# Proof that Catholicism is true



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

On the forums for Fundies Say the Darnedest Things, I tried multiple times to convert the people there to Catholicism. Since I am banned there, I will try doing so here. 

The Protestant Reformation was the second major schism in the history of the church after the schism between the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church in 1054. Martin Luther became an apostate and invented an entirely new branch of Christianity causing most of Northern Europe to leave the true church, abandon most of the sacraments, and disrupt apostolic succession.

The Reformation spread to Lithuania and caused most of the population of Silvuna to become Calvinist. Many Catholic Churches were confiscated and shut down. Then this happened.


> This issue was resolved in the summer of 1608 when a few children tending their sheep in a field some distance away from Šiluva reported that they saw a beautiful woman holding a baby, appeared on the very spot where the church had stood. She was weeping bitterly. The children returned the next day accompanied by many from the whole village and a Calvinist minister, and they saw her, as well. When word spread, an old blind man who had assisted the priest in burying the treasures of the original church recalled the location. After the apparition, the institutional documents of the Catholic church were found, and in 1622 the case concerning the restitution of Catholic ownership was won.
> 
> Because, inspired by the apparition, the community returned to the devout practice of their religion, Our Lady of Šiluva is invoked as the patroness of those who have lapsed from the faith, and of those who pray for them.


How do you explain the fact that the population of Silvuna converted back to Catholicism. This proves that the apparition is real and that Catholicism is true. I pray that this information will cause you to join the true church.


----------



## YourMommasBackstory (Feb 2, 2019)

but it isn't a religion of peace, tho


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Feb 2, 2019)

Come on stupid, if you're gonna post retarded religious crap you gotta act more eccentric and at least make it fun.


----------



## Vorhtbame (Feb 2, 2019)

I explain it with space aliens, myself.  Aliens do everything, dude.

If it's not true, then why do we keep seeing science fiction stories with advanced aliens who incited every major event in history and built every ancient structure?  We keep trying to disprove it, but we keep coming back to that truth.

_Aliens_.  I pray that this information will cause you to welcome our new overlords.


----------



## From The Uncanny Valley (Feb 2, 2019)

Explain the little boy fucking now


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 2, 2019)

Catholicism is false because I am God. Change my mind.


----------



## Not an_ime g_irl (Feb 2, 2019)

Why would anyone care about Catholicism being real or not if when you come down to the core, it depends solely on what you believe?
_What the thinker thinks, the prover proves_ religions do not work because they are the most _logical, _they work because people need something to believe on (This is why religion is being replaced by science, just look at any article "Scientists say...")
I want you to tell me one thing op, why do you want to convert people to your religion, have you ever thought about of that?


----------



## IV 445 (Feb 2, 2019)

I’m glad you feel that way


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 2, 2019)

Pics or it didn’t happen


----------



## Mender Bug (Feb 2, 2019)

OP wants to establish the Vatican 2 in Toledo Ohio


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Uncanny Valley said:


> Explain the little boy fucking now


That is because Freemasons infiltrated the church in the 20th century and made the church corrupt and ordain pedophiles into the priesthood. They are also responsible for the horrible Vatican II reforms.


----------



## lil bitch (Feb 2, 2019)

yeah you got the wrong forum buddy


----------



## From The Uncanny Valley (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> That is because Freemasons infiltrated the church in the 20th century and made the church corrupt and ordain pedophiles into the priesthood. They are also responsible for the horrible Vatican II reforms.



suuuuuure buddy


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Not an_ime g_irl said:


> Why would anyone care about Catholicism being real or not if when you come down to the core, it depends solely on what you believe?
> _What the thinker thinks, the prover proves_ religions do not work because they are the most _logical, _they work because people need something to believe on (This is why religion is being replaced by science, just look at any article "Scientists say...")
> I want you to tell me one thing op, why do you want to convert people to your religion, have you ever thought about of that?


I want to convert you guys so that your souls will  be saved. And the Catholic Church says that Faith and Reason are complementary, so I am trying to show evidence that will lead you to conversion if you use your logical reasoning skills.



ProgKing of the North said:


> Pics or it didn’t happen


But there are historical documents that prove that it did happen.


----------



## The Last Stand (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> On the forums for Fundies Say the Darnedest Things, I tried multiple times to convert the people there to Catholicism. S*ince I am banned there, I will try doing so here*.



I wonder why...


----------



## PorcupineTree (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I want to convert you guys so that your souls will  be saved. And the Catholic Church says that Faith and Reason are complementary, so I am trying to show evidence that will lead you to conversion if you use your logical reasoning skills.



Goddamn. Every catholic I talk to is so paternalistic and judgemental when they’re trying to convert people. Everything worth listening to has to have some magical threat slapped onto it. Have you ever thought about a different method?


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> But there are historical documents that prove that it did happen.


No, there’s documents saying they claim they saw the apparition. There’s no tangible proof that this actually happened (or to be fair, didn’t happen, depending on who you wanna place the burden of proof on).


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

The Last Stand said:


> I wonder why...


I was banned because I was falsely accused of promoting antisemitism which I wasn’t because I was only talking about the Jews in Spain.


PorcupineTree said:


> Goddamn. Every catholic I talk to is so paternalistic and judgemental when they’re trying to convert people. Everything worth listening to has to have some magical threat slapped onto it. Have you ever thought about a different method?


I am not being judgemental, I am explaining the reason why it is our duty as Christians to convert others. Jesus Christ dying for our sins so that our souls can be saved is the meaning of Christianity.


----------



## The Last Stand (Feb 2, 2019)

PorcupineTree said:


> Goddamn. Every catholic I talk to is so paternalistic and judgemental when they’re trying to convert people.


Not everybody... @Cosmos comes to mind.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> No, there’s documents saying they claim they saw the apparition. There’s no tangible proof that is actually happened (or to be fair, didn’t happen, depending on who you wanna place the burden of proof on).


Using logic leads one to conclude that it happened. I said, how do you explain the fact that a town full of Protestants converted to Catholicism, if there wasn’t an apparition?


----------



## Coldgrip (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> That is because Freemasons infiltrated the church in the 20th century and made the church corrupt and ordain pedophiles into the priesthood. They are also responsible for the horrible Vatican II reforms.


Please stop insulting the Freemasons. They are good people that would never hurt anyone.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Using logic leads one to conclude that it happened. I said, how do you explain the fact that a town full of Protestants converted to Catholicism, if there wasn’t an apparition?


Peer pressure


----------



## PorcupineTree (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Jesus Christ dying for our sins so that our souls can be saved is the meaning of Christianity.



Several Christians from non-Catholic branches would disagree with you.


----------



## The Last Stand (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I tried multiple times to convert the people there to Catholicism.


What if people already have a religion? Or other kind of faith? What if they're not interested? 


Jacob Harrison said:


> I want to convert you guys so that your souls will be saved. And the Catholic Church says that Faith and Reason are complementary, so I am trying to show evidence that will lead you to conversion if you use your logical reasoning skills.



Nice passive aggressiveness. Basically telling the people you're trying to "save" that they're stupid and can't think for themselves while showing them religious jargon.


----------



## SparklyFetuses (Feb 2, 2019)

Unless you show us something that actually proves that people can ride upon their ass cheeks* in real life, you're failing at proselytizing here. 


*= "And Balaam was riding upon his ass, and his two servants with him." Numbers 22.22


----------



## Nekromantik (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I want to convert you guys so that your souls will  be saved. And the Catholic Church says that Faith and Reason are complementary, so I am trying to show evidence that will lead you to conversion if you use your logical reasoning skills.


I have an uncle that's Catholic and says it's great, because you can sin all week, go to church on Sunday, ask for forgiveness, and you're clean. Than sin the next week, rinse and repeat.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

PorcupineTree said:


> Several Christians from non-Catholic branches would disagree with you.


What are examples? Virtually all Christians believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross as an atonement for the sins of humanity. Only bizarre heretical sects like the gnostics thought otherwise. 


