Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-11-2013, 03:58 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(01-11-2013 03:53 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(01-11-2013 03:48 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  Challenge me, then, in the boxing ring on that subject. Atheists are afraid to commit themselves to it.

I don't even know what the boxing ring is? You I'm not much of a debater but I have already seen you get trampled on the same subject in this very thread. What is the point in a repeat?

It is a section on your own forum here.

The logic is, if you recognize the principle why I have been "trampled", then you should have the understanding & ability to make that very clear in the boxing ring. Go ahead, show your stuff for all the lurkers who you really have no idea what they think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 04:01 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(01-11-2013 03:53 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(01-11-2013 03:47 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  Don't try to obscure your inanity. Healing and homicide have no connection at all. You are disconnected.

Apparently you can make words into a sentence... Funny thing, truth value isn't determined inside your head boyo. Pretty sure anyone reading along knows which of us is 'obscuring his inanity'. Oh well, laterz, Boring. Tell Jeezus you done a *good job* today telling those atheists why they're wrong. And ask him why he likes the idea of people burning in hell. When he's such a fucking *great* moral standard setter after all.

Bye-bye, moron. (I didn't give you that moniker). Anyone can look up homicide and healing and rationality know that trying to connect them is like trying to put a square pet into a round hole. That is called, insanity. Get with it. I know you can.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 04:02 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(01-11-2013 03:58 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  
(01-11-2013 03:53 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  I don't even know what the boxing ring is? You I'm not much of a debater but I have already seen you get trampled on the same subject in this very thread. What is the point in a repeat?

It is a section on your own forum here.

The logic is, if you recognize the principle why I have been "trampled", then you should have the understanding & ability to make that very clear in the boxing ring. Go ahead, show your stuff for all the lurkers who you really have no idea what they think.
How do you find it? I haven't been here too long I always just check out whatever is recent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 04:05 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(01-11-2013 04:02 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(01-11-2013 03:58 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  It is a section on your own forum here.

The logic is, if you recognize the principle why I have been "trampled", then you should have the understanding & ability to make that very clear in the boxing ring. Go ahead, show your stuff for all the lurkers who you really have no idea what they think.
How do you find it? I haven't been here too long I always just check out whatever is recent.

Someone mentioned it in the thread, that is the reason I know. This is an indication you are not really following this thread very closely.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 04:06 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2013 04:19 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(01-11-2013 03:45 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  
(01-11-2013 02:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  BTW, Pius XII died in 1958. John XXIII was a duly elected pope. Please explain when and how, a duly elected, infallible pope,
called a correctly constituted council, by the laws of the Roman Catholic Church, and where EXACTLY they were "infiltrated",
and by whom, and when, and why did your deity allow that, when councils were by RCC doctrine, also infallible ?
Was Paul VI not properly elected ? If not, why not, exactly, and how do you know that ? Surely you have "proof".
You said it happened in the '60's. What year and month on the 1960's did these events happen, and how is it YOU know about them,
and all the people of good will in the Roman Church, including ALL the present Bishops and Cardinals do not agree with you.
Tell us where you got your degree in Theology, while you're at it.
You say Lourdes "silences unbelieveing scientists". Really ? I hadn't noticed. Name two.

Apparently you are a fallen-away Catholic yourself.

The Church teaches that a pope can become a heretic - willing rejecting the Faith - and automatically cease being a Catholic and a true pope. So....a Council approved by a false pope is not a legitimate council. Election is only part of the process of making a pope, the man must accept the election. If he does not have the true Faith, (or is insane) it is impossible for him to accept it.

You are getting in way over your head, my friend.

I'm not a "fallen away". I never was one. At least I'm not excommunicated , like you are.
You realize YOU are excommunicated because you fail to recognize a duly constituted/called council , and EVERY bishop and every cardinal would agree with that. What makes YOU so special ? You failed to answer even ONE question. "Willing rejecting" faith is improper English. It's "willfully rejecting faith". Did you even graduate from grade school ? You failed to say who that was, and when it occurred, or even what EXACTLY was rejected. There is nowhere a pope can "cease being a true pope". Please quote the place in Roman Catholic doctrine that says that. So you're saying John XXIII rejected the faith *before* he called the council ? When was that ? You meant in the late 50's ? When exactly did he "reject" the faith ?
On the contrary sir, YOU ARE in WAY over your head, and you know NOTHING about what you're pretending to speak about. You can't even answer one question, or be specific. You just throw around smoke screens, and generalities, yet are actually ignorant of the very faith you reject, and which ex-communicated you.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 04:06 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(01-11-2013 01:46 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  However, this Church can prove it is the true religion, and indirectly prove there is a God, by the miracles that have been going on throughout the centuries. God particularly gave us Lourdes in France at a time when the atheists were recently born upon earth and scientific technology was there to corroborate these stupendous occurrences that baffle and silence the unbelieving scientists.
What proof? Are you talking about "miracle" cures? Medical knowledge is limited and people make unexplained recoveries from diseases all the time. EVEN when they do not visit Lourdes. Given that millions of people with illnesses visit Lourdes every year,
one would expect these so-called miracles to happen.

If you belief in the miracles of Lourdes, would you also believe in the miracles
in Hinduism, say? There are many "miracles" in India that "prove" that
reincarnation is real. So maybe Hinduism, not Catholicism is the true religion??
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 04:10 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(01-11-2013 04:05 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  
(01-11-2013 04:02 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  How do you find it? I haven't been here too long I always just check out whatever is recent.

Someone mentioned it in the thread, that is the reason I know. This is an indication you are not really following this thread very closely.

Yea Mom mentioned it but she didn't say how to find it. I figured you knew since you know everything else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 04:14 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(01-11-2013 04:05 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  
(01-11-2013 04:02 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  How do you find it? I haven't been here too long I always just check out whatever is recent.

Someone mentioned it in the thread, that is the reason I know. This is an indication you are not really following this thread very closely.

No, she is new to the forum and had not heard of The Boxing Ring. Stop being an asshole.

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
01-11-2013, 04:21 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(01-11-2013 04:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-11-2013 03:45 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  Apparently you are a fallen-away Catholic yourself.

The Church teaches that a pope can become a heretic - willing rejecting the Faith - and automatically cease being a Catholic and a true pope. So....a Council approved by a false pope is not a legitimate council. Election is only part of the process of making a pope, the man must accept the election. If he does not have the true Faith, (or is insane) it is impossible for him to accept it.

You are getting in way over your head, my friend.

You realize YOU are excommunicated because you fail to recognize a duly constituted/called council , and EVERY bishop and every cardinal would agree with that. What makes YOU so special ? You failed to answer even ONE question. "Willing rejecting" faith is improper English. It's "willfully rejecting faith". Did you even graduate from grade school ? You failed to say who that was, and when it occurred, or even what EXACTLY was rejected. There is nowhere a pope can "cease being a true pope". Please quote the place in Roman Catholic doctrine that says that. So you're saying John XXIII rejected the faith *before* he called the council ? When was that ? You meant in the late 50's ? When exactly did he "reject" the faith ?
On the contrary sir, YOU ARE in WAY over your head, and you know NOTHING about what you're pretending to speak about. You can't even answer one question, or be specific. You just throw around smoke screens, and generalities, yet are actually ignorant of the very faith you reject, and which ex-communicated you.

You are fallen-away, aren't you?

No, nobody is excommunicated for rejecting a council that is approved by a false pope, because a council cannot become approved unless a true pope approves of it.

The Scriptures say at some time towards the end of the world there will be an Antichrist. Included is the prediction that the Church will hide from his face for years, and that at the end of the world there will hardly be found faith on earth. This is prime Catholicism you are unaware of. St. Bernard believed the Antichrist would be a false pope deceiving the majority of Catholic of the world. This is on record with full acceptance of possibility. (See Catholic Encyclopedia article on ANTICHRIST). Let me give a few quotes to support this:

"Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
- St. Francis de Sales, "The Catholic Controversy"

An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope.
- A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition

The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope...(2) ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head.
- Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 04:27 PM
RE: Right & Wrong on a Desert Isle
(01-11-2013 04:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-11-2013 03:45 PM)Dearthair Wrote:  Apparently you are a fallen-away Catholic yourself.

The Church teaches that a pope can become a heretic - willing rejecting the Faith - and automatically cease being a Catholic and a true pope. So....a Council approved by a false pope is not a legitimate council. Election is only part of the process of making a pope, the man must accept the election. If he does not have the true Faith, (or is insane) it is impossible for him to accept it.

You are getting in way over your head, my friend.

You realize YOU are excommunicated because you fail to recognize a duly constituted/called council , and EVERY bishop and every cardinal would agree with that. What makes YOU so special ? You failed to answer even ONE question. "Willing rejecting" faith is improper English. It's "willfully rejecting faith". Did you even graduate from grade school ? You failed to say who that was, and when it occurred, or even what EXACTLY was rejected. There is nowhere a pope can "cease being a true pope". Please quote the place in Roman Catholic doctrine that says that. So you're saying John XXIII rejected the faith *before* he called the council ? When was that ? You meant in the late 50's ? When exactly did he "reject" the faith ?
On the contrary sir, YOU ARE in WAY over your head, and you know NOTHING about what you're pretending to speak about. You can't even answer one question, or be specific. You just throw around smoke screens, and generalities, yet are actually ignorant of the very faith you reject, and which ex-communicated you.

You are fallen-away, aren't you?

No, nobody is excommunicated for rejecting a council that is approved by a false pope, because a council cannot become approved unless a true pope approves of it.

The Scriptures say at some time towards the end of the world there will be an Antichrist. Included is the prediction that the Church will hide from his face for years, and that at the end of the world there will hardly be found faith on earth. This is prime Catholicism you are unaware of. St. Bernard believed the Antichrist would be a false pope deceiving the majority of Catholic of the world. This is on record with full acceptance of possibility. (See Catholic Encyclopedia article on ANTICHRIST). Let me give a few quotes to support this:

"Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
- St. Francis de Sales, "The Catholic Controversy"

An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope.
- A Catholic Dictionary, 1951. Deposition

The councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope...(2) ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy). In point of fact however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head.
- Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913. [Vol. IV p.435] Councils

BTW, you are totally correct about the "willfully rejecting faith" grammar. It was an error on my part. Stop being pedantic just because you need to make some cheap points. Grammatical and spelling errors are liberally overlooked in this media of communication.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: