Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2015, 10:20 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 09:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 09:32 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Except when some people don't agree, in which case they're "humanitarian intervention'd" until they do.

Unlike when people disagreed with the Catholic Church and were burned at the stake.

There's a difference between upholding the law in your own country, and invading other countries, with no provocation, to forcefully subjugate them to your ideology/religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:21 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 10:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 10:00 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  The outward appearance of the atoms and quarks are still the accident, you troll, not the substance. You clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.


There's no problem with that specifically, it's just that the statement didn't make any damn sense. You're saying that the Council was valid because it was attended by bishops that were ordained before the Council, even though it would be impossible for any bishops to 'not' be ordained before the Council, unless they were ordained literally as the Council was being called. Do you get it now?


No, the Council was passed illegally, you retard.


Sorry again, bud. Dogmas don't invent anything new, they simply officially proclaim long-standing realities.


I'm not going to write a damn thirty page essay for you, personally, when there's a another, already created, source that presents the arguments completely, and in detail.


See above, you hopeless twat.

The statement "The Council was passed" is meaningless. It just proves you are a retard. The Council passed *documents* and constitutions and other things. Councils don't pass councils. You can find NOT ONE other person on the planet that says the "Council was passed". It's an incorrect and meaningless term. It's like saying the "senate was passed". A council is the BODY that does the passing. Idiot. Mybe you might take a class in the Church and actually learn something so you don't have to listen to little insane priests to tell you things you don't understand. Tongue

Terribly sorry. I didn't know why I thought you were smart enough to get what I meant. Once again, sorry about that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:23 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 10:20 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 09:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Unlike when people disagreed with the Catholic Church and were burned at the stake.

There's a difference between upholding the law in your own country, and invading other countries, with no provocation, to forcefully subjugate them to your ideology/religion.

Oh, you mean like the Crusades? Consider

Or invading other countries to stamp out 'heresies', like the Albigensian Crusade?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
26-02-2015, 10:24 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2015 10:27 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 10:15 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
Quote:You still have not defined "substance" and when you do reference your definition.
You are claiming there is something, (substances) that NOT ONE person on the face of the earth defines and YOU have no reference for your claim, and YOU cannot define "substance".

Actually, it's been defined many times before by Church philosophers and theologians, you moronic dip-fuck. Here's a vague summary of it: "The substance is the essence, the nature, of a thing which exists in its own right."

If you want a more detailed explanation of what it is, then read the part in Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica about it, and stop buggering me for a ten page explanation of what it is.

I don't give a flying fuck what "church" retards define. I only care about what is REAL. You have no evidence that there is a "substance" of something that "exists in it's own right". No one does. That ancient Greek dualism went out with the "vapours" causing illness. What are you ? Like 350 years old. You show me ONE piece of actual modern evidence or logic that shit makes ANY sense at all. No one takes that crap seriously today. We KNOW today what makes water different from steam. It's not the "essence" of water and the essence of steam, it's the molecular structure. The old boys that cooked up your bullshit did not know about that. Your saying that the "essence" of water changes when the molecualr structure changes. That's the most ridiculous pile of crap anyone has ever proposed.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:24 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 10:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 10:15 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Actually, it's been defined many times before by Church philosophers and theologians, you moronic dip-fuck. Here's a vague summary of it: "The substance is the essence, the nature, of a thing which exists in its own right."

If you want a more detailed explanation of what it is, then read the part in Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica about it, and stop buggering me for a ten page explanation of what it is.

There is no such thing as substance or essence apart from the thing itself. That Platonic bullshit is from the intellectual childhood of civilization.

I suggest you move beyond ancient and medieval philosophy and join the Enlightenment. In other words, time to grow up.

The "Enlightenment" was a bunch of authority defying, self-serving, self-masturbatory claptrap propagated by a bunch of overgrown children. The fact that you refer to anything before the Enlightenment as an "intellectual infancy" proves this still standing fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:24 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 10:18 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 09:57 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  That's a poor endorsement of an institution that explicitly declares itself infallible, demands its followers do as it says (but not, apparently, as it does), and claims supernatural facility that elevates it above the common capacities of fallible, mortal man.

That just ONE of its officers/representatives slipped through divine, "inerrant" screening makes an instant lie of its affectations, demolishes its credibility, reduces it to just another human institution as corrupt and fallible as any of them. That it wasn't one but thousands on par with general population statistics only makes the rubble, as Mr. Churchill said of another cataclysm of similar scale, bounce.

Yeah, no. The officials that represent, though trained to resist sin more resiliently than other men, are still men. No one ever claimed that they were morally infallible.

So that's why they won't turn over pedophile priests. They couldn't resist. Consider

But you're railing against what so many other Catholics consider the Vatican to represent, ie, infallible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:26 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 10:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 10:15 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Actually, it's been defined many times before by Church philosophers and theologians, you moronic dip-fuck. Here's a vague summary of it: "The substance is the essence, the nature, of a thing which exists in its own right."

If you want a more detailed explanation of what it is, then read the part in Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica about it, and stop buggering me for a ten page explanation of what it is.

I don't give a flying fuck what "church" retards define. I only care about what is REAL. You have no evidence that there is a "substance" of something that "exists in it's own right". No one does. That ancient Greek dualism went out with the "vapours" causing illness. What are you ? Like 350 years old. You show me ONE piece of actual modern evidence or logic that shit makes ANY sense at all. No one takes that crap seriously today.

The evidence for it is rooted in the validity of the Bible, and that's not the discussion right now, not to mention this wasn't even the original question anyway. You asked me to define, not to prove that it exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:26 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 10:24 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 10:18 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Yeah, no. The officials that represent, though trained to resist sin more resiliently than other men, are still men. No one ever claimed that they were morally infallible.

So that's why they won't turn over pedophile priests. They couldn't resist. Consider

But you're railing against what so many other Catholics consider the Vatican to represent, ie, infallible.

People consider priests infallible? Must've missed that lesson.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:29 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 10:26 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 10:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't give a flying fuck what "church" retards define. I only care about what is REAL. You have no evidence that there is a "substance" of something that "exists in it's own right". No one does. That ancient Greek dualism went out with the "vapours" causing illness. What are you ? Like 350 years old. You show me ONE piece of actual modern evidence or logic that shit makes ANY sense at all. No one takes that crap seriously today.

The evidence for it is rooted in the validity of the Bible, and that's not the discussion right now, not to mention this wasn't even the original question anyway. You asked me to define, not to prove that it exists.

You still have not defined it, or proven it exists. You knw NOTHING about the Bible. There is no "evidence" of anything in the Bible, and if there were it would be "circular" to claim it. You're a sad old man, living in the Middle Ages.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 10:30 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 10:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 10:26 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  The evidence for it is rooted in the validity of the Bible, and that's not the discussion right now, not to mention this wasn't even the original question anyway. You asked me to define, not to prove that it exists.

You still have not defined it, or proven it exists. You knw NOTHING about the Bible.

I 'have' defined it, and like I just said, proving it exists wasn't the original damn issue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: