Why I Am No Longer A Catholic

[Zatarra]

I am presenting for review, comments, and questions my newest essay, “Why I Am No Longer A Catholic”, available at my personal website. At 6,700+ words, it is far too long to paste into a thread.

http://www.davidmann.us/essays/whynolonger.htm

Thank you for your time and attention! :D

[Sweetie]

Is it something you want to discuss? It's rather large and your reasons for believing are not mine so I could say that I never would have considered them good reasons for believing in the first place: miracles, ecclesiastical stability and the intelligence of some Christians. From a quick perview, you do not seem to have a good grasp on some of the technical aspects of Church teaching, nor the subtleties. I would not wish to argue for Catholicism persay but to clear up some areas of possible misunderstandings at my leisure.

[Zatarra]

Is it something you want to discuss?
Yes.


From a quick perview, you do not seem to have a good grasp on some of the technical aspects of Church teaching, nor the subtleties.
Such as?


I would not wish to argue for Catholicism persay but to clear up some areas of possible misunderstandings at my leisure.
Whenever you wish.

[Sweetie]

I would start I think, with the arguement from the experience and the intelligence of some Christians. The pro arguement sucks because it seems fallicious, I mean, some Christians are smart therefore Christianity is likely to be true? Some atheists are smart therefore atheism is likely to be true or because some people are intelligent they are less likely to be wrong? Intelligence, firstly, to me, is no way to gauge such a thing for the primary reason stated above, it's ridiculous. There is a consideration however, in why do so many people who are highly intelligent and have doctorates in philosophy and other things disagree? Unfortunately because atheism and theism are still, at this day and age, debateable and validly but there is no winners as of yet.

It is objectively true that very intelligent and very learned people have valid objections and valid reasons to be atheist or theists and neither can be officially disproven. In the learned however, and the highly intelligent, they are less likely to fall into common errors. That does not mean they are never wrong or never biased because the highly intelligent are still human after all, but they do avoid the common errors and can forsee and argue around apparent roadblock, things that others are blind to. I had someone say to me, "I have a double-degree in philosophy" and I said "so"? What use is that if this or that guy and that one over there and the one down the street also has a degree or a doctorate in philosohpy and you guys still disagree. In that sense, it has very little use, but it does have some use, one of it's uses I've already state, avoiding common error, common pitfalls.

Next, you state:

and an understanding of the non-logical reasons people have for holding their beliefs: family, marriage, society, tradition, fear, hope, despair, pride, laziness, economics, status, evolutionary resistance, and others.

This is two-fold unfortunately. We can put it this way, there are some highly intelligent Christians and some highly intelligent atheists, there are some really stupid Christians and some really stupid atheists, there are some people who have good reasons for believing and some who have stupid reasons for believing, there are some people who have good reasons for not believing and there are some people who have stupid reasons for not believing, that's just the way it is. Those things that you mentioned above are applicable to some atheists as well, marriage, their culture, the way they were raised, etc., this information just feels new to you perhaps because you had never recognized it before, ie: that some Christians believe for bad reasons?

Also, the best atheistic writings seem clear, logical, and rational to me whereas the best Christian writings seem vague, clouded, and mysterious.

What a terribly, terribly broad brush you paint with. Honestly, is bad. It all depends on who you read and how your own brain works, how much it can comprehend, that's just the way it is. I value clarity of thought too, so my favorite thinkers have a clarity of thought and yes, some Christians happen to. Some people however, are abstract thinkers, they are not precise and the do not condense so I find it annoying. I could say in two sentences what it takes them ten pages to say but in the end I can still comprehend what they say.

I cannot say that more mystical thinkers are less intelligent, but I certainly cannot say they are more intelligent when I cannot understand them.

The question is, who's fault is it if you cannot understand them? Honestly though, the Summa Theologica is technical, clear and rational. You may not agree but it is true, but that depends on if you can grasp the concepts or not, or if you have enough information to be able to understand.

The argument from the intelligence of Christians fails.

The arguement was never good in the first place, but you haven't brought the right objections against it as far as I'm concerned.

Very similar is the argument from the spirituality, tranquility, and happiness of monks, friars, and nuns. Buddhist monks sometimes equal or surpass Catholic monks in these regards, nullifying this argument completely.

Well, no not really. How can you say someone surpasses another in tranquility and spirituality and happiness, I mean come on, what a crappy criteria. Buddhist monks also value the aesthetic saints such as Teresa of Avila, and St. John of the Cross, actually in their writings they find validation in the sense of that others from other religions have experience or insight the same as they, but a little bit less perhaps, or a little bit different. I don't like the arguement you presented or the criteria you test it with or your conclusions, I think they are poor and entirely subjective.

Actually the Church does recognize "what is true" in other religions, such as Buddhism and the wisdom and the Word of God is recognizable in other religions, just not that other religions have the totality of such.

And everyone knows how irritable and angry some priests and nuns can be! The argument from the spirituality of Christians fails.

Honestly though, this one is worse. Some priests or nuns can be irritable therefore none of them are happier because of the spiritual path they have choosen to walk? First of all, you can only judge a medicine by those who take it, not by those who buy it. The medicine in question is Christian doctrine, or let's say living as Christ taught to live with the love Christ taught to love with. Being a priest or a nun does not cause you to love more, it does not cause you to necessarily be a better person or less human.

[Goliath]

:eek: Wow...you mean that there exist xians that are xians because of the fact that many xians are intelligent????

:roflmao:

[Zatarra]

The pro arguement sucks because it seems fallicious, I mean, some Christians are smart therefore Christianity is likely to be true?
I'm presenting it as an insufficient argument. I cannot defend it. It is presented because it was a reason I used formerly. I felt arrogant disagreeing with Cardinal Newman, G.K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas, and those.

Those things that you mentioned above are applicable to some atheists as well, marriage, their culture, the way they were raised, etc., this information just feels new to you perhaps because you had never recognized it before, ie: that some Christians believe for bad reasons?
What I didn't appreciate before was that, along with everyone else, even the most intelligent Christians are affected by these things.

The question is, who's fault is it if you cannot understand them?
The only point was that if I cannot determine whether they are intelligent, then I cannot use their intelligence as an argument for Christianity. That was all.


I don't like the arguement you presented or the criteria you test it with or your conclusions, I think they are poor and entirely subjective.
I presented it because I used it in my former thinking, not because it has any validity.

It seems reasonable to remove that section from the online version for now, since it presents an argument that no one takes seriously in the first place, though the emotional appeal still exists.

[Sweetie]

I'm presenting it as an insufficient argument.

Yes, I know. It's a start somewhere but I think you should scrap that whole section and rewrite it.

I cannot defend it. It is presented because it was a reason I used formerly.

Yes, I realize that.

I felt arrogant disagreeing with Cardinal Newman, G.K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas, and those.

They are brilliant men.

What I didn't appreciate before was that, along with everyone else, even the most intelligent Christians are affected by these things.

Yes, I know and I don't know why you didn't realize such before but the only reason I bring it up is to point out that it has the newness of realization, but the newness will pass. When it becomes old news, perhaps you will be able to use both to formulate new realizations instead of just the new realization to oust the old so in that sense I spoke only to bring that to the forefront.

There is no question in my mind that some theists are highly intelligent and that some atheists are highly intelligent and I highly value intelligence, but in the end, it really supports neither side because of philisophical complications that have not been resolved and cannot be resolved even by intelligence, intelligence does have use though, in that it can identify the complications. Actually, what I have discovered is that the more intelligent you are the more complications you see in any given problem, they do not actually lessen. The question oftentimes comes down to honesty and there is no guarantee that the intelligent will honestly translate all that they see for others to understand. They very well may be biased and say, see this works if such and such as true, or at least it's viable. Do they stop and say but this is where this idea can slip through the cracks, or this is something that has been nagging at me or something that can throw my whole game? Not many people lay their cards out on the table like that, especially not if their beliefs are important to them or they identify with them and it becomes a thing of self-protection, which can be true for atheists and theists alike. I value intelligence but it is very little without honesty, that includes honesty with oneself and honesty with others.

The only point was that if I cannot determine whether they are intelligent, then I cannot use their intelligence as an argument for Christianity. That was all.

Determining intelligence, however, can be a subjective thing as well. You did leave yourself open to criticism in that area, or attack perhaps, just FYI. You say that you cannot understand them to determine if they are intelligent or not and I could very easily respond with what if it is your intelligence that is actually in question? I'm not saying such, but I'm just pointing out the question, the idea, the problem, the possible solutions, the subjectivity.


I presented it because I used it in my former thinking, not because it has any validity.

For what I was speaking of in that particular instance, the whole thing must be scrapped in the sense of the arguement was bad for what you had been trying to prove, and it was also bad for what you were trying to disprove. The question has not been formed and therefore no arguement or conclusion to that effect, not that I agree that you have effectively disproven the consideration. What I mean to say that such a thing is still a consideration, but I agree with you in that it cannot be a proof in the use for which you intended it and most especially, not as stated.

It seems reasonable to remove that section from the online version for now, since it presents an argument that no one takes seriously in the first place, though the emotional appeal still exists.

Ok, I have been gone for a day or two so didn't respond earlier.

I'll bother you later if I get around to it, in the sense of moving on. :wink:

[Sweetie]

Actually, the question of intelligence has one purpose though it cannot act as proof. If for instance, it was clear that all atheists were idiots, then we could say that they don't have much going for them by way of defending and formulating their position which would not, however, disprove atheism, but as for those who picks sides it would act as a strong consideration which is honestly what many atheists think about the theist side, that we are all rather stupid or ignorant, it is not true but not all know, acknowledge or admit such a thing. However, even for the atheist that looks upon theism as such, it would not disprove theism at all. Also, it could be true that there is such a thing as knowledge not dependent upon intelligence to exist within a person at all, as a matter of fact, that might be what is referred to as experience in one sense, the knowledge gained by experiencing, then there is the knowledge from the intellect because of the experience, then there could be as well, such a thing as spiritual knowledge not dependent upon the intellect.

Just some thoughts.

[Sweetie]

1. Original Sin

The doctrine of original sin teaches that all of humanity has been punished for the sin of our earliest ancestors. Punishing an innocent party for the transgressions of another party is clearly unjust.

I suppose the question is, in what way were we punished and what in fact is Original Sin and what in fact did it supposedly do to us? I think that would be the first step.

The association we have with the other party was even made without our consent. And even if substitutionary punishment were just, it would at least require the assent of the party to be punished, which we have never granted. No Catholic can argue that original sin is a logical necessity, for the Church teaches that God allowed the Virgin Mary to be conceived without any taint of sin. There exists no reason He could not do the same for each human conceived, who are all as equally innocent as the Virgin Mary before they are born. Original sin is pure injustice.

Original Sin I think, is a principle issue. In order to say anything I think it would first need to be mapped out and understood as the Church preaches and understands it however, it is complicated because it is unfortunately bound up with the concept of sin at all and what evil is to the Church.

I would start by pointing out that Original Sin is not a sin at all, not as the common understanding sin goes, not in it's inherited sense. I would also say that it is a necessity in a larger scheme of things, and I could seek to prove why if you were up to such a discussion but it could be a big discussion.

[Zatarra]

I would start by pointing out that Original Sin is not a sin at all, not as the common understanding sin goes, not in it's inherited sense. I would also say that it is a necessity in a larger scheme of things, and I could seek to prove why if you were up to such a discussion but it could be a big discussion.
It's difficult because it is not clear, but I think we can agree it includes a tendency toward sinfulness. Theologians used to teach that unbaptized infants would be excluded from heaven and sent to limbo, and now that idea has been dropped, but that would have made it like sin in a sense.

Could you give me some idea why Original Sin would be necessary in the larger scheme of things so I decide whether I want to discuss it? We know it's not logically necessary because of the Immaculate Conception. Also, if it was necessary, then Adam and Eve weren't free to obey, which is absurd.

[Sweetie]

It's difficult because it is not clear

Not clear to whom? and why? :P

Theologians used to teach that unbaptized infants would be excluded from heaven and sent to limbo,

Theologians have speculated or thought, but the Church does not teach, there is a big difference.

Could you give me some idea why Original Sin would be necessary in the larger scheme of things so I decide whether I want to discuss it?
We know it's not logically necessary because of the Immaculate Conception.

Correction, you know because you assert, argue and conclude thus, but that is not necessarily what I or the Church asserts, argues and concludes.

Also, if it was necessary, then Adam and Eve weren't free to obey, which is absurd.

This question is meaningless to me, I don't understand how you could even ask it within the context, but that is why a later discussion might be useful perhaps, but a little later and that's if my company doesn't mind me sitting at the computer, which I doubt. :D

[Zatarra]

Not clear to whom? and why? :P
You're the one who said it's complicated. That's what I mean.

Theologians have speculated or thought, but the Church does not teach, there is a big difference.
True. But the point was that it's not completely explained.

Correction, you know because you assert, argue and conclude thus, but that is not necessarily what I or the Church asserts, argues and concludes.
What? So someone would argue that it's logically necessary AND there is an exception to it? That's absurd.

What is your religious position? I mean, are you a theist or a non-theist? I'm just curious whether you're defending a position because you hold or because my essay has imperfections? Either way, I am grateful for the feedback.

[Sweetie]

I'm Catholic. I'm responding because occasionally, and only occasionally, when I'm bored or when I'm of a mood which is why I specify "at my leisure" (so that it will not be assumed that if I don't respond it's because there is no possible response), I have the urge to discuss it and because your essay has imperfections, something specific for me to do as opposed to just shooting the breeze, merely discussing random things or starting a discussion from scratch with no real goal. :wink:

[Zoot]

I'm presenting it as an insufficient argument. I cannot defend it. It is presented because it was a reason I used formerly. I felt arrogant disagreeing with Cardinal Newman, G.K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas, and those.

Disagreeing with Chesterton is simple. You simply point out that he keeps using witticisms to paint Christianity's weaknesses as its strengths. "Those? Those are speed holes. They make the car go faster."

Chesterton's all, like, "Christianity makes no sense? Of course it makes no sense! Gloriously so! And oh, the sense-makers of the world are so busy with their sense, they have no time for making the world! And the world of sense! Oh, it's a sensual world in the making! And God is that very making! That very making is God!"

[Zatarra]

Sweetie, just respond when you have the time and the willingness. I do like discussing these issues.

Zoot, you're right. He is so highly regarded by many in the Church, but when I read Orthodoxy, he didn't seem so impressive. His whole basis for accepting all the supernatural claims of the Church was that it felt right. That wouldn't be so bad if one of those claims wasn't that people like me that feel different and don't believe will be punished.

[Zoot]

His arguments are convincing to the convinced. Very convincing to the convinced. Which is why Catholics love him, especially the intelligent ones. It's very comforting to have someone who is so blatantly and obviously fucking brilliant batting for their team. And so quotable.

I'm sure he'd have something to say about punishment. "David, I could answer that question, but only you and I would understand the answer - and that includes the teacher."

[Sweetie]

My first response might be to ask whether or not one is certain that they do indeed understand him in order to claim that he is really not saying anything worthwhile at all. I would say if you could reduce his complexity to such simplicity you have indeed missed alot in the process, especially the complexity of his simplicity but that is definately off topic. Chesterton speaks in riddles and is not easily understood as much as some might like to think that they've got his number, a slippery little sucker is he.

[wade-w]

That reminds me of a quote:


When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated,
and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove
as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense.

[Sweetie]

Does that mollify the mind? Really, thousands, if not millions, if not billions have found value and brilliance in this or that work, theist and atheist alike, but if you do not it is not because of you, the writer was just simply making things too complicated because he actually does not make any sense? What would you tell David, wade-w, if he picks up a book on mathmatics and says exactly the same, if he cannot grasp the mathematical language? Chesterton tried to make the extremely complicated graspable in plain language, the problem is, the extremely involved and complicated still remains extremely involved and complicated, the plain language just gives you an opportunity to start taking steps up, it does not however, promise that you will be able to.

[wade-w]

I haven't read Chesterton, so I probably shouldn't have commented at all. I was referring to this:

Chesterton speaks in riddles and is not easily understood as much as some might like to think that they've got his number, a slippery little sucker is he.

My point is that speaking in riddles and being slippery rarely leads to clarity.

[Sweetie]

Ok then, I must clarify. To me Chesterton uses plain language to express imagry, mental images which unfortunately are very complicated, like big chuncks of philosophy as images. He specifies that that is what he is doing, trying to express what he sees by means of plain language in the form of images so that one might get an idea of the big chunks of philosophy he is covering very quickly and very simply so that he get to what he is trying to really say and he does that. The problem is of course, that some of the brilliant have a difficult time reducing these massive ideas down enough so that the less learned or less gifted can understand or begin to understand because that is who he is speaking to, but the problem is that it can only be reduced so much and "Orthodoxy" is a tiny book, he was very ambitious to try to pack so much in so little space. To me, he succeeded and did what he set out to do, to others, they might have to do some prep work.

He did, I think, successfully reduce some major concepts but only in the form of images, in chuncks for his specific purposes in "Orthodoxy" which is why I say riddles, plain language, formation of images, you must see the riddle in order to grasp the concept but "Orthodoxy" it must be remembered, is a second book, "Heretics" comes first in which he discusses where he got some of the philosophical concepts from, who is championing them at the time, and what he finds wrong with them. "Orthodoxy" is him taking, in simple form, all that he finds wrong to show what he finds right. Further, Chesterton was a journalist, he wrote an awful lot, it is not so easy to reduce him, only if you are willing to take him out of context.

[Zatarra]

Sweetie,

Why are you spending so much effort defending the intelligence of Chesterton when you've already dismissed intelligence of others as reason to believe a religion true?

David

[Sweetie]

To be honest David, I have already alluded to why as a response to your original statements over the course of several posts, I do not wish to state why though I will if I must. I will say however, that I do not understand how you can claim not to understand and then on the other hand claim to know how things are, how it is, that this is what it is. You state that things are not clear but on the other hand claim to know that the other is wrong, but the question is, not clear to whom and why? It's one of those things that if there is a problem and you are the only common denominator then it might be you that is the problem, and in that case it may not even be your fault or have anything to do with anything but circumstance, you may not know that there is more to know. I do not understand as well why you do not see the simplicity in the complexity or the complexity in the simplicity, but I have my mind and you have yours and to me, every answer opens the door to a new set of problems. The only thing to do is to aim for understanding between minds.

[Zatarra]

Sweetie,

I don't understand what you're trying to say, unless it is to suggest that I am not intelligent to understand Chesterton and thus Catholicism. If that is the case, I respectfully disagree and request that we discuss the actual issues, not the useless topic of whether theists or non-theists are more intelligent, which we have already agreed is a poor reason for taking either position.

David

[Sweetie]

If that is the case, I respectfully disagree and request that we discuss the actual issues, not the useless topic of whether theists or non-theists are more intelligent, which we have already agreed is a poor reason for taking either position.

That's not the topic we are discussing though, or at least I am not. I have been trying to show you that what you think is so may not necessarily be so which was my second sentence to you in my first post in this thread, I think. Stopping to discuss it has value, for me at least. Too, for you to say that all Chesterton was saying was that it felt right, which issue fits in with what I am trying to discuss, is like saying that the moral of the story of Hanzel and Gretal is that houses with candy on them have witches inside but yet at the same time, you specify that you do not understand the story in order to determine whether or not the writer was intelligent and yet you claim a certainty of a sort in that the writer or the story could not have any moral other than what you have decided it is, even though you claim to not be able to understand the story in order to determine what the moral of it is.

Do you see? So then my point is, as I stated in my first post, in my second and my third I think and in a round about way in the others, was that what you think is so may not necessarily be what is so. It is for you to question yourself in this regard. You may or may not, that is up to you. Even then, I could be wrong or I could be right about that, that is up to you to decide but I put out there so at least you may consider it and considering it would be of great help to such a discussion as you and I were thinking about having.

[JoeP]

I have already alluded to why as a response to your original statements over the course of several posts, I do not wish to state why though I will if I must. I will say however, that I do not understand how you can claim not to understand and then on the other hand claim to know how things are, how it is, that this is what it is. You state that things are not clear but on the other hand claim to know that the other is wrong, but the question is, not clear to whom and why? It's one of those things that if there is a problem and you are the only common denominator then it might be you that is the problem, and in that case it may not even be your fault or have anything to do with anything but circumstance, you may not know that there is more to know. I do not understand as well why you do not see the simplicity in the complexity or the complexity in the simplicity, but I have my mind and you have yours and to me, every answer opens the door to a new set of problems. The only thing to do is to aim for understanding between minds.
:wtfsign:

I thought I was following this thread but the only thing I got from this post was "not clear"! Kind of like reading TS Eliot's Four Quartets for the first time. :D

[Zatarra]

I admit that I am fallible and that I do not understand everything perfectly. That's why I posted here in the first place, to learn whether anyone had any comments about my essay that could enlighten me.

It's some theists, not me, who are so sure their view is correct that they feel comfortable believing that everyone who does not believe exactly what they do will be tortured for all eternity.

[Zoot]

The thing is, Sweetie, that sometimes people are just saying very simple things in complicated ways. Take the chapter The Madman. He points to the atheist materialist and says, "That man is as nuts as any in the local asylum. He is completely sure he is right. His world is logically perfect, but tiny - the perfection of a small ring. Compare that to the cross! Oh, great collision of paradoxes and contradictions! Yes, the wise man, when faced with two contradictory truths, takes the truths and leaves the contradiction behind! Oh yes! Oh, the poet seeks only to get his head in the heavens, but the mathematician seeks to get the heavens into his head, and it is his head that breaks!"

All very witty and quotable. And half of that is more my paraphrasing than a direct quote. Anyway, how many of those criticisms levelled at atheists can also be levelled at Christians? Completely certain they are right? Logically perfect world, but tiny? And then he goes on to glorify contradictions - poetry, sure, but not exactly reasonable.

Of course, his attitude was that poetry takes priority over reason, and he calls that sanity. And that's fine. But when he goes using that as an excuse to believe entirely unreasonable things, that really ought to bar him from discussions of apologetics. The apologists say, "Hey, it's actually perfectly reasonable to believe these things." Chesterton says, "Christianity is so excellent that it's completely unreasonable."

It echoes Tertullian: "We believe because it is absurd." Terribly quotable. Pretty stupid.

GK Chesterton once told George Bernard Shaw, "Looking at you, one would think there was a famine in England." Shaw replied, "And looking at you, one would know what caused it."

Heh heh.

[Sweetie]

It's some theists, not me, who are so sure their view is correct that they feel comfortable believing that everyone who does not believe exactly what they do will be tortured for all eternity.

It is not just theists who are so certain that they are correct and act accordingly.

Too, which theists do you speak of? The Church does not teach that unless you are Catholic you are going to hell.

[Sweetie]

Take the chapter The Madman. He points to the atheist materialist and says, "That man is as nuts as any in the local asylum.

The point I got out of it was that the madman in the asylum has a complete worldview. If the man believes that he is in a dream, there is no evidence you can give him to prove him wrong, for no evidence could be given that could not be given in a dream. He is not saying, "the materialist is as nuts as any local asylum," he is saying that every view is a worldview and cannot be held unless everything can be accounted for, however the entire worldview could be wrong, and some are if any are right and if there are many that are different, but there is no way to officially prove that they are if they have a good enough rationale, if there is consistency, if every contigency of a sort can be accounted for. That is true of the madman, it is true of the materialist, but it is also true of the theist.


All very witty and quotable. And half of that is more my paraphrasing than a direct quote. Anyway, how many of those criticisms levelled at atheists can also be levelled at Christians? Completely certain they are right? Logically perfect world, but tiny? And then he goes on to glorify contradictions - poetry, sure, but not exactly reasonable.

Well, we agree on one thing at least.

Of course, his attitude was that poetry takes priority over reason, and he calls that sanity. And that's fine. But when he goes using that as an excuse to believe entirely unreasonable things, that really ought to bar him from discussions of apologetics. The apologists say, "Hey, it's actually perfectly reasonable to believe these things." Chesterton says, "Christianity is so excellent that it's completely unreasonable."

Nonetheless, we are going to disagree about a few things. I had my purposes in discussing it, but that purpose has been realized so then time to move on. I would love to discuss it, however, in another thread.

[Zatarra]

I have never known any atheists, agnostics, or deists who claim that theists will burn in hell for believing. That is specifically what I meant.


The Church does not teach that unless you are Catholic you are going to hell.
Are you sure?

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." Pope Eugene IV, Cantante Domino

So either...
(1) The Church does condemn all non-Catholics to hell OR
(2) The Church has changed its teaching

[Sweetie]

"We know where the Church is, we do not know where the Church is not."

Anyways, check the CCC. Moslems, Protestants, invincible ignorance, etc. There are encyclicals to read, the Freedom of Conscience. It is one of the doctrines that has suffered further development.

[Zatarra]

A quote without attributing to anyone? What good is that?

Has the Church changed her teaching or not?

[Sweetie]

The Church has developed and clarified her teaching on this issue..

There is a sin of apostasy bound up in the quote you brought up. That sin, however, requires criteria in order for it to be charged and many are not guilty of such a sin and therefore do not suffer the fate of such a sin necessarily. There are conditions for a sin to be considered mortal as well, and in that sense, there is no guilt or culpability due if it does not meet such a criteria. So in the one sense the Church has not changed the teaching, in the other, she has clarified of what sin is charged and what the criteria is to be charged with such a sin.

Some thoughts:

Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.


know- important wording. Knowledge is necessary for something to be considered a mortal sin. There may well be many who do not know through fault of their own or through no fault of their own. This condemnation is for those who know.

[Zatarra]

So all of the heretics burnt at the stake knew that the Catholic Faith was true?

[Sweetie]

So all of the heretics burnt at the stake knew that the Catholic Faith was true?

:sadcheer: Your question makes no sense. First of all, tell me who all the heretics were and tell me which ones were killed and when and why. Then tell me who was responsible. Then tell me what they believed and then please tell me what relation your question has to anything that had been stated previously.

Nobody ever said that people the Church condemned agreed that they should be condemned because they were rightly charged with the sin of apostasy. Nobody said they are in hell because they were guilty of the sin of apostasty and nobody ever said that the Church, as a group of men and in her government or as the men of her on their own, never committed bad actions.

Well, the sin of heresy is the one you are speaking of and the Church, if you would really look at what I posted for you, recognizes that there are things that are objectively sinful in the sense of being necessarily sinful because of their object, but to those who commit them, they are not necessarily culpable which is the point.

[Zoot]

That is true of the madman, it is true of the materialist, but it is also true of the theist.

A point Chesterton neglects to make when pointing the finger at the former two.

[Zoot]

Too, which theists do you speak of? The Church does not teach that unless you are Catholic you are going to hell.

And what does the Church teach prevents going to Hell?

[Sweetie]

There are things that we consider to be "intrinsically evil" "materially sinful", in that sense, always wrong because of what they are and what they necessarily do or cause that is most definately considered sinful, however, that does not mean, and this is the point, that those who commit wrong actions or intrinsically evil actions are guilty or culpable. In that sense, you can unknowingly commit actions which are intrinsically evil, evil by object, in some cases called "venial" sin but you can never be guilty or deserving of punishment for something you didn't know you weren't supposed to do because it does not qualify as a mortal sin and mortal sin is what it is all about.

You can preach heresy without being guilty of the sin of heresy. In that case the Church would say, if it is true that what we declare as true is true because of the authority imbued to us, then it is also true that what you speak, because it is not the same as ours, is heretical, it is wrong, however, that does not mean that it is your fault that you are wrong and it also does not mean that you deserve punishment for it.

In that case, the Church of the past may have been willing to state what she believes, ie: that the heretic is wrong, and also said that the man who is wrong is a heretic, guilty of the sin of heresy and therefore deserving of punishment, though I do not know if they would at the same time be thinking they were sending that person to hell. Of this age, we understand that there is such a thing as heresy, but there is also such a thing as culpability. Technicially, it is only God who can judge culpability so the Church can say positively, you are speaking heresy but the Church cannot state positively that you are guilty of the sin of heresy or whether or not you will go to hell. The Church can say to you of which you can examine your own conscience that if such and such is true, well then whatever follows or does not follow, but she cannot see inside you to determine that.

[Sweetie]

A point Chesterton neglects to make when pointing the finger at the former two.

I disagree, I think it is bound up in his point which is why he shifts criteria for determing how we shall judge what is true.

[Zoot]

I'll reread it and get back to you. There's a copy online at CCEL.

[Sweetie]

Do you wish to continue a discussion about Original Sin with me David?

[Zatarra]

Do you wish to continue a discussion about Original Sin with me David?
In truth, the discussion hadn't really started in earnest because you said we had to understand what the Church teaches and then we started talking about other issues.

I would actually prefer to talk about the positive reasons for believing the Faith, rather than the difficulties I have with the content of the Faith itself. You said in your first post in this thread that your reasons for believing are different from mine, though mine are those presented by the Church in the Catechism:

CCC, Paragraph 156
What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe "because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived". So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit." Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability "are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind".

Would you like to tell what me what reasons you have that are different from those suggested by the Church, since I have already argued against those?

[Farren]

Forgive me for interrupting this fine thread with drivel, but as a slightly drunk former Catholic I find it fascinating. I'm biased towards the articulately expressed views of Zoot and David, but impressed by the range, depth and lucidity of Sweetie's response. Thank you all for a stimulating read.

[Zoot]

David,

I've posted my own "why I am no longer something" rant from three years ago, in a new thread.

[Zatarra]

Zoot,

I think I saw it, but I didn't read the whole thing yet. I'll be sure to now.

David

EDIT: Nope, I saw someone else's. I'll still read yours, of course.

[Adora]

I thought I was following this thread but the only thing I got from this post was "not clear"!
Don't worry Joe. I get that from Sweetie's posts all the time.

I love this conversation. It's like no one's ever heard of Vatican II. *sighs*

[Sweetie]

I would actually prefer to talk about the positive reasons for believing the Faith, rather than the difficulties I have with the content of the Faith itself.

Yes, I understand but my preferences and strengths lean to the latter. In that sense, I am not good at offense but defense, my best offense is a strong defense which would tie in to my own reasons for believing which are difficult to articulate and would be too large and time consuming, if I could succeed in articulating and presenting them at all in any meaningful way. In that sense, part of my reason for believing are as Chesterton's, the irrationality of everything else. In that sense, he might say, if there is a thought that stops thought, why are we thinking it? As well, I am a critic, that is what I do, that is what my brain automatically does, it analyzes, takes apart and weighs ideas just because, so my interest lies in critiquing which requires that I throw out ideas to be critiqued, or other ideas are provided for me to be able to do so and I prefer that those ideas be provided. All of that is not to say that I have no positive reasons for believing but to be honest, my positive reaons for believing may be meaningless or useless to you, I could not just state them point-blank.

Too, I have no interest in whether or not others believe or disbelieve, or perhaps otherwise stated, in proving myself. My interest lies primarily in knowledge itself so in that sense the appeal that lead me to find interest in responding to your essay would be in that it is of interest to show that if you are against something, that you should really understand as they do, what or who you are against. If you do not, then you are fighting or seeking to disprove a strawman and it is a waste of time in the end, alot of energy expended for no reason so my only interest would be in clarifying and disproving, not in proving anything, or if proving anything, proving that your understanding needs clarification and to be honest, I don't care who or what you are against or if you remain against it, I care only that understanding be had if understanding can be had and that's assuming that it's true that there is understanding to be hand and that I am correct in my understanding, even in my understanding that there is understanding to be had, I could be wrong. I can also be long-winded and on certain lines of thought, I can become a gibbering lunatic before one's very eyes. :D

Well, it could be added as well that all things are just pieces to a whole. In that sense, the first thing for someone in my position might think to do is to prove that your objections to the faith aren't objections to the faith but objections to what you think the faith is. Secondly, that some of your objections are valid, the things that you object to are objectionable, but unless the Faith is what you think it is, then they have no bearing on the Faith at all. I could say to any given atheist, you speak truths that I recognize as truths, and it is true, many of them do, however, we would need to identify what those truths would be, as considered truths by you and I, and then see why it is that my formulations and conclusions are different than yours, or perhaps how these truths can be re-formulated or reconstructed so that they equal mine. As for the pieces of a whole bit, this is one piece. Another piece would be whether or not belief in God is justifiable, another piece would be what reasons are good enough to cause one to believe. There are many, many more pieces, of course.

Unfortunately, all of that is dependent upon whether or not I care about proving such things, which I don't. My motives are usually primarily selfish, as most motives are, well, I would say all are, to be honest. My interest in discussions are usually: to relieve boredom, as an intellectual exercise for me and to gain more knowledge. I don't have to prove pieces of the whole, but I would say that understanding pieces, piece by piece, is a good way to go about understanding the whole, nay, perhaps necessary so in that sense a discussion of the faith would be by extension, actually a means to an end, so that eventually you may see the whole (the whole: that God exists, etc), so such a discussion would have it's purpose, albeit, the purpose may only be realized several months or years down the line, if ever.

You said in your first post in this thread that your reasons for believing are different from mine, though mine are those presented by the Church in the Catechism:

The problem is that sometimes context, more surrounding information and further insights means that some things are open to a certain amount of interpretation, or at least, open to be understood in a different context, or perhaps, the intended context. Understanding why the Church would state things as such, understanding the language she uses to say as much, and on what other information she bases such claims on are oftentimes necessary to understand her and what she means by any given statement. Context is key, God is in the details.

[Sweetie]

Don't worry Joe. I get that from Sweetie's posts all the time.

Ah, Adora-ble, *cutesy*, I so missed you. Truly, how much fun is it for us if there is no antagonism, no tantrums, no pre-emptive striking as a means of self-protection usually used to hide something or to attack first so as not to be able to be attacked, hit them first so they are a bit handicapped if they attempt to hit you, type of thing, could be several different reasons for it. You're an interesting person to study, at least and variety is always good, of course, the spice of life.

[Zoot]

In that sense, part of my reason for believing are as Chesterton's, the irrationality of everything else.

Can you enlarge on this?

[Zatarra]

Sweetie,

Even if all the difficulties with the content of the Faith were resolved somehow, it would be pointless if I had no reason to believe it's true. I am not interested in the philosophical conversation for its own sake, but rather to determine with greater certainty whether I have made the right decision to apostasize. If you can't offer anything better what Chesterton present in Orthodoxy, which seems reasonable considering your professed inability to formulate your own reasons, I'm afraid you could not convince me of the truth of the Faith.

I find your writing style to be extremely confusing, but the way. :tumble:

[Zoot]

That's the thing. So many arguments are whether or not a religion is coherent, the whole question of whether or not there's any reason to believe it gets lost. People argue that a loving God could or could not create eternal torment. They spend so much time arguing about that, there's no time left to talk about why on earth anyone should believe that such a God, either way, exists.

[Sweetie]

I am not interested in the philosophical conversation for its own sake, but rather to determine with greater certainty whether I have made the right decision to apostasize.

Honestly David, the right decision to apostasize what?

If you can't offer anything better what Chesterton present in Orthodoxy, which seems reasonable considering your professed inability to formulate your own reasons,

That was uncalled for, to be honest, I think. I did not say I had no reasons, I said that I have difficulty articulating them in any meaningful way to translate to you who seems to need almost everything from beginning to end on the subject of theism and Christianity revisited, philosophical concepts as well.

I'm afraid you could not convince me of the truth of the Faith.

Ack, I'm afraid I stated that I did not want to or care to. I'm afraid that this just ties in to the rest of your difficulties of being certain where you cannot be certain. You are certain that "I could not convince you of the truth of the Faith." I am certain that after only a handful of posts, you could not make such a pronouncement.

I find your writing style to be extremely confusing, but the way. :tumble:

Yes, me too. Perhaps that is consistent with my own admittance of having difficulty with articulating some things?

Anyways David, if I must try to prove to you that God exists or there is no worthwhile discussion to be had, well, then there is no worthwhile discussion to be had. Good luck in your journey, however.

[Sweetie]

That's the thing. So many arguments are whether or not a religion is coherent, the whole question of whether or not there's any reason to believe it gets lost. People argue that a loving God could or could not create eternal torment. They spend so much time arguing about that, there's no time left to talk about why on earth anyone should believe that such a God, either way, exists.

Yes, I realize that the concept of a God at all is incomprehensible, but those discussions are like pulling out teeth. :wink:

[Sweetie]

Can you enlarge on this?

Well, let's see. I posted in a thread about why David is no longer Catholic. Then, I asked him if he wanted to discuss the content of his essay. Of course, he said, which is why it was presented. A quick discussion about what he considers bad reasons for believing, which we, at least for the most part, happen to agree on and then next, jumping in to Original Sin and hell. Now, however, he does not actually want to discuss the content of his essay, which is fine, but instead, for why he should believe in God. You, as well, would like to take the thread from Why David is no longer Catholic, let's discuss his essay and his reasons to, Why Sweetie Is Catholic. If I wanted to have a large drawn out discussion about why I am Catholic, I would most likely start a thread like this one or like the one you started, but I have not, so can I enlarge on that? Yes, I can. Do I want to?

[Zatarra]

Honestly David, the right decision to apostasize what?
Huh? Apostasize is an intransitive verb; there is never an object. To apostasize is to leave the Church, renounce one's former faith, etc.

That was uncalled for, to be honest, I think. I did not say I had no reasons, I said that I have difficulty articulating them in any meaningful way to translate to you who seems to need almost everything from beginning to end on the subject of theism and Christianity revisited, philosophical concepts as well.
You yourself said you couldn't clearly articulate your reasons. I don't see what is offensive in concluding that I myself would not understand your reasons if you can't explain them in a way I can comprehend.

Ack, I'm afraid I stated that I did not want to or care to.
You should want to, at least in theory. Pope John Paul II puts an emphasis on modern evangelization.

I'm afraid that this just ties in to the rest of your difficulties of being certain where you cannot be certain. You are certain that "I could not convince you of the truth of the Faith." I am certain that after only a handful of posts, you could not make such a pronouncement.

Where do you get the idea that I am "certain" you could not convince me? Just because I don't qualify my statements with "I think", that doesn't mean I am certain of them. If you disagree, prove me wrong by giving me solid reason for believing the Catholic Faith to be true.

Anyways David, if I must try to prove to you that God exists or there is no worthwhile discussion to be had, well, then there is no worthwhile discussion to be had. Good luck in your journey, however.
You can try a different area, I suppose. Since Original Sin is listed first, I've already discussed it with several people on another site, and its come to an impasse. Since the Church does not condemn people who die before the age of reason to hell (though it doesn't actually say they go to heaven), that part of the issue becomes moot. And then it becomes not much different from been affected by the actions of others, and then it just becomes the problem of evil, which I don't even discuss in my essay. So the Original Sin essay has been translated into a different issue, but perhaps there is another section of my essay you would like to address?

[Sweetie]

Huh? Apostasize is an intransitive verb; there is never an object. To apostasize is to leave the Church, renounce one's former faith, etc.

Yes, I was being unnecessarily anal. My reason for stating my question as such was that apostasy is to repudiate one's former religious beliefs, but an open question I have been asking is, were your former religious beliefs consistent with the Church's beliefs in the sense of, have you repudiated in reality, the Church's beliefs or only your former religious beliefs because the one may not be the same as the other? However, it does not matter, forgive me my anality, if that is a word. :D

You yourself said you couldn't clearly articulate your reasons. I don't see what is offensive in concluding that I myself would not understand your reasons if you can't explain them in a way I can comprehend.

My difficulty was with why we were focusing on my reasons for believing at all when we were to focus on your essay, that I had no intentions of trying to prove to you that God exists, that the Catholic Faith is true, so I wasn't sure why it even mattered if I could not. I haven't even tried and I had no intention of trying, but you are quite correct in that I do and have said clearly that I have difficult articulating such but then that took me back to the question of Chesterton and Newman and Aquinas, and the question is, in what way would it be possible that another can speak so that you could comprehend? Even if I could articulate so that others could comprehend, what do you need in order to be able to comprehend? I do not know, but I would think that the starting place would be comprehending some simple things in Church teaching, which is why I started there.

You should want to, at least in theory. Pope John Paul II puts an emphasis on modern evangelization.

