Errors in moral reasoning

[temporal1]

Page 11:

Max wrote:
I think it's a mistake to jump on any words of Francis' immediately.
He has trouble expressing himself without someone misinterpreting.

That said, whenever bits like this hit the press, I always, always wait for the other shoe to drop:
the clarification of what he had wanted to say and that has been done in the past week or so.

Benedict did not have this problem so much.
He was very clear, if tedious in his explanations of church doctrine so that there was no doubt from the outset of what he was trying to say.

Benedict understood the sound byte mindset of the press regarding Catholic doctrine.
Very rarely was he misinterpreted re Catholic doctrine.

Francis' off the cuff habits when speaking on church teaching hurt more than help.

i was hoping you would read (above).
Pope Francis can be confusing, and, without doubt, the press, social media, political activists, are at-the-ready to jump on anything/anyone to exploit for their own interests!

(Teen Nick Sandmann continues to receive vindication of accusations.)

i’m seeing Pope Francis as quite a Biblical philosopher, which isn’t the greatest thing to be as pope.
philosophy is not a discipline well served by the “sound byte mindset.”

Jesus, did not communicate like an intellectual, He was purposely was approachable, even by the illiterate, i.e., the majority of people at the time. Jesus is the ultimate intellectual, but is not hamstrung with His own perfection. Even this is part of the miracle He is.

i am curious about the imam’s response.
for me, the various Christian responses are pretty much predictable.
i would guess the imam would be (detached?) from the Pope’s understanding? i do not know.
i have not read a word on the imam’s perspective. possibly, several reactions were stirred. i would be surprised if any of his reactions were “agreement.”



1219 / “St. Francis risks his life in visit to Egypt” (SLO 2013 article)
https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/loca ... 40283.html

[MaxPC]

Yet Jesus spoke in parables and even scared away some disciples with His words about consuming His flesh as cannibalism was strictly verboten in the Jewish faith.

Even His own apostles struggled to understand Jesus. Such is the limited nature of the human mind.

Pope Francis is less of a philosopher and more truly a diplomat and arbiter. He has never been known for his philosophical works.

[temporal1]

Yet Jesus spoke in parables and even scared away some disciples with His words about consuming His flesh as cannibalism was strictly verboten in the Jewish faith.

Even His own apostles struggled to understand Jesus. Such is the limited nature of the human mind.

Pope Francis is less of a philosopher and more truly a diplomat and arbiter. He has never been known for his philosophical works.

i see this. i did not intend to say Pope Francis is a good philosopher!
he seems to get tripped up in his words, as many of us do.

in his position, many search for inspiration in every word he speaks. unrealistic.
i sometimes wonder if English as a Second Language is a factor.

1219
from the little i’ve read, it seems, St Francis visited with a clear mission to convert.
this is different from Pope Francis’ mission to .. (include?)

[MaxPC]

in his position, many search for inspiration in every word he speaks. unrealistic.
i sometimes wonder if English as a Second Language is a factor.

Perhaps but it’s also the lack of context when the press cuts sound bytes and visual bytes as they did with Sandmann and friends.

I also don’t think many seek inspiration from Francis at all. Instead they’re looking for an authority to affirm their own personal world view. It’s the liberals in the church who have twisted Francis’ words the most in order to promote their own agenda. Then the conservatives react to the misinformation and as the popular saying implies, you know what rolls down hill from there.

In the case of this meeting, Pope Francis is acting as arbiter/diplomat in an effort to curry protection of the persecuted Christian communities of the Middle East who are being murdered almost daily. Pope Francis is not seeking conversion; he’s seeking cooperation from Islamic leadership. The press doesn’t care about Christians being murdered: they only want headlines for profits.

Like I said, I prefer to wait for the other shoe to drop and more of the bigger picture emerges. Only time will tell how faithful Francis is.

[temporal1]

in his position, many search for inspiration in every word he speaks. unrealistic.
i sometimes wonder if English as a Second Language is a factor.

Perhaps but it’s also the lack of context when the press cuts sound bytes and visual bytes as the do’s with Sandmann and friends.

I also don’t think many seek inspiration from Francis at all. Instead they’re looking for an authority to affirm their own personal world view. It’s the liberals in the church who have twisted Francis’ words the most in order to promote their own agenda. Then the conservatives react to the misinformation and as the popular saying implies, you know what rolls down hill from there.

Like I said, I prefer to wait for the other shoe to drop and more of the bigger picture emerges

Only time will tell how faithful Francis is.

i do not question his intent.

[Outsider]

I've only read the first couple of pages in this thread, and it seems that "bootstrap" seems to feel that "Antifa" is somehow morally superior to the racists, which is an error- and an example of putting one virtue (being against racism) above other virtues which neither side in the Charlotte misadventures care for. As the original poster noted, most people are against racism in this day and age. "Antifa" is not exceptional in their antipathy towards that discredited bit of 18th-century "science"- they are exceptional in their hostility to free speech, religious convictions, and in their willingness- no- their lust to express their hostility through violence.

"Antifa" is the most ironic of names for these ignorant people to have adopted for their group, as their ideology is boot step-by-boot step consistent with Mussolini's fascism. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto ) They don't even have enough historical sensibility to know the difference between the ideology they ignorantly mimic and the Nazi party of Germany.

I've read articles proclaiming that the racists are a bigger threat to a free and civil society, but I disagree. The racists are in decline and have been during the entire course of my life. The racist clown JB Stoner couldn't get elected governor in the heart of the South when the media was forced to give him free time on television when the law forced them to air every candidate's message- even if it was disagreeable. The Nazis, the Klan, and every hint of racism is pounced on and denounced unendingly by both left and right in the public square. However, there is a deafening silence in the MSM about the offenses of Antifa and their fellow-travelers, and they actually have the full support of many of those reporting on them.

Try to go to a college campus to preach the Gospel- they will meet you. Advocate for the lives of the unborn- they will attack you. Suggest there are basic differences between men and women- and you will be assaulted. Suggest that GLBTQ-whatever people might not be perfect as they are, or that Christ could heal them, and you are their enemy.

The racists don't get a free pass by anybody. But Antifa isn't, to my knowledge, taken to task by anyone in the MSM.

So yes, Antifa is as evil as the Nazis they despise- just as Stalin was as evil as Hitler.

[Bootstrap]

I've only read the first couple of pages in this thread, and it seems that "bootstrap" seems to feel that "Antifa" is somehow morally superior to the racists ...

I don't think I said that. Could you please quote the thing that you are responding to? Some of this is old, I know more about Antifa now than I did then, but I don't think I ever said anything like "morally superior".

Here's what I think you are responding to, the first post in the thread. Can you be specific about what you disagree with?

There is a tendency to interpret the criticism of one aspect of a position or action or event as a corresponding support for or justification for the other side. We see this repeated over and over in the near universal criticism of Trump's statements on Charlottesville.

Could you please make a bullet point list of what you think was wrong on each side? And ditto for everyone who is trying to be careful to point out what both sides did wrong?

When I do that, I see some overlap - it was wrong for Antifa to attempt to combat racist terrorism with violence, and both sides used clubs and chemicals. But I also see the white extremists doing a lot of terribly wrong things that Antifa did not do. I'm not sure if you see those things or not. I think Peter does. And I am not hearing a clear condemnation of those things from you or Robert or Mike. The overwhelming message seems to be, "well, it all balances out".

As for Donald Trump's statements, the people who have criticized his statements now include five of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, many people on Trump's CEO council, and many Republicans - including the leaders of both houses, two former Republican presidents, and the last two Republican candidates. Donald Trump is not a person who normally has difficulty with clear condemnations. He has been more scathing toward many members of his own party and people who work for him. These groups claim that they are supporting his program, and that they are the ones who got him elected. He should clearly tell them not to use his name, and that he does not support them.

The people who have praised Donald Trump's statements on Charlottesville include David Duke, a former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and the Daily Stormer. Here's what they had to say:

[Bootstrap]

I've read articles proclaiming that the racists are a bigger threat to a free and civil society, but I disagree. The racists are in decline and have been during the entire course of my life.

Would you agree that we need to combat violence by any group?

Do you believe the FBI and law enforcement are probably the best sources to tell us who is committing the most violence? Would it be helpful to list the acts of white supremacist violence in the last two weeks?

The racists don't get a free pass by anybody.

Look at the tweet in my previous post. They do. Or look at Trump's tweets during the recent events in Portland. Some people ARE taking Antifa to task but letting violent white supremacists off the hook.

[PetrChelcicky]

Do we need to "combat" violence?
I'd prefer to say "overcome" violence or "desiccate" violence.
Also, I think that violence stems from embitterment, so I for myself say "de-bitter" people.
In all cases, we have to understand the situational logic and the emotions of the violent people.

[Hats Off]

Do we need to "combat" violence?
I'd prefer to say "overcome" violence or "desiccate" violence.
Also, I think that violence stems from embitterment, so I for myself say "de-bitter" people.
In all cases, we have to understand the situational logic and the emotions of the violent people.

And how do we de-bitter people? By teaching them love!