The moron's count is up

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Hello all.

I have returned from a very long vacation and I found that nothing has changed but the only thing this forum didn't need: A catholic moron! Damn! that's the most retarded species of fundamentalist you can ever see. A stupid who believes in Lourdes and Fatima! And a real virgin ascention! we are progressing people!. I was lurking for a while and sometimes I can't stop the laugthing. Hats off to the people who actually is trying to argue with the defender of pedophile priests . I just can say: Muscleman, you are a complete moron! Now, for some fun, we can start some threads about Teresa the bitch, The parkinson pope, Fatima, Lourdes or take some quotes of the funniest "Stupidity for dummies" catholic cathecism to discuss. just let me know. I'm now plenty of time. I can even start to argue to Franceska again(but I won't).

Anyway, the RC doctrine is one of the most easily debunkable fundamentalism alive. Pick any topic (like the nomination of peter as the leader of the church) and we can have a great time.

PS. I checked in other window the "Proof of god" thread... 24 pages! and all driven by MoronMan! great!.

[BillyTK]

Well if you're offering... the whole RC confession thing? As far as I know there's nothing in the bible which sees you got to go to confession to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, so what's up with all that?

Cheers

Billy

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Well if you're offering... the whole RC confession thing? As far as I know there's nothing in the bible which sees you got to go to confession to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, so what's up with all that?

Cheers

Billy

Control. It is a tool to control individuals. Many sects have the same ritual ($cientology comes to mind).

It's funny how MM can't stand here for his crazy beliefs......we are waiting buddy!

----
It's funny how MM can't stand here for his crazy beliefs......we are waiting buddy!
----


It's funny how people are apparently addicted to reading and replying to him even after thinking he's "crazy".

I wonder why that is?

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
It's funny how MM can't stand here for his crazy beliefs......we are waiting buddy!
----


It's funny how people are apparently addicted to reading and replying to him even after thinking he's "crazy".

I wonder why that is?

Thank you! You got to this post before I did but I'll second this.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
It's funny how MM can't stand here for his crazy beliefs......we are waiting buddy!
----


It's funny how people are apparently addicted to reading and replying to him even after thinking he's "crazy".

I wonder why that is?


Who and Just

I have posted my reasons in the second paragraph of my first post. Have you read it?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Whodini
It's funny how people are apparently addicted to reading and replying to him even after thinking he's "crazy".

I wonder why that is? If I stop replying to him, he will think that he's successfully refuted my arguments!

[alfaniner]

No, he will think that he "ANNHILATED" you.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by alfaniner
No, he will think that he "ANNHILATED" you.

The real question is "who cares what he thinks?".

Naaaa, the reason is the fun. Admit it :D

[Marvel Frozen]

No, he will think that he "ANNHILATED" you.

He thinks he's annihilated you no matter how you respond, or even if you don't respond. I don't respond to him because that would onty make him respond back, and the fewer of his posts I see, the better.

[c4ts]

Muscleman's not Catholic. He's Baptist, like the other bible-beating Stonewall Jackson wannabees down in Zephyrhills.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
Control. It is a tool to control individuals. Many sects have the same ritual ($cientology comes to mind). We are not talking about Scientology, and I have known many catholic priests and none of them used confession as a tool of blackmail or any other form of control.

Walt

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
We are not talking about Scientology, and I have known many catholic priests and none of them used confession as a tool of blackmail or any other form of control.

Walt

So what? this ritual is not new, as you know. The sacrament was more valuable in medieval times. The power of bishops ,specially the royalty confessors, was huge then.

[synaesthesia]

If people really understood the magnitude of what something so simple as a single sort of drug can do to the mind, they would not buy so easily into this magical/spiritual experience fluff.

[muscleman]

HAHAHAHAHA, TALKING TO THEIR OWN KIND, BUT REFUSING TO DEBATE WITH ME LIKE A SISSY.. REPITIOUSLY FALSELY ACCUSING ME OF BEING DEBUNKED, BUT CANNOT POINT EVEN "ONE" OF MY ARGUMENTS TO BE DEBUNKED..

YOU BUNCH OF COWARDS, ASK ME THE QUESTION SISSYS, AND DONT RUN AWAY AND WHINE TO YOUR OWN CULT...

[muscleman]

OK LUCIFUGE, WHY DONT U ASK ME ANY OF THE SO-CALLED DEBUNKABLE CATHOLIC TEACHING (IF IT EXIST)..

NOW I CHALLENGE YOU, POST ONE IF U CAN FIND ONE (I KNOW MANY WILL COME OUT).. ONE AT A TIME, AND I WILL DEBUNK YOUR STUPID THINKING ONE AT A TIME, GUARANTEE IT.......


WELL? ARE YOU A COWARD? IF NOT, THEN POST IT.......ILL B WAITING..:)

[ScottDYelich]

this not even idle banter.

where are the real discussions here?

Scott

[ScottDYelich]

Originally posted by muscleman
OK LUCIFUGE, WHY DONT U ASK ME ANY OF THE SO-CALLED DEBUNKABLE CATHOLIC TEACHING (IF IT EXIST)..

NOW I CHALLENGE YOU, POST ONE IF U CAN FIND ONE (I KNOW MANY WILL COME OUT).. ONE AT A TIME, AND I WILL DEBUNK YOUR STUPID THINKING ONE AT A TIME, GUARANTEE IT.......


WELL? ARE YOU A COWARD? IF NOT, THEN POST IT.......ILL B WAITING..:)

mm --

if you would like to discuss or debate... your beliefs, etc...

we can make a thread and debate there.

However, we will need to agree to follow some simple rules.

For instance, we will agree on terms and discuss issues based on
terms. it will be ok to disagree and have different beliefs...
but we will not be allowed to post ramblings, etc. We will talk
in a civilized manner, etc.

Do you agree to talk like an adult with another adult ...

If so, please follow up.

First point: we will need to agree to discuss and not use all caps...
or even capitalize words, any words, for stress... no bold, italics,
large font, etc.

do you agree to have a civilized debate?

Scott

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
It is a tool to control individuals.
My response (approximately)
Is not.
Response by Lucifuge Rofocale
So what? this ritual is not new, as you know.The change in tense is important. The role of confession has changed in most of the church.

Also, I would be interested if you could give me some good links to the origin of confession in the church. If I type "origin" "confession" into google I get links to various "confessions of faith".

Walt

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by muscleman
OK LUCIFUGE, WHY DONT U ASK ME ANY OF THE SO-CALLED DEBUNKABLE CATHOLIC TEACHING (IF IT EXIST)..

NOW I CHALLENGE YOU, POST ONE IF U CAN FIND ONE (I KNOW MANY WILL COME OUT).. ONE AT A TIME, AND I WILL DEBUNK YOUR STUPID THINKING ONE AT A TIME, GUARANTEE IT.......


WELL? ARE YOU A COWARD? IF NOT, THEN POST IT.......ILL B WAITING..:)

I'm surprised M&M. You want me to post any easily debunkable satemente of the RC Church. Here is mine:

The pope's infalibility speaking ex-cathedra.

Do you believe that?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
The change in tense is important. The role of confession has changed in most of the church.

Also, I would be interested if you could give me some good links to the origin of confession in the church. If I type "origin" "confession" into google I get links to various "confessions of faith".

Walt

It is not really a change in tense. We have to look at the origins of the sacrament.

About your question, please read http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm carefully.

"St. Augustine (d. 430) warns the faithful: "Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God has power to forgive all sins" (De agon. Christ., iii).
St. Ambrose (d. 397) rebukes the Novatianists who "professed to show reverence for the Lord by reserving to Him alone the power of forgiving sins. Greater wrong could not be done than what they do in seeking to rescind His commands and fling back the office He bestowed. . . . The Church obeys Him in both respects, by binding sin and by loosing it; for the Lord willed that for both the power should be equal" (De poenit., I, ii,6).
Again he teaches that this power was to be a function of the priesthood. "It seemed impossible that sins should be forgiven through penance; Christ granted this (power) to the Apostles and from the Apostles it has been transmitted to the office of priests" (op. cit., II, ii, 12).
The power to forgive extends to all sins: "God makes no distinction; He promised mercy to all and to His priests He granted the authority to pardon without any exception" (op. cit., I, iii, 10).
Against the same heretics St. Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona (d. 390), wrote to Sympronianus, one of their leaders: "This (forgiving sins), you say, only God can do. Quite true: but what He does through His priests is the doing of His own power" (Ep. I ad Sympron, 6 in P.L., XIII, 1057).
In the East during the same period we have the testimony of St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 447): "Men filled with the spirit of God (i.e. priests) forgive sins in two ways, either by admitting to baptism those who are worthy or by pardoning the penitent children of the Church" (In Joan., 1, 12 in P.G., LXXIV, 722).
St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) after declaring that neither angels nor archangels have received such power, and after showing that earthly rulers can bind only the bodies of men, declares that the priest's power of forgiving sins "penetrates to the soul and reaches up to heaven". Wherefore, he concludes, "it were manifest folly to condemn so great a power without which we can neither obtain heaven nor come to the fulfillment of the promises. . . . Not only when they (the priests) regenerate us (baptism), but also after our new birth, they can forgive us our sins" (De sacred., III, 5 sq.).
St. Athanasius (d. 373): "As the man whom the priest baptizes is enlightened by the grace of the Holy Ghost, so does he who in penance confesses his sins, receive through the priest forgiveness in virtue of the grace of Christ" (Frag. contra Novat. in P. G., XXVI, 1315).
"

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

"That is akin to making the Pope God, which is indeed a claim that the popes have made, and being infallible, it cannot be rescinded. Pope Boniface VIII in his BULL UNAM SANCTAM stated:

The Roman Pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one. We declare, assert, define and pronounce: To be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every creature altogether necessary for salvation...that which was spoken of Christ “thou has subdued all things under his feet” may well seem verified of me...I have the authority of the King of kings. I am all and above all so that God himself and I, the vicar of God, have but one consistency, and I am able to do all that God can do. What therefore, can you make of me but God?
"

M&M do you suscribe that?

from http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/wineofbabylon-p6.html

[Man of jade]

Lucifuge;
Hello all.

I have returned from a very long vacation and I found that nothing has changed but the only thing this forum didn't need: A catholic moron! Damn! that's the most retarded species of fundamentalist you can ever see. A stupid who believes in Lourdes and Fatima! And a real virgin ascention! we are progressing people!. I was lurking for a while and sometimes I can't stop the laugthing. Hats off to the people who actually is trying to argue with the defender of pedophile priests . I just can say: Muscleman, you are a complete moron! Now, for some fun, we can start some threads about Teresa the bitch, The parkinson pope, Fatima, Lourdes or take some quotes of the funniest "Stupidity for dummies" catholic cathecism to discuss. just let me know. I'm now plenty of time. I can even start to argue to Franceska again(but I won't).

Anyway, the RC doctrine is one of the most easily debunkable fundamentalism alive. Pick any topic (like the nomination of peter as the leader of the church) and we can have a great time.

PS. I checked in other window the "Proof of god" thread... 24 pages! and all driven by MoronMan! great!.
While i Might not agree with MuscleMan very much, if at all, I dont agree with your behavior. I might be a christian, but i dont take on a "holier than thou" attitude as you did. Surely if you were "holier than thou" to begin with, you would have the self control and dignity to not go down to Some other peoples level.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Man of jade
Lucifuge;

While i Might not agree with MuscleMan very much, if at all, I dont agree with your behavior. I might be a christian, but i dont take on a "holier than thou" attitude as you did. Surely if you were "holier than thou" to begin with, you would have the self control and dignity to not go down to Some other peoples level.

Why not? While I don't find possibly to go down to M&M level, I think it's clear that he is pulling our legs, so why not have some fun? Anyway, I'm curious bout that "holier than thou" attitude you seem to find in my post. Is kinda blasphemous :p

[Man of jade]

Lucifuge;
I came here with no prejudice against Any one group of religous or non religous people. The Prejudice against Athiests that others may hold isn't exactly being disproveen with your posts.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Man of jade
Lucifuge;
I came here with no prejudice against Any one group of religous or non religous people. The Prejudice against Athiests that others may hold isn't exactly being disproveen with your posts.

While I'm unable to find any previous post where you are attacking some crazy beliefs, I find rare that you choose my post to rant instead of many better examples. But you say that you have no prejudice, so I have to believe you. Again, isn't the fact that I haven't used that kind of expresions about our serious believers (PS, SF, GH and so on) telling you something about what is my position in this matter?
Anyway, what I think now is that you want to collect "proof" to start a prejudice about atheists. Please prove me wrong.

[Man of jade]

The Prejudice some hold against Athiests generally includes things like Athiests being Closed Minded, Arrogant, Egotistical, and that they look down on people who dont hold their beliefs. I have found this to generally be untrue.
Generally.
Your post starting this thread contains all of the above. I still do not hold a prejudice, but its hard when the prejudice is proven right.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Man of jade
The Prejudice some hold against Athiests generally includes things like Athiests being Closed Minded, Arrogant, Egotistical, and that they look down on people who dont hold their beliefs. I have found this to generally be untrue.
Generally.
Your post starting this thread contains all of the above. I still do not hold a prejudice, but its hard when the prejudice is proven right.

I can accept all the adjetives but closeed minded. Perhaps you can point where it shows it.

[Theodore Kurita]

One comment:

muscleman = rabid fundamentalist! :p

[Man of jade]

While there is not really a direct example of closed mindedness, there are a few phrases which some people could interpret as being closed minded... Such as;
A catholic moron! Damn! that's the most retarded species of fundamentalist you can ever see.
You appear to have a closed mind about Religon. This ties in closely with the looking down upon part I made. If you look down upon something, you arent going to be very open to it. But with another comment;
Teresa the bitch
This is a pretty good example right here. Teresa had MANY great accomplishments. Including, but not limited to;
Instituting Many Programs to aid the less fortunate.
Putting in the Christian constitutuion (or something similar)
Theres many more, a bit busy tho not nuf time to post the rest.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Man of jade
While there is not really a direct example of closed mindedness, there are a few phrases which some people could interpret as being closed minded... Such as;


Well, being raised catholic I know what I'm talking about ;).

You appear to have a closed mind about Religon. This ties in closely with the looking down upon part I made. If you look down upon something, you arent going to be very open to it. But with another comment;

Closed mind is a mind who denies evidence. What evidence I was denying?


This is a pretty good example right here. Teresa had MANY great accomplishments. Including, but not limited to;
Instituting Many Programs to aid the less fortunate.
Putting in the Christian constitutuion (or something similar)
Theres many more, a bit busy tho not nuf time to post the rest.

Well, since M&M isn't here to defend his beliefs, then I have to staet here loud and clear that teresa was a bitch in the acception of the word that doesn't imply sexual promiscuity, and that there are numerous facts about her life and acts of her "sisters of charity" organizations that would make anyone say the same about her. The view you have of her is a byproduct of a very good PR department. Care to defend your vision about her?

PS. I wasnt throwing teresa to piss M&M off. She was a very bad person and caused lots of suffering and dead.

[muscleman]

OK LUCIFUGE THE CHILD, I SHALL GET BACK WITH THIS STUPID THINKING OF YOURS, HOLD ON...

[muscleman]

Lucifuge child, you remind me of protestant fundamentalist who thinks we "worship" the Pope as God, because we kiss his hand (as much as the protestants kiss Billy Graham's hands, or the soldiers kiss the King or Queen's hands.)

But that doesnt mean "The President, Billy Graham, the King, and the Pope is God", it just means we have high respect for them..

About "Infallibility"..

Infallibility doesnt mean "SINLESS", it doesnt mean "I am God and you all must obey my commands"..

You see the catholic church works like our government... The pope "CANNOT" make anything to be a "dogma" (dogma meaning teachings which is solid and firm.) unless it is approved by the bishops and cardinals, we call this in latin "magisterium", Pope united with the bishops. Just as the president of the US cannot pass a "bvill" unless the senates approve of it...

But of course, that is not to say that some pope can get away with corruption, take president Nixon for example, he got away with scandals..

Remember, POPES ARENT GOD, THEY ARE HUMANS, THERE WAS A POPE WO HAVE KIDS, POPE WHO WERE KILLERS, THERE WAS EVEN A STORY OF A BOOK WRITTEN BY A SAINT WHERE A CERTAIN POPE WAS ENDANGERED OF GOING TO HELL..

THE POPE CANNOT JUST SAY " BLACK MEN ARE NOT HUMANS, AND THATS A DOGMA""... NO, THE BISHOPS (WHICH SOME OF THEM ARE BLACKS, OR ASIANS, ETC.) HAVE TO APPROVE OF IT BEFORE THE LAW PASSES..

THE POPE SINS EVERYDAY, IN FACT THE POPE CONFESSES HIS SIN TO ANOTHER BISHOP (FOR A "POPE" IS ALSO A BISHOP.)

AGAIN, THE POPE IS "POWERLESS" WITHOUT THE BISHOPS OR CARDINALS APPROVAL. LIKE THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATES...

HOW MANY "INFALLIBLE" TEACHINGS THAT THE POPE DECLARED TO BE A "DOGMA'?

THERES ON ONLY 2 FOR THE PAST 2,000 YRS.

ONE IS "MARY IS CONCEIEVED WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIN"..

TWO IS SHE ASSUMED INTO HEAVEN BODY AND SOUL (THE MIRACLE OF LOURDES.)

NOW ABOUT THE POPE BEING THE VICAR OF CHRIST...

JESUS BEFORE DEPARTING THE APOSTLES BIBLICALLY SPEAKING SAID "FULL AUTHORITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME BY THE FATHER BOTH IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH. AS THE FATHER HAS SENT ME, SO I SEND YOU, GO THEREFORE MAKE DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZE THEM IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND KNOW THAT I WILL BE ALWAYS WITH U TILL THE END OF AGE..."


BUT JESUS SAID "EXCLUSIVELY" TO ST. PETER...

"PETER YOU ARE MY ROCK UPON MY ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH AND NOT THE GATES OF HELL SHALLL PREVAIL AGAINST IT, WHATEVER U BIND ON EARTH WILL B BOUND IN HEAVEN, WHATEVER U LOOSED ON EARTH WILL B LOOSED IN HEAVEN."

JESUS ALSO SAID "PETER DO YOU LOVE ME? FEED MY SHEEP. FEED MY SHEEP"..

JESUS ASKED PETER 3 TIMES, JESUS DIDNT ASK ALL OF THE APOSTLES, JESUS SPOKE TO ST. PETER, NOT TO ST. JOHN OR ANYONE ELSE, HE SAID "PETER FEED MY SHEEP".. MEANING PETER WAS TO TAKE CARE OF THE SHEEP (US) LIKE A SHEPERD (JESUS)...

JESUS IS THE SHEPERD. IF ONE WAS TO GO ASTRAY, HE WILL LEAVE THE 99 THAT IS NOT LOST, AND LOOK FOR THE ONE THAT IS LOST..

PETER WAS GIVEN THAT AUTHORITY. THATS WHY WE CALL PETER "VICAR OF CHRIST". WWE DONT CALL HIM "THE CHRIST", WE CALL HIM "VICAR OF CHRIST" MEANING "THE ONE TO CONTINUE THE MISSION CHRIST STARTED"...

JESUS SAID "FOR THIS YOU CAN DO GREATER THINGS THAN I"..

THE MISSION WASNT DONE WITH JESUS, IT BEGAN WITH JESUS, AND WE AS A TRUE CHRISTIAN IS TO CONTINUE WHAT HE STARTED, UNTIL HE COMES BACK AGAIN..

LIKE THE PARABLE OF THE MASTER WITH HIS SERVANTS WHOM HE LENDS HIS MONEY TO. THOSE WHO INVEST THE MONEY GIVEN, WILL MULTIPLY AND THE MASTER WILL BE PLEASED WHEN HE RETURNS..

WE DIDNT CALL ST. PETER "JESUS", WE DIDNT CALL PETER "THE CHRIST", THAT IS BLASPHEMY, JESUS IS THE CHRIST. BODY WE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST...AND THE POPE BEING THE "VICAR OF CHRIST"...AS WE ARE THE SHEEP, AND THE POPE IS THE SHEPERD... AS BILLY GRAHAM IS THE SHEPERD OF HIS CHURCH, AND AS PRESIDENT BUSH IS THE SHEPERD AND LEADER OF UNITED STATES..

GOT IT CHILD???

[Doctor X]

Apparently touched a nerve there . . . or is it A NERVE?

--J.D.

[Man of jade]

Lucifuge;
Well, being raised catholic I know what I'm talking about .
Can you prove that all people Catholic-Raised are closed minded?

Closed mind is a mind who denies evidence. What evidence I was denying?
I said you appear to have a closed mind, people may interpret your insults towards people as closed minded. I only said once that you were closed minded, and that I said that was because some people may interpret it to be that way. I share not those sentiments, right now.

Care to support your claims about Mother Teresa causing much death?

[muscleman]

Lucifuge, with yur twisted thinking, u dont appear to be a catholic to me. Maybe you were baptized and SUPPOSED 2 bcome catholic, goes to church everysunday, and hangs out with protestants and atheists, thats why you are what you are. I too am raised catholic ALL MY LIFE, a former atheist, a former catechist teacher, and currently just a helper and a core youth leader for teens.

Want to debate? Respond to my post above, AND ILL ANNIHILATE ALL YOUR TWISTED THINKING, GUARANTEE IT. WELL? ARE U A COWARD? IF NOT, THEN LETS DEBATE.. :)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by muscleman
I too am raised catholic ALL MY LIFE, a former atheist, a former catechist teacher, and currently just a helper and a core youth leader for teens.


A "youth leader" like a priest? What exactly do you "help" with? :eek:

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Man of jade
Lucifuge;

Can you prove that all people Catholic-Raised are closed minded?

No, just the ones that, being catholic raised, are STILL catholic after ther are capable of reasoning :D . Seriously, I said that I was raised catholic. Not that I still am.


I said you appear to have a closed mind, people may interpret your insults towards people as closed minded. I only said once that you were closed minded, and that I said that was because some people may interpret it to be that way. I share not those sentiments, right now.

Thats Ok, there are 5.5 billion of possible interpretations for every opinion one have.


Care to support your claims about Mother Teresa causing much death?

I'm glad you asked. Actually, there in JREF we had a pair of threads about her before, but I'm too lazy to search for them right now. Instead, I'll post a link and tomorrow I'll give you some more material to digest.

The link is here:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html

"Three of Mother Teresa's teachings that are fundamental to her religious congregation are all the more dangerous because they are believed so sincerely by her sisters. Most basic is the belief that as long as a sister obeys she is doing God's will. Another is the belief that the sisters have leverage over God by choosing to suffer. Their suffering makes God very happy. He then dispenses more graces to humanity. The third is the belief that any attachment to human beings, even the poor being served, supposedly interferes with love of God and must be vigilantly avoided or immediately uprooted. The efforts to prevent any attachments cause continual chaos and confusion, movement and change in the congregation. Mother Teresa did not invent these beliefs - they were prevalent in religious congregations before Vatican II - but she did everything in her power (which was great) to enforce them. "

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by muscleman

GOT IT CHILD???

"That is akin to making the Pope God, which is indeed a claim that the popes have made, and being infallible, it cannot be rescinded. Pope Boniface VIII in his BULL UNAM SANCTAM stated:

The Roman Pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one. We declare, assert, define and pronounce: To be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every creature altogether necessary for salvation...that which was spoken of Christ “thou has subdued all things under his feet” may well seem verified of me...I have the authority of the King of kings. I am all and above all so that God himself and I, the vicar of God, have but one consistency, and I am able to do all that God can do. What therefore, can you make of me but God?
"

Got it child? Those are words of POPE BONIFACE VIII.Not mine. Not from any atheist. Words EX-CATHEDRA from an infallible pope.Now, reconcile the above statement wit your post, child.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by muscleman
Lucifuge, with yur twisted thinking, u dont appear to be a catholic to me. Maybe you were baptized and SUPPOSED 2 bcome catholic, goes to church everysunday, and hangs out with protestants and atheists, thats why you are what you are. I too am raised catholic ALL MY LIFE, a former atheist, a former catechist teacher, and currently just a helper and a core youth leader for teens.

Want to debate? Respond to my post above, AND ILL ANNIHILATE ALL YOUR TWISTED THINKING, GUARANTEE IT. WELL? ARE U A COWARD? IF NOT, THEN LETS DEBATE.. :)

I don't appear to be catholic to you? THANKS. There is something you got right.
I was baptized at born. I'm are what I am because I think.

I responded to your post. It seems that boniface the pope annihilated you for me;)

[Man of jade]

Lucifuge;
No, just the ones that, being catholic raised, are STILL catholic after ther are capable of reasoning . Seriously, I said that I was raised catholic. Not that I still am.

Must you keep Throwing Veiled insults?
Thats Ok, there are 5.5 billion of possible interpretations for every opinion one have.
Yup.
I'm glad you asked. Actually, there in JREF we had a pair of threads about her before, but I'm too lazy to search for them right now. Instead, I'll post a link and tomorrow I'll give you some more material to digest.

The link is here:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/libr...ields_18_1.html

"Three of Mother Teresa's teachings that are fundamental to her religious congregation are all the more dangerous because they are believed so sincerely by her sisters. Most basic is the belief that as long as a sister obeys she is doing God's will. Another is the belief that the sisters have leverage over God by choosing to suffer. Their suffering makes God very happy. He then dispenses more graces to humanity. The third is the belief that any attachment to human beings, even the poor being served, supposedly interferes with love of God and must be vigilantly avoided or immediately uprooted. The efforts to prevent any attachments cause continual chaos and confusion, movement and change in the congregation. Mother Teresa did not invent these beliefs - they were prevalent in religious congregations before Vatican II - but she did everything in her power (which was great) to enforce them. "
While indeed this is interesting, can you prove it? All you have presented so far is a story. If there was some real accountable evidence, I might be inclined to believe you. If looking down on this person is based completely on a story that could be made up, then why dont you believe in things such as Religon? Offer up some real proof, not just one persons story. Im sure you will.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Man of jade
Lucifuge;

Must you keep Throwing Veiled insults?


Can't you read smileys?

Anyway, proof to follow.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Some entertainment while I search.


From http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/9653/teresa.html
Mother Teresa has been favoured with huge sums of money during the past 30 years, but patient illnesses have been wrongly diagnosed by unqualified sisters and volunteers who are unable to distinguish between the curable and incurable. Mother Teresa prefers providence to planning, and the very strictest economy is always enforced, much to the detriment of the patients' interests. It is interesting to note that despite the enormous sums involved ($ 50 million remains in an account in Bronx) needles are used over and over again and are rinsed under the cold water tap. The nuns answer to "why are you not boiling water and sterilising your needles?" was simple: "There's no point. There's no time." Perhaps, the patients take too long to die, and hastening death saves money. Cynical as that may be, Mother Teresa's global income is more than enough to equip several first class clinics like some of the finest in the West that she herself has checked into. To a person in the last agonies of cancer, and suffering unbearable pain, she said with a smile: "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." A sign on the wall of the morgue of Mother Teresa's Home for the Dying reads "I am going to Heaven today".

Mary London, a volunteer in Calcutta, was shocked by what she saw there. "It looked a bit like the photos of Belsen", she said. "All patients had shaved heads, There were old stretcher beds, no chairs, and not much medical care or pain-killers". In another home, despite the availability of huge sums of money: "The sisters are rarely allowed to spend money on the poor they are trying to help. Instead, they are forced to plead poverty thus, manipulating generous, credulous people into giving more goods, services and cash." So, great wealth has no good effect on the lives of patients and volunteers. In a damp house, heating remains off throughout winter and several sisters consequently got TB.

Charles Keating was a notorious American swindler now serving a 10-year sentence for his part in the Savings and Loans scandal. He was generous with the money he stole from small investors. He gave Mother Teresa 1.5 million dollars and the use of his private jet; in return, she allowed him to make use of her prestige on several important occasions and gave him a personal crucifix. During the course of his trial, she wrote to the court seeking clemency for the conservative Catholic fundamentalist and notorious thief. It was a suspiciously naive letter which did nothing to influence the judge. The court asked Mother Teresa to return these unlawful donations which were made from the money which belongs to the small investors but there was no reply from Mother Teresa.

Another article in Shreveport Humanist Bulletin says there is no answer to the mystery that if the money is not being used on patients where is it going. It answers the question. "Where does the money go? Unlike many (dare I say "legitimate"?) charities, Mama T feels no need to account for the millions annually pumped into her coffers. She is not, admittedly, a typical Christian charlatan evangelist, taking "love offerings" for their own personal use. No, no Jim and Tammy, no Jimmy Swaggart, no Robert Tilton, she. Rather, the money goes to missionary work, to outfitting grand new Third World Catholic churches (buying expensive altar decorations and utensils, etc.), But the fact is, most people who give to Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity organisation think their donations are going to benefit the needs of the poor and destitute - the physical needs such as medicine, food, and clean water. They don't suppose that the cash is going to outfit the altar of some Third-World chapel. Hitchens has created a marvelous expose. Unfortunately, it seems few will have the chance to read it.

Locally, anyway, the bookstores have decided to impose a sort of censorship on this book. Only one store, I checked - one of the nation-wide mall chains - had the book on its shelves, but only one copy had been sent to each of its three area stores. Of course, one can special-order it, but one must first know it exists, mustn't one? Except for a rather smug little squib recently in The Times of Shreveport, there has been no mention of it in the media, at least, not around here. The cult of Mama T is far-reaching.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I just found the link to the thread...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8368&highlight=teresa

And please read this entire site:

http://website.lineone.net/~bajuu/index.htm

We talk later

[Christian]

It has always been my contention that unfortunately Luc is an elitist and he finds nothing wrong with that.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Christian
It has always been my contention that unfortunately Luc is an elitist and he finds nothing wrong with that.

And so you ascribe to a religion where there are a 144,000 male elite in heaven ;)

[Christian]

Luc wrote:
And so you ascribe to a religion where there are a 144,000 male elite in heaven

1) This would not excuse your elitism
2) They are not the same. You practice yours here on earth.
3) I don't believe the 144,000 figure (minor point, way off topic)

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale


And so you ascribe to a religion where there are a 144,000 male elite in heaven ;)


And you ascribe to a belief system/way of life/worldview/idea/philosophy/system of viewing things that has helped kill more people than any other?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Christian
Luc wrote:
And so you ascribe to a religion where there are a 144,000 male elite in heaven

1) This would not excuse your elitism
2) They are not the same. You practice yours here on earth.
3) I don't believe the 144,000 figure (minor point, way off topic)

Hi Christian.

You minor point seems problematic to me... but anyway:

1.- It doesn't excuse you for acusse me of that
2.- You too (unleast you practice christianism in the moon).
3.- You don't want to talk about the 144,000? Ok. No prob

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Whodini



And you ascribe to a belief system/way of life/worldview/idea/philosophy/system of viewing things that has helped kill more people than any other?

Can you prove that I'm communist?

[Christian]

Luc wrote:
Hi Christian.

You minor point seems problematic to me... but anyway:

1.- It doesn't excuse you for acusse me of that
2.- You too (unleast you practice christianism in the moon).
3.- You don't want to talk about the 144,000? Ok. No prob

1- I'm not an elitist, you are Luc
2- My christianism is not elitist
3- Ok.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Whodini



And you ascribe to a belief system/way of life/worldview/idea/philosophy/system of viewing things that has helped kill more people than any other? Excuse me, I'm slow: What belief system is that?

Hans

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Christian
Luc wrote:
[b]
1- I'm not an elitist, you are Luc
2- My christianism is not elitist
3- Ok.

While I'm not sure if you are or not an elitist, I'd have to admit that I am.
And I'm pretty sure that chistianism is elitist in regard to their own members (but you refuse to accept the 144,00 doctrine) and in regard to disbelievers.

[Man of jade]

I just found the link to the thread...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...ighlight=teresa

And please read this entire site:

http://website.lineone.net/~bajuu/index.htm

We talk later
The link in the thread didnt work. However I did take a look at the second thread.

I concede that Teresa was not all that she seemed.

She did what she thought was right in her heart, but it was still wrong.
However, I still have to admit that you still admit to having the other three characteristics I pointed out.

[Christian]

Luc wrote:
And I'm pretty sure that chistianism is elitist in regard to their own members (but you refuse to accept the 144,00 doctrine) and in regard to disbelievers.

As I've said many times before, you are presenting a strawman here. Most Christians and the Christian doctrine is not elitist. You are confusing the issue here.

Elitism, has a specific definition and ramifications. You words are evidence of this.

If you want to call the doctrine of salvation elitism, it is not the usual meaning of the term.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Christian
Luc wrote:
And I'm pretty sure that chistianism is elitist in regard to their own members (but you refuse to accept the 144,00 doctrine) and in regard to disbelievers.

As I've said many times before, you are presenting a strawman here. Most Christians and the Christian doctrine is not elitist. You are confusing the issue here.

Elitism, has a specific definition and ramifications. You words are evidence of this.

If you want to call the doctrine of salvation elitism, it is not the usual meaning of the term.

What definition of elitism would you like me to use, sir?

[Christian]

Luc wrote:
What definition of elitism would you like me to use, sir?

From dictionary.com Elitism:

The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale


Can you prove that I'm communist?


I never said you were.

I said "helped kill", which implies the engine behind Communism.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale


"That is akin to making the Pope God, which is indeed a claim that the popes have made, and being infallible, it cannot be rescinded. Pope Boniface VIII in his BULL UNAM SANCTAM stated:

The Roman Pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one. We declare, assert, define and pronounce: To be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every creature altogether necessary for salvation...that which was spoken of Christ “thou has subdued all things under his feet” may well seem verified of me...I have the authority of the King of kings. I am all and above all so that God himself and I, the vicar of God, have but one consistency, and I am able to do all that God can do. What therefore, can you make of me but God?
"

Got it child? Those are words of POPE BONIFACE VIII.Not mine. Not from any atheist. Words EX-CATHEDRA from an infallible pope.Now, reconcile the above statement wit your post, child.

LOL, THIS IS AN ARGUMENT YOU PRESENTED AGAINST THE POPES?

LET ME HELP YOU OUT. THERE WAS A POPE WHO HAD SEX, AND HIS SON BECAME THE NEXT POPE (I BELIEVE IT WAS POPE PIUS.)..

THERE WAS ALSO A POPE WHO PERMITTED KILLING (THOUGH THIS IS NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BECAUSE THE CHURCH IS COMPOSED OF POPE UNITED WITH THE BISHOPS, THE VERY HEAD CALLED "MAGISTERIUM".)

THERE WAS A POPE WHO WAS ENDANGERED OF GOING TO HELL, UNTIL A SAINT INTERCEDED FOR HIM..

THERE WERE PROBABLY POPES WHO SAY ITS OK TO KILL. OR POPES WHO SUPPORTED STEALING OF GOLD AND LAND...

NEED MORE HELP IN REVEALING THE TRUTH?

A POPE'S COMMENT DOESNT SPEAK FOR THE POSITION OF POPES IN THE CHURCH...

THERE ARE POPES WHO ARE MORE LIKE A DICTATOR.. THAT HAPPENED BEFORE, THEORIZED THAT THEY EVEN SUPPORTED THE CRUSADES.. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POSITION FOR THE POPE, A POPE CAN ONLY BECOME "INFALLIBLE" WHEN THE BISHOPS SUPPORTS ITS TEACHING..

FOR HIM TO SAY "I AM ABLE TO DO ALL THAT GOD CAN DO.."

IS THAT EVEN MAKING SENSE?

CAN HE CREATE?

CAN HE BRING A PERSON TO LIFE?

THERE ARE MANY POPES, BISHOPS THAT ARE SINNERS..

TELL YOU WHAT. IF YOU CAN FIND ANYWHERE IN "CANON LAW" (THE ROCK AND RULES OF THE CHURCH), IN THE DOGMA, IN THE CATECHIST, WHERE IT WHERE IT TEACHES THAT POPE'S WORDS ARE TRUE, THEN I WILL BELIEVE YOU...

WELL??

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Man of jade

The link in the thread didnt work. However I did take a look at the second thread.

I concede that Teresa was not all that she seemed.

She did what she thought was right in her heart, but it was still wrong.
However, I still have to admit that you still admit to having the other three characteristics I pointed out.

I'm afraid I can't....see, it is the results that matter, if not, how can we evaluate? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Christian
Luc wrote:
What definition of elitism would you like me to use, sir?

From dictionary.com

Then you are an elitist sir.

Remember the old saying "we are not perfect, we are forgiven"?

Clearly, for your religions, the ones who accept jesus the christ as their personal savoir are an elite compared to the fools tha have eyes but can't see.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Whodini



I never said you were.

I said "helped kill", which implies the engine behind Communism.

The I didn't help to cause any death. They were the communist remember? They also had some basis from hegel philosophy. So all hegelians helped to kill the ones murdered by commies? LOL :D

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by muscleman


LOL, THIS IS AN ARGUMENT YOU PRESENTED AGAINST THE POPES?

LET ME HELP YOU OUT. THERE WAS A POPE WHO HAD SEX, AND HIS SON BECAME THE NEXT POPE (I BELIEVE IT WAS POPE PIUS.)..

THERE WAS ALSO A POPE WHO PERMITTED KILLING (THOUGH THIS IS NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BECAUSE THE CHURCH IS COMPOSED OF POPE UNITED WITH THE BISHOPS, THE VERY HEAD CALLED "MAGISTERIUM".)

THERE WAS A POPE WHO WAS ENDANGERED OF GOING TO HELL, UNTIL A SAINT INTERCEDED FOR HIM..

THERE WERE PROBABLY POPES WHO SAY ITS OK TO KILL. OR POPES WHO SUPPORTED STEALING OF GOLD AND LAND...

NEED MORE HELP IN REVEALING THE TRUTH?

A POPE'S COMMENT DOESNT SPEAK FOR THE POSITION OF POPES IN THE CHURCH...

THERE ARE POPES WHO ARE MORE LIKE A DICTATOR.. THAT HAPPENED BEFORE, THEORIZED THAT THEY EVEN SUPPORTED THE CRUSADES.. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POSITION FOR THE POPE, A POPE CAN ONLY BECOME "INFALLIBLE" WHEN THE BISHOPS SUPPORTS ITS TEACHING..

FOR HIM TO SAY "I AM ABLE TO DO ALL THAT GOD CAN DO.."

IS THAT EVEN MAKING SENSE?

CAN HE CREATE?

CAN HE BRING A PERSON TO LIFE?

THERE ARE MANY POPES, BISHOPS THAT ARE SINNERS..

TELL YOU WHAT. IF YOU CAN FIND ANYWHERE IN "CANON LAW" (THE ROCK AND RULES OF THE CHURCH), IN THE DOGMA, IN THE CATECHIST, WHERE IT WHERE IT TEACHES THAT POPE'S WORDS ARE TRUE, THEN I WILL BELIEVE YOU...

WELL??

M&M.

Do you know what is a Bull? A pope bull, not the husband of the cow....

Look for it and answer yourself.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale


M&M.

Do you know what is a Bull? A pope bull, not the husband of the cow....

Look for it and answer yourself.

ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT A PRESIDENTS COMMENT DOESNT SPEAK FOR ALL THE PRESIDENTS, ESPECIALLY IF ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

IF PRESIDENT NIXON SAID THAT I AM A DICTATOR, AND ALL SHALL BOW DOWN BEFORE ME OR DIE.. IT DOESNT MEAN ALL PRESIDENTS "HAVE TO" SPEAK LIKE PRESIDENT NIXON, ESPECIALLY IF ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL (CONSTITUTION IS WHERE WE BASED OUR COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT.)

THE SAME WITH THE POPE, A POPE'S COMMENT DOESNT SPEAK FOR ALL THE POPES, JUST BECAUSE ONE POPE SAID IT, IT DOESNT MEAN ALL POPE'S HAVE TO SAY IT. IF THE POPE LIVE THAT WAY, IT DOESNT MEAN ALL THE POPE'S MISSION IS TO LIVE LIKE THAT POPE, ESPECIALLY IF ITS UNBIBLICAL, UNSCRIPTURAL, AGAINST THE CANON LAW (A CANON LAW IS LIKE A CONSTITUTION, WHERE THE CHURCH'ES LEADERS GO TO IF THERE ARE ANY DISPUTES..)

THE HOLY SCRIPTURE, HOLY TRADITION, CANON LAW, MAGISTERIUM (POPE UNITED WITH THE BISHOPS) IS WHERE WE BASED OUR FAITH ON, NOT ON A POPE'S COMMENT..

NOT ON A CARDINALS COMMENT..

NOT ON A PRIESTS COMMENT..

NOT ON A BISHOP'S PERSONAL COMMENT, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS AGAINST THE 4 THINGS WE BASED OUR FAITH ON (SEE ABOVE, MAGISTERIUM, ETC.)

SO WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY IN DEFENSE OF YOUR BRAINWASHED THINKING LUCIFUGE?

:) WELL?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by muscleman


ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT A PRESIDENTS COMMENT DOESNT SPEAK FOR ALL THE PRESIDENTS, ESPECIALLY IF ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

IF PRESIDENT NIXON SAID THAT I AM A DICTATOR, AND ALL SHALL BOW DOWN BEFORE ME OR DIE.. IT DOESNT MEAN ALL PRESIDENTS "HAVE TO" SPEAK LIKE PRESIDENT NIXON, ESPECIALLY IF ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL (CONSTITUTION IS WHERE WE BASED OUR COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT.)

THE SAME WITH THE POPE, A POPE'S COMMENT DOESNT SPEAK FOR ALL THE POPES, JUST BECAUSE ONE POPE SAID IT, IT DOESNT MEAN ALL POPE'S HAVE TO SAY IT. IF THE POPE LIVE THAT WAY, IT DOESNT MEAN ALL THE POPE'S MISSION IS TO LIVE LIKE THAT POPE, ESPECIALLY IF ITS UNBIBLICAL, UNSCRIPTURAL, AGAINST THE CANON LAW (A CANON LAW IS LIKE A CONSTITUTION, WHERE THE CHURCH'ES LEADERS GO TO IF THERE ARE ANY DISPUTES..)

THE HOLY SCRIPTURE, HOLY TRADITION, CANON LAW, MAGISTERIUM (POPE UNITED WITH THE BISHOPS) IS WHERE WE BASED OUR FAITH ON, NOT ON A POPE'S COMMENT..

NOT ON A CARDINALS COMMENT..

NOT ON A PRIESTS COMMENT..

NOT ON A BISHOP'S PERSONAL COMMENT, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS AGAINST THE 4 THINGS WE BASED OUR FAITH ON (SEE ABOVE, MAGISTERIUM, ETC.)

SO WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY IN DEFENSE OF YOUR BRAINWASHED THINKING LUCIFUGE?

:) WELL?

You defend your faith. Since I had to do your homework, there is the result:

" For practical purposes a bull may be conveniently defined to be "an Apostolic letter with a leaden seal," to which one may add that in its superscription the pope invariably takes the title of episcopus, servus servorum Dei.

In official language papal documents have at all times been called by various names, more or less descriptive of their character. For example, there are "constitutions," i.e., decisions addressed to all the faithful and determining some matter of faith or discipline; "encyclicals," which are letters sent to all the bishops of Christendom, or at least to all those in one particular country, and intended to guide them in their relations with their flocks; "decrees," pronouncements on points affecting the general welfare of the Church; "decretals" (epistolae decretales), which are papal replies to some particular difficulty submitted to the Holy See, but having the force of precedents to rule on all analogous cases. "Rescript," again, is a form applicable to almost any form of Apostolic letter which has been elicited by some previous appeal, while the nature of a "privilege" speaks for itself. But all these, down to the fifteenth century, seem to have been expedited by the papal chancery in the shape of bulls authenticated with leaden seals, and it is common enough to apply the term bull even to those very early papal letters of which we know little more than the substance, independently of the forms under which they were issued. "


From
catholic encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03052b.htm)

[muscleman]

Lucifuge, your response is out of topic. You brought out about the Pope's position is to be God, your stupidity speaks for itself, and you dare call yourself raised as catholic?

WHAT YOU REALLY MEANT TO SAY IS, I WAS RAISED AS AN "IGNORANT" CATHOLIC, WHO KNOWS "NOTHING ABOUT MY FAITH", LISTENS TO ATHEISTS WHO CLAIMS THAT THE CHURCH ACKNOWLEDGES THE POPE AS "GOD", AND I BELIEVE THEM BECAUSE I AM A MORON..

THATS WHAT YOUR REALLY TRYING TO SAY...

SECONDLY, THE CHURCH DOES GROW. AS JESUS SAID, A KINGDOM OF GOD CAN B LIKENED AS A MUSTARD SEED, IN DUE TIME IT DEVELOPS AND GROWS SO HUGE, THAT BIRDS OF THE AIR DWELLS AT IT AND MAKE THEIR NEST..

YES, THE CHURCH HAVE "NEW REVELATION" HERE AND THERE..

HOW DO WE DEFINE REVELATIONS TO BE "TRUE REVELATIONS?"

WE KNOW THEM TO BE TRUE, IF ITS APPROVED BY THE "MAGISTERIUM", POPE UNITED WITH THE BISHOPS, SIGNED AND SEALED, FROM HERE IT CAN BECOME A "DOGMA", IN WHATEVER ITS DOGMATIC SIGNATURE IS MEANT (SUCH AS THE BIBLE IS DECLARED DOGMA TO BE FREE OF MORAL ERRORS OR ANY CONTRADICTIONS REGARDING FAITH.).

WE DONT BASED THE CHURCH'S INFALLIBILITY ON "ONE PERSONS" JUDGMENT, OR ONE PERSONS PERSONAL COMMENT...

YOU WANT TO DEBATE WITH ANYONE? WELL HERE I AM, ABOUT TO ANNIHILATE YOUR STUPID THINKING...

WHAT IS YOUR DEFENSE NOW?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by muscleman
Lucifuge, your response is out of topic. You brought out about the Pope's position is to be God, your stupidity speaks for itself, and you dare call yourself raised as catholic?

WHAT YOU REALLY MEANT TO SAY IS, I WAS RAISED AS AN "IGNORANT" CATHOLIC, WHO KNOWS "NOTHING ABOUT MY FAITH", LISTENS TO ATHEISTS WHO CLAIMS THAT THE CHURCH ACKNOWLEDGES THE POPE AS "GOD", AND I BELIEVE THEM BECAUSE I AM A MORON..

THATS WHAT YOUR REALLY TRYING TO SAY...

SECONDLY, THE CHURCH DOES GROW. AS JESUS SAID, A KINGDOM OF GOD CAN B LIKENED AS A MUSTARD SEED, IN DUE TIME IT DEVELOPS AND GROWS SO HUGE, THAT BIRDS OF THE AIR DWELLS AT IT AND MAKE THEIR NEST..

YES, THE CHURCH HAVE "NEW REVELATION" HERE AND THERE..

HOW DO WE DEFINE REVELATIONS TO BE "TRUE REVELATIONS?"

WE KNOW THEM TO BE TRUE, IF ITS APPROVED BY THE "MAGISTERIUM", POPE UNITED WITH THE BISHOPS, SIGNED AND SEALED, FROM HERE IT CAN BECOME A "DOGMA", IN WHATEVER ITS DOGMATIC SIGNATURE IS MEANT (SUCH AS THE BIBLE IS DECLARED DOGMA TO BE FREE OF MORAL ERRORS OR ANY CONTRADICTIONS REGARDING FAITH.).

WE DONT BASED THE CHURCH'S INFALLIBILITY ON "ONE PERSONS" JUDGMENT, OR ONE PERSONS PERSONAL COMMENT...

YOU WANT TO DEBATE WITH ANYONE? WELL HERE I AM, ABOUT TO ANNIHILATE YOUR STUPID THINKING...

WHAT IS YOUR DEFENSE NOW?

What kind of idiot are you?

The catholic doctrine of papal infalibillity is expresed, for matters of faith, when a pope speaks ex-cathedra. And this is the case of this BULL wich i defined for you using the catholic encyclopedia.

So the words expresed by boniface are infallible. You are an herectic and should be excomunicated if you claim otherwise.

But I'm the first one to agree with you. The doctrine is stupid. Catholicism is stupid. BTW you are stupid too.

[Man of jade]

Can you prove that catholicism is stupid, Lucifuge?

[Yahzi]

Man of Jade
Can you prove that catholicism is stupid, Lucifuge?
Go look up my threads, "Catholics behaving badly."

The Catholic Church is waging a war on children and wealth.

I think that's stupid.

How about you?

[Man of jade]

Sorry, let me rephrase that for others who may fit the stereotype.
Are Catholics in GENERAL bad people, as in the majority of catholics being stupid, being fundamentalist in that manner?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Man of jade
Sorry, let me rephrase that for others who may fit the stereotype.
Are Catholics in GENERAL bad people, as in the majority of catholics being stupid, being fundamentalist in that manner?

Based on personal experience, no. Most of the Catholics I know are average to pretty intelligent. Only Jedi Knight, and this one kid I know at my college, are stupid and fundamentalist in that matter. But I don't know who is representing the Catholic majority, here.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I second ct4s.

[Christian]

Luc wrote:
Then you are an elitist sir.

Remember the old saying "we are not perfect, we are forgiven"?

Clearly, for your religions, the ones who accept jesus the christ as their personal savoir are an elite compared to the fools tha have eyes but can't see.

I'm sure you know what the distinction is. If you want to delude yourself into thinking that I can't see throuht that, be my guest.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Christian
Luc wrote:
Then you are an elitist sir.

Remember the old saying "we are not perfect, we are forgiven"?

Clearly, for your religions, the ones who accept jesus the christ as their personal savoir are an elite compared to the fools tha have eyes but can't see.

I'm sure you know what the distinction is. If you want to delude yourself into thinking that I can't see throuht that, be my guest.

"The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. "

[Christian]

Luc quoted:
"The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. "

Oh, I see, so when I feel a sense of entitlement entering my Dad's home and grabbing whatever I wish from the frig, in your view, I'm an elitist.

I'm sure you know the distinction. That you as a human being want to refer to other people (simply because they disagree with your point of view "morons") and that you keep a (imaginary) list of them is what is wrong with elitism.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Christian
Luc quoted:
"The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. "

Oh, I see, so when I feel a sense of entitlement entering my Dad's home and grabbing whatever I wish from the frig, in your view, I'm an elitist.

I'm sure you know the distinction. That you as a human being want to refer to other people (simply because they disagree with your point of view "morons") and that you keep a (imaginary) list of them is what is wrong with elitism.

I used the definition you provided. Why do you whine at me?

About your second statement, it is false and you are an example of that. We disagree in almost every aspect and discussion in this forum. When was the last time I called you "a moron"?

[Christian]

Luc wrote:
used the definition you provided. Why do you whine at me?

You used a portion of the definition, you felt out the principal part (the why of the sense of entitlement)

About your second statement, it is false and you are an example of that. We disagree in almost every aspect and discussion in this forum. When was the last time I called you "a moron"?

Well, if your position is that you call people on a case by case basis, I can understand that. But, from the title of thread and from this comment, that is not what is implied.

I have returned from a very long vacation and I found that nothing has changed but the only thing this forum didn't need: A catholic moron! Damn! that's the most retarded species of fundamentalist you can ever see. A stupid who believes in Lourdes and Fatima!

So, by your words, anyone who believes in Lourdes or Fatima or is a fundamentalist is stupid and/or retarded. This is my objection Luc.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, for what it's worth.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Christian
Luc wrote:
used the definition you provided. Why do you whine at me?

You used a portion of the definition, you felt out the principal part (the why of the sense of entitlement)


That's how dictionaries work, You can use any alternative definition and they are separated in sentences. I use one of the optional sentences.



Well, if your position is that you call people on a case by case basis, I can understand that. But, from the title of thread and from this comment, that is not what is implied.



So, by your words, anyone who believes in Lourdes or Fatima or is a fundamentalist is stupid and/or retarded. This is my objection Luc.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, for what it's worth.

It's a way to see it. Maybe I just phrased it bad, the meaning is "we have a new moron, and this time it is catholic, the worst type". If you read the thread, you can see that I agreed with c4ts when he said that most catholics are not morons. BUT the ones that are......they are masters morons!.

[Christian]

Luc wrote:
That's how dictionaries work, You can use any alternative definition and they are separated in sentences. I use one of the optional sentences.

Not in this case. Can you please tell what the highlitghted text refers to. You will see that your extraction is missing context, the one I have aluded to.

"The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. "

Luc wrote:
It's a way to see it. Maybe I just phrased it bad, the meaning is "we have a new moron, and this time it is catholic, the worst type". If you read the thread, you can see that I agreed with c4ts when he said that most catholics are not morons. BUT the ones that are......they are masters morons!.

Hey, I not going to press you on this anymore, it just seem to me you do single out people based on their religious beliefs and attach perotavite terms related to intelligence.

Nevermind, I don't even agree with calling people names, but that is your choice.
And, please note that time has proven me right, that is the correct etiquette.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Christian
Luc wrote:
That's how dictionaries work, You can use any alternative definition and they are separated in sentences. I use one of the optional sentences.

Not in this case. Can you please tell what the highlitghted text refers to. You will see that your extraction is missing context, the one I have aluded to.

Such group is "certain persons or members of certain classes or groups who deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources"

In the case of Christians, their status is saved by his conscious (intellectual decision) of acepting jesus as his personal savoir.


And, not you but most christians would accept the 144,000 doctrine (maybe because it is in the inerrant bible). That would add another element of elitism to christianism (not you).

Even in heaven you have a herarchy, being angels the lowest form and god on the top.



Luc wrote:
It's a way to see it. Maybe I just phrased it bad, the meaning is "we have a new moron, and this time it is catholic, the worst type". If you read the thread, you can see that I agreed with c4ts when he said that most catholics are not morons. BUT the ones that are......they are masters morons!.

Hey, I not going to press you on this anymore, it just seem to me you do single out people based on their religious beliefs and attach perotavite terms related to intelligence.

Nevermind, I don't even agree with calling people names, but that is your choice.
And, please note that time has proven me right, that is the correct etiquette.

The you might want to edit the bible and cut the parts where it calls non-believers "fools".

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Whodini



And you ascribe to a belief system/way of life/worldview/idea/philosophy/system of viewing things that has helped kill more people than any other?

No, he already said he wasn't Christian.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

bump (why not ;))

[Christian]

Luc wrote:
In the case of Christians, their status is saved by his conscious (intellectual decision) of acepting jesus as his personal savoir.

You know you are stretching the definition far beyong and it is not applicable because it's not related to relations here on earth. Elitism does not apply to conditions after death.

Even in heaven you have a herarchy, being angels the lowest form and god on the top.

That is not elitism, see above.

The you might want to edit the bible and cut the parts where it calls non-believers "fools".

Your problem here is that you have no notion (in this case) of the use of metaphors. The two expressions are not equivalent because of it.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Christian
Elitism does not apply to conditions after death.



Excuse me? Why not? because that would make christianism elitist and we don't want it? I'm sorry to have implied that and bothered a "rapture club " member.


Even in heaven you have a herarchy, being angels the lowest form and god on the top.

That is not elitism, see above.


See above too.


The you might want to edit the bible and cut the parts where it calls non-believers "fools".

Your problem here is that you have no notion (in this case) of the use of metaphors. The two expressions are not equivalent because of it.

Then, can I say that all christians are morons, metaphorically speaking? :D

[Christian]

Luc wrote:
Excuse me? Why not? because that would make christianism elitist and we don't want it? I'm sorry to have implied that and bothered a "rapture club " member.

Because elitism has negative effects in social life, this is why it is wrong. If someone believes that after death, he or she will be the only one to receive a mansion, it is irrelevant to social life.

Let me remind you that you are forbidden to forward most of your elitism. The most you can do is express it, but have little ability to impact society. This should make you wonder why.

Then, can I say that all christians are morons, metaphorically speaking?

That is the problem I'm pointing out, it is you who is usind the metaphor not the Bible.

Moron is a clinical term (not in use now, precisely because of the metaphor use) used to denote someone with intelligence of a 12 year old or less.

You don't really mean that because it is not true, you are just being offensive. (like when women say all men are dogs)

In the case of the word fool, it is not a metaphor, it is a literal term and well applied. Like when I say "I made a fool of myself the other night".

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Christian
Luc wrote:
Excuse me? Why not? because that would make christianism elitist and we don't want it? I'm sorry to have implied that and bothered a "rapture club " member.

Because elitism has negative effects in social life, this is why it is wrong. If someone believes that after death, he or she will be the only one to receive a mansion, it is irrelevant to social life.

Let me remind you that you are forbidden to forward most of your elitism. The most you can do is express it, but have little ability to impact society. This should make you wonder why.




Then, can I say that all christians are morons, metaphorically speaking?

That is the problem I'm pointing out, it is you who is usind the metaphor not the Bible.

Moron is a clinical term (not in use now, precisely because of the metaphor use) used to denote someone with intelligence of a 12 year old or less.

You don't really mean that because it is not true, you are just being offensive. (like when women say all men are dogs)

In the case of the word fool, it is not a metaphor, it is a literal term and well applied. Like when I say "I made a fool of myself the other night". [/B]



The real question ( Is christianism elitist) remains. See Christian, Everything I can say now is a repeat of what I just said. I'm not convinced that the term fool is not a name calling when used in the bible and it is is not when used in the bible. In the case of elitism, I cannot be convinced that the members of a "saved" club are not elitist about non-members. Maybe we need external input to move the topic, so it would be OK to start a new thread?

[Christian]

Luc wrote:
Maybe we need external input to move the topic, so it would be OK to start a new thread?

Good idea Luc