Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2015, 03:18 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2015 06:07 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
@PP

Thanks for your review of Vatican II.

I wish you'd put it in spoilers because I haven't seen Vatican I yet.

However, based on that 4 point review, can I assume that Vatican I was:

1. Anti-unity / in favour of disunity?
2. Anti-freedom?
3. Totalitarian?
4. Procedurally compliant?

And can I also deduce from this that you are too?

Consider If so, I have a few follow-up questions I'd like to ask.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 04:53 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 02:24 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Seriously, I don't understand how this is even an issue to any outside observer. Look at what the Church was like in, say, the 18th century, and look it at now. How can you not notice the drastic changes?

I accept that some improvements have been made, but I think that clearly they still have a long way to go.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
28-02-2015, 05:37 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2015 05:43 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(27-02-2015 09:20 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Didn't Thunderf00t and Matt Dillahunty call each other lying, moronic, asshats? I wonder what happens to you guys when two of your living idols go against one another.

Who the hell are they and why should I give a fuck what they call each other?

(27-02-2015 08:39 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Welsh 'faggot': The god-like Gareth Thomas...

[Image: garth.jpg]

That guy looks like Stark when he runs out of weed.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
28-02-2015, 05:57 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2015 07:13 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 02:24 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  1) It teaches ecumenism, which goes against previous Church teaching.

The first Christians were still Jews for hundreds of years. Are you like totally ignorant of your own damn history ?

(28-02-2015 02:24 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  2) It teaches that religious freedom is an inalienable right granted by God, which goes against previous Church teaching.

Is your god SOOOOO fucking stupid she wouldn't know that someone who says they believe when they don't is being dishonest ?

(28-02-2015 02:24 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  3) It teaches that the government has no right to enforce religion in their laws, which contradicts previous Church teaching.

Which is precisely what Rome bitched about when Henry VIII did it in England and made "martyrs" of your cult members. That's only fine with you as long as it's YOUR religion, otherwise you whine to high heaven. What a fucking stupid thing to promote. Are you a member of ISIS ?

(28-02-2015 02:24 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  4) It wasn't called, or preformed, in accordance to the regulations of every other Council that's been passed before Vatican 2, in other words, it was called and preformed illegally.

It was called by Rome, (the Pope) just as all the others. This is just rationalization.

(28-02-2015 02:24 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Seriously, I don't understand how this is even an issue to any outside observer. Look at what the Church was like in, say, the 18th century, and look it at now. How can you not notice the drastic changes?

This could be said of EVERY 200 year period since the year your church (supposedly) started. The Church did not pop full blown from anywhere. It DEVELOPED slowly over time and CHANGED. It was NEVER at one point in history a static organization. You're simply lying to yourself, and utterly ignorant of History. You're picking out one particular point in the LONG development process and saying "there, that's the time I like", so that's what I want.

You are ignorant of history, ignorant of your own cult, and willfully delusional. You want to refuse to accept because of you sinful pride, and you are using any means possible at your disposal to rationalize it to yourself. You need to go to Faaaather, and confess your sins. Tongue Shame on you. Maybe the BVM can intercede for you. Rolleyes

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
28-02-2015, 06:12 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2015 06:18 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(27-02-2015 12:03 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  2) Why would a philosophical theory have any grounding in natural sciences? That's about as stupid as saying an archaeological discovery has to be proven with algebra.

Not a big fan of algebra, skippy?

[Image: carbon.gif]

Without algebra archaeology is reduced to "Ooooohhh, that looks old."

And without a foundation in natural sciences philosophy is reduced to:




Are all Catholics as philosophically, scientifically and mathematically ignorant as you?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
28-02-2015, 07:02 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 06:12 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  ...
Are all Catholics as philosophically, scientifically and mathematically ignorant as you?

In my experience ... that's an absolute "YES"!

But it is ignorance and it's not stupidity. They (I'm mainly referring to young filipinas) simply have not been exposed to better ways of thinking or better sources of knowledge.

In other words, victims, for generation after generation after generation, of child abuse.

Meanwhile the good news: The Internet.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
28-02-2015, 08:13 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 02:24 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  ... Look at what the Church was like in, say, the 18th century, and look it at now. How can you not notice the drastic changes?

Following a series of posts disparaging the age of enlightenment we get this, a genuine nostalgia for the dark ages. A mind like that can't be mocked, but certainly pitied. Wow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Airportkid's post
28-02-2015, 01:33 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 08:13 AM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 02:24 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  ... Look at what the Church was like in, say, the 18th century, and look it at now. How can you not notice the drastic changes?

Following a series of posts disparaging the age of enlightenment we get this, a genuine nostalgia for the dark ages. A mind like that can't be mocked, but certainly pitied. Wow.