ProgKing of the North said:


> Peer pressure


But how would they have that pressure from a town is majority protestant? Are you saying that people lied about seeing the virgin Mary and pressured the people in a majority protestant town to convert to Catholicism? That doesn't make sense.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

The Last Stand said:


> What if people already have a religion? Or other kind of faith? What if they're not interested?
> 
> 
> Nice passive aggressiveness. Basically telling the people you're trying to "save" that they're stupid and can't think for themselves while showing them religious jargon.


It is an act of love because I am trying to save you the horrible fate of eternal damnation to the fires of hell.


----------



## Graffiti canvas (Feb 2, 2019)

Shitposting in a shitposting thread.

You're not as good at it as @Shiversblood though. At least he knows we're all going to laugh at him.

Question though: If I join, can we go back to interpreting and live our life with the WHOLE bible instead of leaving out all words of God no one wants to acknowledge anymore?

Specifically, I'd like to have slaves for both work and sex. Exodus 21: 7-8 says men can sell their daughters off to please other men. This interests me and God said it's ok.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Nekromantik said:


> I have an uncle that's Catholic and says it's great, because you can sin all week, go to church on Sunday, ask for forgiveness, and you're clean. Than sin the next week, rinse and repeat.


But if you don't put an effort to stop sinning after you confess your sins, that means that you are not truly repentant.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> It is an act of love because I am trying to save you the horrible fate of eternal damnation to the fires of hell.


Is heaven full of people like you?


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Graffiti canvas said:


> Shitposting in a shitposting thread.
> 
> You're not as good at it as @Shiversblood though. At least he knows we're all going to laugh at him.
> 
> ...


Those were rules that applied in the old testament. The New Testament condemns sex outside of marriage. And slavery back then was different from plantation slavery, because society depended on it and the bible also says that slaves are to be treated well.


----------



## Graffiti canvas (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Those were rules that applied in the old testament. The New Testament condemns sex outside of marriage. And slavery back then was different from plantation slavery, because society depended on it and the bible also says that slaves are to be treated well.


So... God changed his mind about selling daughters then? Darn. Stupid God...


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> Is heaven full of people like you?


Yes it is full of kind loving people like me who tried to have their fellow humans enter paradise. Hell is full of people like Hitler.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Yes it is full of kind loving people like me who tried to have their fellow humans enter paradise. Hell is full of people like Hitler.


Cool, I’ve made up my mind


----------



## Arkangel (Feb 2, 2019)

@Jacob Harrison is your username your real name?


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Arkangel said:


> @Jacob Harrison is your username your real name?


It isn't. It is my internet name to prevent people from discovering personal information.


----------



## RG 448 (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I want to convert you guys so that your souls will  be saved. And the Catholic Church says that Faith and Reason are complementary, so I am trying to show evidence that will lead you to conversion if you use your logical reasoning skills.


Most of us have already found Christ.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> Cool, I’ve made up my mind


So you would rather be with Hitler, serial killers, and rapists, and be burning in fire, then to enter a great paradise and hang out with kind loving people?


----------



## PorcupineTree (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> What are examples? Virtually all Christians believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross as an atonement for the sins of humanity.



The death of Jesus is interpreted in several ways. Even some atheists have a designated meaning for it. The methods of atonement differ for Christians. 

Protestants don’t see repentance as a method of erasing sins. From that perspective, you can’t diddle a kid and still be “pure” just because you confessed. (As a Catholic would.) Everyone is intrinsically unclean and the goal is to live in a way that represents Christ. 


Jacob Harrison said:


> So you would rather be with Hitler, serial killers, and rapists, and be burning in fire, then to enter a great paradise and hang out with kind loving people?



This threat doesn’t mean anything if people don’t believe in hell.


----------



## The Crow (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> So you would rather be with Hitler, serial killers, and rapists, and be burning in fire, then to enter a great paradise and hang out with kind loving people?



You're on a forum full of sociopathic shitposters, what do you think?


----------



## From The Uncanny Valley (Feb 2, 2019)

I used to know a Catholic girl who believed in shit like reincarnation and "guardian animal spirits". Was she a true believer or just super autistic?


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

PorcupineTree said:


> The death of Jesus is interpreted in several ways. Even some atheists have a designated meaning for it. The methods of atonement differ for Christians.
> 
> Protestants don’t see repentance as a method of erasing sins. From that perspective, you can’t diddle a kid and still be “pure” just because you confessed. (As a Catholic would.) Everyone is intrinsically unclean and the goal is to live in a way that represents Christ.
> 
> ...


The Ransom theory of atonement is one of the main doctrines of Western Christianity which includes Catholics and Protestants. Catholics and Protestants also both believe in the Satisfaction theory of atonement which is that Christ's death was a substitute for human sin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_theory_of_atonement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement

And your right, protestants do not see repentance as a way of easing sins. They believe that salvation is by faith alone, so as long as they have faith, all their sins can be forgiven.


----------



## The Crow (Feb 2, 2019)

Uncanny Valley said:


> I used to know a Catholic girl who believed in shit like reincarnation and "guardian animal spirits". Was she a true believer or just super autistic?



She sounds more like a spiritualist as opposed to a catholic. Catholics strictly believe in either eternal paradise in heaven, or eternal damnation in hell, and consider reincarnation "blasphemy".


----------



## Malodorous Merkin (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I said, how do you explain the fact that a town full of Protestants converted to Catholicism, if there wasn’t an apparition?



Autism.



Jacob Harrison said:


> So you would rather be with Hitler, serial killers, and rapists, and be burning in fire, then to enter a great paradise and hang out with kind loving people?



None of the above.

I will be in Valhalla, shiny and chrome.


----------



## From The Uncanny Valley (Feb 2, 2019)

The Crow said:


> She sounds more like a spiritualist as opposed to a catholic. Catholics strictly believe in either eternal paradise in heaven, or eternal damnation in hell, and consider reincarnation "blasphemy".



She called herself Catholic, and even guilt tripped me for a super long time about a "Easter is Zombie Jesus Day" joke.


----------



## drtoboggan (Feb 2, 2019)

How does a church get confiscated?


----------



## Red Hood (Feb 2, 2019)

Well I'm convinced. Where do I confess my sins and pick up my Knight Templar gear? I want to be Deus Vulting my way through the Holy Land no later than Wednesday.


----------



## drtoboggan (Feb 2, 2019)

I just talked to god and he said @Jacob Harrison is an asshole.


----------



## PorcupineTree (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> The Ransom theory of atonement is one of the main doctrines of Western Christianity which includes Catholics and Protestants. Catholics and Protestants also both believe in the Satisfaction theory of atonement which is that Christ's death was a substitute for human sin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_theory_of_atonement
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement
> 
> And your right, protestants do not see repentance as a way of easing sins. They believe that salvation is by faith alone, so as long as they have faith, all their sins can be forgiven.



So what is your take on salvation? If I’m baptized as a Catholic and don’t bother with church, am I in the clear? 

What if I just lived a life of sin and repented on my deathbed?


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

drtoboggan said:


> How does a church get confiscated?


Obviously by having it's property taken away.


PorcupineTree said:


> So what is your take on salvation? If I’m baptized as a Catholic and don’t bother with church, am I in the clear?
> 
> What if I just lived a life of sin and repented on my deathbed?


If you repented on your deathbed, you would spend a long time in purgatory before entering heaven.


----------



## The Crow (Feb 2, 2019)

drtoboggan said:


> I just talked to god and he said @Jacob Harrison is an asshole.



I spoke to God today and she said that she's ashamed. What have I become? What have I done? I spoke to the devil today, and he swears he's not to blame, and I understood 'cause I feel the same.


----------



## Not an_ime g_irl (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I want to convert you guys so that your souls will  be saved. And the Catholic Church says that Faith and Reason are complementary, so I am trying to show evidence that will lead you to conversion if you use your logical reasoning skills.


