various extreme leaps in logic by stating that if I comment on Steve's sick endorsement of sin then I must be obsessed with the sin that I am arguing against."

Since you keep bring up the topic, it is fair to say you are to some degree obsessed.

And as I have been saying, and as Seve has said (and we do not have a lot in common theologically...) the priests speak for RCism much more than Steve speaks for "protestantism"--a system which RC apologists like yourselves believe is hopelessly divided. So there is the point that cardinals moving child rapists to new venues for their "love" after issues arose as opposed ot the private opinion of a particular individual. Then there is the on-again off-again unity of "protestantism". It is united when RC polemicists and apologists want it to be, and hopelessly divided when they want it to be.