The Dark Ages ended at the end of the Early Middle Ages, centuries before the 18th century, so you didn't even get the first part right. As for your Enlightenment sperging, and disdain for everything that came before, you pretty much demonstrated exactly why I don't like the Enlightenment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Quote:Without algebra archaeology is reduced to "Ooooohhh, that looks old."

That is the most pig-headed oversimplification of archaeology I've ever seen.

Quote:And without a foundation in natural sciences philosophy is reduced to:

So, you believe that logic is literally useless without a foundation in natural sciences? Good to know how completely insane you are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 01:49 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2015 01:57 PM by PetrovPolak.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 05:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 02:24 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  1) It teaches ecumenism, which goes against previous Church teaching.

The first Christians were still Jews for hundreds of years. Are you like totally ignorant of your own damn history ?

(28-02-2015 02:24 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  2) It teaches that religious freedom is an inalienable right granted by God, which goes against previous Church teaching.

Is your god SOOOOO fucking stupid she wouldn't know that someone who says they believe when they don't is being dishonest ?

(28-02-2015 02:24 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  3) It teaches that the government has no right to enforce religion in their laws, which contradicts previous Church teaching.

Which is precisely what Rome bitched about when Henry VIII did it in England and made "martyrs" of your cult members. That's only fine with you as long as it's YOUR religion, otherwise you whine to high heaven. What a fucking stupid thing to promote. Are you a member of ISIS ?

(28-02-2015 02:24 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  4) It wasn't called, or preformed, in accordance to the regulations of every other Council that's been passed before Vatican 2, in other words, it was called and preformed illegally.

It was called by Rome, (the Pope) just as all the others. This is just rationalization.

(28-02-2015 02:24 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Seriously, I don't understand how this is even an issue to any outside observer. Look at what the Church was like in, say, the 18th century, and look it at now. How can you not notice the drastic changes?

This could be said of EVERY 200 year period since the year your church (supposedly) started. The Church did not pop full blown from anywhere. It DEVELOPED slowly over time and CHANGED. It was NEVER at one point in history a static organization. You're simply lying to yourself, and utterly ignorant of History. You're picking out one particular point in the LONG development process and saying "there, that's the time I like", so that's what I want.

You are ignorant of history, ignorant of your own cult, and willfully delusional. You want to refuse to accept because of you sinful pride, and you are using any means possible at your disposal to rationalize it to yourself. You need to go to Faaaather, and confess your sins. Tongue Shame on you. Maybe the BVM can intercede for you. Rolleyes

Quote:The first Christians were still Jews for hundreds of years. Are you like totally ignorant of your own damn history ?

What does that have to do with anything? Do you even know what ecumenicism means?

Quote:Is your god SOOOOO fucking stupid she wouldn't know that someone who says they believe when they don't is being dishonest ?

Once again, what does that have to do with the part you quoted?

Quote:That's only fine with you as long as it's YOUR religion,


Well, obviously, as our religion is the right one. There's no relativism to be had when it comes to truth, you ingrate.

Besides, I doubt you'd be okay with a dictatorship existing instead of a democracy, so by that logic, you're only okay with a government enforcing rules as long as the government is in line with 'your' ideology, as well.

Quote:It was called by Rome, (the Pope) just as all the others. This is just rationalization.

That's actually a common misconception, one that even some Catholic theologians make. A Council isn't automatically a Council just because it's called by the Pope. The First Council of Nicaea was called by the 'Roman Emperor', not the Pope, and yet, it's still considered valid.

You're also ignoring the procedures that take place while the Council is in progress, as well.

Quote:This could be said of EVERY 200 year period since the year your church (supposedly) started. The Church did not pop full blown from anywhere. It DEVELOPED slowly over time and CHANGED. It was NEVER at one point in history a static organization. You're simply lying to yourself, and utterly ignorant of History. You're picking out one particular point in the LONG development process and saying "there, that's the time I like", so that's what I want.

You are ignorant of history, ignorant of your own cult, and willfully delusional. You want to refuse to accept because of you sinful pride, and you are using any means possible at your disposal to rationalize it to yourself. You need to go to Faaaather, and confess your sins. Tongue Shame on you. Maybe the BVM can intercede for you. Rolleyes

Blah, blah, fucking blah. More pig-headed horseshit, and unsupported, paragraph-long rhetorics, from one of the stupidest atheists I've met in a long time....and that's saying something.

It declared new doctrines throughout history in order to acknowledge already long-standing theological realities, however, it always maintained the same spirit, traditions, and basic teachings. It never deviated into the secularist, hyper-tolerant, 'nice' Church that it is today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: