Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-03-2015, 12:54 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 12:37 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 11:43 PM)morondog Wrote:  And... where do Church teachings come from? The anuses... (ani?) of the various Popes what came before? Anyway surely it causes you a little tiny bit of cognitive dissonance when el Papa says 'condoms might be justifiable but only for male prostitutes' Big Grin

Ah, I see, so burning people at the stake is actually *good* for them. Pull the other one sunshine, it's got bells on. In *this* world, which is the only one I see despite strenuous efforts by you and others to pretend there is another one, *you guys stink*. If that's the price of getting into heaven then fuck alla you.

Quote:And... where do Church teachings come from? The anuses... (ani?) of the various Popes what came before? Anyway surely it causes you a little tiny bit of cognitive dissonance when el Papa says 'condoms might be justifiable but only for male prostitutes' Big Grin

Actually they come from Ecumenical Councils, and other dogmatic declarations.

Quote:Ah, I see, so burning people at the stake is actually *good* for them.

No, it's not good for the heretics, it's good for people 'other' than the heretics, since it prevents them from becoming heretics.

"No, it's not good for the heretics, it's good for people 'other' than the heretics, since it prevents them from becoming heretics."

PP, do you know what a logical fallacy is? This quote from you is a classic logical fallacy. It's known as the argumentum ad baculum....

Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for "argument to the cudgel" or "appeal to the stick"), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification. It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences. For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the "Might Makes Right" fallacy.

A fallacious argument based on argumentum ad baculum generally proceeds as follows:

If x accepts P as true, then Q.
Q is a punishment on x.
Therefore, P is not true.
This form of argument is an informal fallacy, because the attack Q may not necessarily reveal anything about the truth value of the premise P. This fallacy has been identified since the Middle Ages by many philosophers. This is a special case of argumentum ad consequentiam, or "appeal to consequences".

I hope there weren't too many big words or concepts in there for you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
12-03-2015, 12:56 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 12:43 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  ...
Once again, 'authoritarianism' is actually the correct term.

Once again, it's the politically correct term but as you previously described your goals, totalitarian also applies.

(12-03-2015 12:43 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
DLJ Wrote:c) Will it involve bloodshed (again) e.g. Rwanda?

Hopefully not, but then again, if secularist revolutionaries can use violence to get rid of the Catholic state, then I see no reason why violence can't be used to reestablish it either.

I am proud of my father's war record (DFC) against Nazi/Catholic totalitarianism. If your prediction comes true, perhaps I'll be following in his footsteps.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
12-03-2015, 01:01 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 12:37 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
Quote:And... where do Church teachings come from? The anuses... (ani?) of the various Popes what came before? Anyway surely it causes you a little tiny bit of cognitive dissonance when el Papa says 'condoms might be justifiable but only for male prostitutes' Big Grin
Actually they come from Ecumenical Councils, and other dogmatic declarations.
Ever heard the phrase "The camel is a horse designed by a committee"? I think I understand better now why your Church is so bananas.

Quote:
Quote:Ah, I see, so burning people at the stake is actually *good* for them.

No, it's not good for the heretics, it's good for people 'other' than the heretics, since it prevents them from becoming heretics.
Funny that. You guys toasted lots of people and look where it got you Smile Fear is not an effective means of social control, not only that, it doesn't make you right, it means that you suck. If the only way you can get people to agree that you're right is by killing your detractors, if you're *that scared* of reasoned argument, you pretty much gotta know that your stuff is all smoke and mirrors. Real magicians aren't scared of people looking behind the curtain. Charlatans are.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
12-03-2015, 01:09 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(11-03-2015 04:52 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(10-03-2015 05:59 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  It seems as though, according to PP, "the Sexual Revolution" has been going on for a while now. Those goddam secularists with their penises and affection for little boys' bottoms obviously keep polluting the ranks of the Catholic clergy....yet...

Sexual abuse of children and young adolescents by Catholic priests and monks has been documented since the medieval era, when it was commonplace. Bishops weren’t as preoccupied with secrecy as they are today, so it was openly discussed with the public. At the Synod of Elvira in 306 CE, it was decided
“Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune even when death approaches.” (http://www.stopthereligiousright.org/elvira.htm). Withholding communion may have been a big deal in the fourth century, but that would hardly have deterred any offenders.

At the third Lateran council of 1138 CE, it was decided that clerics who engaged in pederasty (sexual activity between a man and a boy) were to be dismissed from the clerical state or else confined to monasteries to do penance, but in practice, perpetrators were rarely punished.

Defenseless kids had few rights and no one in power willing to help them, and their parents were in a similar position. It’s not surprising that pedophilia was often almost regarded as part of a cleric’s job if the priest was so inclined, and the legislation didn’t deter them. In some monasteries, monks’ “lapses” with boys were so commonplace they were endemic.

One of the reasons Martin Luther rejected mandatory celibacy was he knew that Catholic clerics commonly had sexual relations with other men, women, and children.

In the 1950’s, Reverend Gerald Fitzgerald, a Catholic priest, founded “the Servants of the Paraclete,” an order that tried to rehabilitate errant priests with psycho-social problems. They ran treatment facilities in New Mexico, Missouri and California. Their existence was well known to all US bishops. Reverend Fitzgerald thought he could help priests with drug and alcohol issues, but soon lost confidence in his ability to change pedophile priests’ behavior. In 1957, Reverend Fitzgerald wrote to Archbishop Edwin Byrne that he thought it unwise to
“offer hospitality to men who have seduced or attempted to seduce little boys or girls.”

Reverend Fitzgerald went on,
“If I were a bishop, I would tremble when I failed to report them to Rome for involuntary laicization. Experience has taught us these men are too dangerous to the children of the parish and the neighborhood for us to be justified in receiving them here…They should ipso facto be reduced to laymen when they act thus.”

Reverend Fitzgerald had discovered for himself what most of the world now knows: pedophiles are usually unstoppably recidivist. He told the Vatican that pedophile activity among Catholic priests was rampant. (http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Senior-...lfounded).

One of Reverend Fitzgerald’s suggested solutions was that the Vatican could acquire a deserted Caribbean island to exile the offenders. This idea was ignored, probably because priests on a deserted island could only drain the church’s coffers, and would have been hard to explain to the world’s press. Reverend Fitzgerald was trying to protect children, yet he should have recommended a criminal trial for pedophile offenders.

PP, you wrote
"Although, if you dispute this, could you mind explaining why this wasn't even an issue 'until' the Sexual Revolution happened."

Which "Sexual Revolution" might you be referring to? The one in the 300's CE? The one in the 1100's CE? The one in Martin Luther's time? The one in the 1950s? Or the one in the 1960s, 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's plus?

It seems that there has always been a sexual revolution in secularist society that the Catholic Church would like to blame for all their paedophiles!

Has it occurred to you that just maybe your blessed sacred Catholic Church has always been a mecca for paedophiles, and in particular homosexual paedophiles? There was (until recently) no better safe haven, if you were a child molester, than the priestly garb of the RC church.

Wake up to reality you pathetic fanboy. Your church has been running a worldwide sanctuary for paedophiles. Your church is evil.


Quote:It seems as though, according to PP, "the Sexual Revolution" has been going on for a while now. Those goddam secularists with their penises and affection for little boys' bottoms obviously keep polluting the ranks of the Catholic clergy....yet...

Sexual abuse of children and young adolescents by Catholic priests and monks has been documented since the medieval era, when it was commonplace. Bishops weren’t as preoccupied with secrecy as they are today, so it was openly discussed with the public. At the Synod of Elvira in 306 CE, it was decided
“Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune even when death approaches.” (http://www.stopthereligiousright.org/elvira.htm). Withholding communion may have been a big deal in the fourth century, but that would hardly have deterred any offenders.

At the third Lateran council of 1138 CE, it was decided that clerics who engaged in pederasty (sexual activity between a man and a boy) were to be dismissed from the clerical state or else confined to monasteries to do penance

I fail to see how the Councils banning pederasty is equivalent to them admitting it was an epidemic.

Quote:but in practice, perpetrators were rarely punished.

Defenseless kids had few rights and no one in power willing to help them, and their parents were in a similar position. It’s not surprising that pedophilia was often almost regarded as part of a cleric’s job if the priest was so inclined, and the legislation didn’t deter them. In some monasteries, monks’ “lapses” with boys were so commonplace they were endemic.

I would ask for a source on this, considering that you have a nasty habit of posting links that don't work.

Quote: One of the reasons Martin Luther rejected mandatory celibacy was he knew that Catholic clerics commonly had sexual relations with other men, women, and children.

What, you mean that one guy who's Protestant Revolution ended up destroying Christendom, and killing hundreds of thousands? Why would I care about what that heretic had to say?

Quote:In the 1950’s, Reverend Gerald Fitzgerald, a Catholic priest, founded “the Servants of the Paraclete,” an order that tried to rehabilitate errant priests with psycho-social problems. They ran treatment facilities in New Mexico, Missouri and California. Their existence was well known to all US bishops. Reverend Fitzgerald thought he could help priests with drug and alcohol issues, but soon lost confidence in his ability to change pedophile priests’ behavior. In 1957, Reverend Fitzgerald wrote to Archbishop Edwin Byrne that he thought it unwise to
“offer hospitality to men who have seduced or attempted to seduce little boys or girls.”


Not that it makes it right, but you do realize that sending sexual abusers to get psychiatric treatment instead of sending them to jail was the standard method of dealing with that sort of thing back in the 50's, right? Everyone did it, businesses, schools, ect.

Quote:Which "Sexual Revolution" might you be referring to? The one in the 300's CE? The one in the 1100's CE? The one in Martin Luther's time? The one in the 1950s? Or the one in the 1960s, 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's plus?

The one that succeeded, sadly, in the 60's.

Quote:Has it occurred to you that just maybe your blessed sacred Catholic Church has always been a mecca for paedophiles, and in particular homosexual paedophiles?.

Has it occurred to you that you're completely fucking insane?

"Has it occurred to you that you're completely fucking insane?"

PP, please keep posting. You're just so brainwashed and stupid you're interesting. You're like a bigoted uneducated leftover from the European Catholic Middle Ages, who when he hasn't got anything clever to say, becomes aggressive. I honestly didn't think people like you still existed. How have you managed so far to not get locked up?

I can't wait to read what you say nextLaugh out load
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
12-03-2015, 01:11 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
PS: Bonus question Petrov: *Why* is it perfectly OK to ignore the commandment to love your neighbour as yourself, to turn the other cheek and to love your enemies in favour of killing heretics? What allows people to explicitly go against the very words of Christ and still call themselves Christian. How dare anyone, even the Pope, subvert the gospel?

You're coming across pretty goddamn hypocritical standing there justifying religious killing when your own deity told you clearly not to.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
12-03-2015, 01:20 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
PS PS: I've come across protestants who condemn various practices as 'heretical'. I'd be interested to know how you decide who's the heretic?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
12-03-2015, 01:23 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 01:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  PS: Bonus question Petrov: *Why* is it perfectly OK to ignore the commandment to love your neighbour as yourself, to turn the other cheek and to love your enemies in favour of killing heretics? What allows people to explicitly go against the very words of Christ and still call themselves Christian. How dare anyone, even the Pope, subvert the gospel?

You're coming across pretty goddamn hypocritical standing there justifying religious killing when your own deity told you clearly not to.

For PP it's all about the Vatican. He likes to think he's part of the old boy club. He imagines that one day he'll be in control of a world that he just doesn't like.

What he doesn't get is that he is at the bottom of the pile, and is being used by his blessed Vatican. Bishops refer to the crowds as the rabble and "fools." PP is more credulous than most, and... he's been hit heavily with the arse licking stick. PP likes to think he is part of the in crowd but the Vatican is pissing itself laughing behind the backs of people like him.

Jeebus is too intangible for PP. He needs a good strong organisation to feel secure. To hell with that love one another stuff.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
12-03-2015, 01:24 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 01:20 AM)morondog Wrote:  ....
I'd be interested to know how you decide who's the heretic?

I think we've established that ... might is right!

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
12-03-2015, 02:30 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 01:23 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  To hell with that love one another stuff.

"I love you so much I'm willing to burn heretics to make sure you don't go to hell" seems to be ol' PP's mantra. Fucking demented.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
12-03-2015, 02:36 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(12-03-2015 02:30 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(12-03-2015 01:23 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  To hell with that love one another stuff.

"I love you so much I'm willing to burn heretics to make sure you don't go to hell" seems to be ol' PP's mantra. Fucking demented.

Sounds familiar. A bit like...

Let's burn the Jews to keep the Vaterland pure.

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: