DS (and others), please expand on this thought:

[PokerGoblin]

David,

A week and a half ago I read a post of yours where you stated:

[ QUOTE ]
I've realized for quite a few months now that Catholics are the least nuts of all the Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

This implies that you believe all Christians are nuts (which I might agree with to some degree), and Catholicism is the least idiotic of it's empire.

If you have time, would you mind expanding on why you believe this?

I am not Catholic (or a Christian) BTW. I would just like to hear your (and others) thoughts on this outside of the context of the post you were responding to at the time.

Thanks

PG

[Darryl_P]

I think he is simply saying that all religions make claims which are very, very unlikely when examined from a scientific perspective.

That is what makes the believers nuts.

Catholics have been able to come up with the most reasonable explanations for the stuff making it only very unlikely instead of very, very unlikely.

That is what makes them less nuts than the others.

I should point out that I do not agree with him (about the definition of nuts I suppose), because religious teachings are not meant to be taken so literally. There is a spiritual element which transcends the details and Sklansky is either sorely missing an ability to see this dimension or somehow strongly believes that it is superfluous and unnecessary because logic is the key tool you need to discover the axioms of life (starting from what I don't know because I always thought axioms were a required input to a logical thought process and not an output).

[RJT]

PG,

Without getting into too many details - it has to do with things like the following:

The Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is strictly literal (although some Catholics, I am sure, believe it is). Some Protestants read it no other way.

Without getting into which Protestant Churches believe what: some believe in predestination - that our place in the after-life is already destined, some think that through Faith alone and only Faith gets one past the Pearly Gates - that no amount of good works help to that regard.

I would guess David thinks the Catholic idea of transubstantiation is a bit more odd than the symbolic only Eucharist of some (all?) of the Protestants. Here I am sure it is a moot point for him.

David probably really likes the idea of our Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) where you can have lap dances all week, then confess that you were a bad boy and start over with a clean slate. (I must admit it is one of our more ingenious beliefs - quite handy too, especially when we hang out with the likes of you heathens. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] )

RJT

[ QUOTE ]
The Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is strictly literal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really think that is the point that David uses to support his statement. Unfortunately, I disagree strongly with David here. I think that if crazyness is equated with irrationality, then a bit like being preganant, it is not a matter of degree. The underlying psychological neurose will manifest itself in many ways. Indeed it seems that ultimately it permeates all aspects of experience, even in the face of contrary evidence. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
... our Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) where you can have lap dances all week, then confess that you were a bad boy and start over with a clean slate. (I must admit it is one of our more ingenious beliefs ...

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to me again an illustration/manifestation of the above mentionned crazyness. I mean, you must first instill/associate a notion of guilt with a pleasant and innocuous activity to create the need for "Reconciliation"! Now, I admit I may be wrong here, as I have never had the experience of a lap dance. I cannot truthfully say that I speak from knowledge. I just assume that it is somewhat similar to activities available in commercial establishment (of repute [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )that I have frequented, and is an activity which, in such establishments,is considered merely precursive or, for the more musically inclined, a prelude to much more satisfying moments. Moments, after which, I never experienced any feelings of guilt, on the contrary. I would say that the attempts at eliciting feelings of guilt after such wonderful gratification, must be an attempt at perverting an act so fundamental to living, thus rendering its associated pleasure more accute by introducing an element of masochism. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Zygote]

read all of sklansky's posts and your answer will be found!

[RJT]

MG,

Oh, don’t get me wrong - David still considers us a quite mad. Just not certifiable I am guessing. And/or he has Hamlet in mind a bit. There might be a bit more method to our madness than our Protestant brothers possess.

Now see MG, you can very easily imagine and just about got right the actual experience of said lap dances (not that I would necessarily know one way or the other - another good thing we have and is protected by the U. S. Constitution, priest-penitent privilege) . Yet, you waste your time not reaching for God that is also unknown and inexperienced by yourself. Such a pity that a great mind like yours lays fallow. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

RJT

[David Sklansky]

Everybody has got it wrong, which is irritating because I am now repeating myself. Catholics are less nuts because:

1. They admit that well meaning, smart and hopefully objective, evidence evaluators, without the "gift of faith", cannot be expected to THINK (as opposed to HOPE)that the specific beliefs of Catholics is more likely to be true than the sum total of all the other possibilities.

2. They believe that very selfless people who are not Catholic, or even Christian, can go to heaven.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Catholics are the least nuts of all the Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

That entirely depends whether he meant Roman Catholics or Greek Orthodox. If the latter, then I completely agree.

Scott

[ QUOTE ]
2. They believe that very selfless people who are not Catholic, or even Christian, can go to heaven

[/ QUOTE ]

David, I stand to be corrected, but I think you are wrong on this point. A sine qua non to enter paradise, afaik, is a baptism. If I do remember in the catholic comsmogony, there is another place, actually called limbo, for such infortunates, which is neither hell, nor purgatory, but doesn't have all the facilities/benefits/attraction of heaven.

If I am corrected then there has been a certain evolution in catholic doctrine which augurs well for the lesser crazyness argument.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Catholics have been able to come up with the most reasonable explanations for the stuff making it only very unlikely instead of very, very unlikely.


[/ QUOTE ]

Kierkegaard has them toasted on this one.

Scott