What is it to evangelize, however, is another thing open to interpretation. As St. Francis said, evangelize always and sometimes use words. Too, to be honest, alot of people live with the notion that if someone loses faith, ack, it's bad. In that sense they do everything they can to avoid one leaving the faith even if they disagree with what the person believes, even to the point I think, that if the person was in a Christian cult, they would rather have that person in a cult but have faith, then anything else. I do not see things that way and I do not agree with that plan of action. I would rather have someone go and possibly come back with better thought out and healthier beliefs than to belong to something like that and not move in any way, holding faith just for the sake of holding on to the faith. As you say in your signature, it is only error that shrinks away from inquiry, not truth. If honest inquiry lead you out of the faith, it is honesty and inquiry that could lead you back, because I do agree with the quote, and I do think the Church in that sense, is not in error, time can only tell, and through all of that, honesty is still honesty and you can only be honest so even if you never make it back, I believe in a God who has nothing to blame the truly honest with.

So, the way I see things, I am only a source of ideas and information and so is everyone else. Everyone is to take that information and use it to make their own decisions, they do have the dignity and freedom of conscience, so in that sense I do not, nor can I, nor do I believe I could be effective as an evangelist, not in the sense that Evangelists mean it, not in the sense of causing conversions. My evangelism is presenting information, so in that sense I do evangelise, in every other way, I do not. That goes right back to, however, my own love of knowledge for knowledge's sake, and information for information's sake, understanding for understanding's sake if that makes any sense. In that sense, I want to discuss because there is something to be known, not because there is someone to convert or any other notion that the average Fundamentalist has. To me, education and more education really is an awesome, worthwhile and necessary thing, in any sphere, any science, something that the average Fundamentalist also shies away from, which I find distasteful, but hey, to a certain extent it's honest to the beliefs they hold at present so.

Where do you get the idea that I am "certain" you could not convince me? Just because I don't qualify my statements with "I think", that doesn't mean I am certain of them. If you disagree, prove me wrong by giving me solid reason for believing the Catholic Faith to be true.

LOL, ok, ok, I concede! I was wrong. :D

You can try a different area, I suppose. Since Original Sin is listed first, I've already discussed it with several people on another site, and its come to an impasse.

That does not mean that you will necessarily come to an impasse with me, of course. :wink:

Since the Church does not condemn people who die before the age of reason to hell (though it doesn't actually say they go to heaven), that part of the issue becomes moot.

Yes, that is true, but because all persons imbued with free-will are tested and since we cannot go to hell for something we didn't do nor can we go to heaven for something we didn't do, then I do not, nor do I think the Church does, know what necessarily becomes of those who die before the age of reason, before culpability can be assigned. I do wonder if there is a possible sphere of testing for those who were not tested on earth, but it is all indeed, speculation.

And then it becomes not much different from been affected by the actions of others, and then it just becomes the problem of evil, which I don't even discuss in my essay. So the Original Sin essay has been translated into a different issue, but perhaps there is another section of my essay you would like to address?

I'm not sure really, the problem of evil, Original Sin are really foundational issues. You can not really make sense I think, of even the Christology doctrines without understanding Original Sin, it's just really is a necessary thing to understand in order to understand almost everything of Catholic teaching, or at least the meaning of anything in Catholic teaching, even the Marian doctrines, the concept of mortal and venial sin, etc.

[Adora]

no tantrums, no pre-emptive striking as a means of self-protection
And maybe you missed Farren's post, but you should be worried when people say that the lucidity of your commentary is something that needs a mention. But hey, keep telling yourself that I am actually attacking you, and ignoring real facts about the Catholic church.

[Sweetie]

And maybe you missed Farren's post, but you should be worried when people say that the lucidity of your commentary is something that needs a mention.

Girl, you are so something else. I guess you didn't get your Christmas "socks" again this year.

But hey, keep telling yourself that I am actually attacking you, and ignoring real facts about the Catholic church.

LOL, well if I see any facts then I'll be worried. When you have information which you say that could be considered rumour or gossip, which isn't documented and which you don't have any evidence for whatsoever and you still consider it "fact", well, that's a little worrisome, to be honest. The most worrisome thing is though, about those specific "facts" are that even if they were true, you don't recognize that they would make no difference to any part of my belief system whatsoever and why you think they should is mind-boggling, unless of course, they were good enough to decimate your own previous belief system, but then it wasn't very well-constructed to begin with and who's fault would that be?

[Adora]

LOL, well if I see any facts then I'll be worried. When you have information which you say that could be considered rumour or gossip, which isn't documented and which you don't have any evidence for whatsoever and you still consider it "fact", well, that's a little worrisome, to be honest.
Oi, Sweetie, go back and read my comments regarding Vat II. And then, just for once, shut up, so that you can maybe bypass that "mouth/keyboards on fingers start, brain stop" problem you have. So then, maybe, if we're lucky, and it's a 13th blue moon, the fungus you pass off as a brain may get a jolt of useage.

If this works, you may learn not to confuse threads. But I guess that's hoping for a bit too much...

[Sweetie]

Oi, Sweetie, go back and read my comments regarding Vat II.

Your comment was that it seems like nobody had heard about Vatican II before, I'm sure you're the expert as always. :D I guess I must have missed one of your brilliant posts or something. Damn, I would have liked for there to have been one which might allow me to see you as something more than a petulant child and that you have actually something worthwhile to say that people might actually have any use for.

The problem is though, that if I continue to respond to you, you might actually get the idea that you have said something worth responding to. Also, I might be considered to be stooping to your level, and I have grown up in the last, oh, say I'm five years older than you, well then, ten years ago.

Honestly Adora, there is no chance of meaningful or useful conversation between you and I, and between you and, well, everybody else you have turned off with your, and I quote "alienating personality." I keep wanting to give you another chance so I can really see if you do indeed have something worthwhile to say and if you have something meaningful to convey to me that I might have use for, and I keep trying but I am at a loss, so, it bears repeating, there will no longer be any discussion of any sort between you and I. Continuing to be spiteful will not make you look any better, well, it will if you like looking like a petulant child.

Happy New Year

[Adora]

...there will no longer be any discussion of any sort between you and I.
Because, of course, any comment I make in a thread you're wanking in is only directed at you, and you only. I mean, it's not possible I could ever be making a comment towards David as well. Nooo, never. The universe revolves around you. How could anyone forget?

But continue with the diversion tactics Sweetie. They're amusing, to say the least.