So you are trying to convert people to your doctrine because _you_ believe your doctrine is the right one, and the only one that will bring salvation because _someone else_ convinced you of this?
That sounds like a pyramid scheme, doesn't it?
I know thinking for yourself is hard and all, but it is better than just shallow whatever someone else throws your way as "the truth" did you know satanists believe their religion will bring salvation to their souls?


----------



## The Crow (Feb 2, 2019)

@Jacob Harrison


----------



## Cosmos (Feb 2, 2019)

The Last Stand said:


> Not everybody... @Cosmos comes to mind.



Aww, thank you! I try to leave a good impression of Catholics!


----------



## Malodorous Merkin (Feb 2, 2019)

Are all the ancient Egyptians burning in Hell?

I mean, instead of worshipping Jesus, they worshipped cats, and the Sun, and dumbshit like that, so they deserve to burn in Hell for their refusal to believe in Jesus, right?

It doesn't matter that Jesus hadn't been invented yet, those shitheads should've known it was stupid to worship cats, and they had to figure that something better to worship was going to be invented eventually.


----------



## PorcupineTree (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> If you repented on your deathbed, you would spend a long time in purgatory before entering heaven.



Ok but what if a friend prays for me a whole lot. Can that speed the process up?


----------



## The Last Stand (Feb 2, 2019)

Do Catholics believe in masturbation? Asking for a friend.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Feb 2, 2019)

Why would the creator of the entire universe have any concern for something so insignificant as humanity? The universe is vast in both time and space, yet the concerns of religion are so provincial by contrast. Do you ever question why that might be, OP?


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Not an_ime g_irl said:


> So you are trying to convert people to your doctrine because _you_ believe your doctrine is the right one, and the only one that will bring salvation because _someone else_ convinced you of this?
> That sounds like a pyramid scheme, doesn't it?
> I know thinking for yourself is hard and all, but it is better than just shallow whatever someone else throws your way as "the truth" did you know satanists believe their religion will bring salvation to their souls?


While I was raised as a Catholic, I later found that my religious beliefs are validated by overwhelming evidence.



Malodorous Merkin said:


> Are all the ancient Egyptians burning in Hell?
> 
> I mean, instead of worshipping Jesus, they worshipped cats, and the Sun, and dumbshit like that, so they deserve to burn in Hell for their refusal to believe in Jesus, right?
> 
> It doesn't matter that Jesus hadn't been invented yet, those shitheads should've known it was stupid to worship cats, and they had to figure that something better to worship was going to be invented eventually.


The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this.

_1260 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity._



PorcupineTree said:


> Ok but what if a friend prays for me a whole lot. Can that speed the process up?


Yes.



The Last Stand said:


> Do Catholics believe in masturbation? Asking for a friend.



_*2352* By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
_
Which means that your moral culpability is reduced since you masturbated before I told you that it is gravelly disordered, but now that you know it is, it is now a mortal sin for you to continue masturbating.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Why would the creator of the entire universe have any concern for something so insignificant as humanity? The universe is vast in both time and space, yet the concerns of religion are so provincial by contrast. Do you ever question why that might be, OP?


Because we are made in the image of God. He choose one species out of all the species in the universe to have a relationship with.

That also means that we are the only species with original sin, so animals and aliens go to heaven.


----------



## MrTroll (Feb 2, 2019)

If I convert to Catholicism do I have to quit my job as an abortion doctor?


----------



## Malodorous Merkin (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this.
> 
> _1260 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity._



So they are burning in Hell.

Good.

Cat-worshipping shitheads.


----------



## Black Waltz (Feb 2, 2019)

we already have a schizophrenic catholic here, fuck off


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Because we are made in the image of God. He choose one species out of all the species in the universe to have a relationship with.
> 
> That also means that we are the only species with original sin, so animals and aliens go to heaven.



Do you not think a more plausible explanation is that God was made in the image of man, by men, who wanted to control other men? Do you not find it suspiciously convenient that just about every God people have ever worshiped always seem to reflect the preoccupations and the prejudices of the people that worship them?


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

MrTroll said:


> If I convert to Catholicism do I have to quit my job as an abortion doctor?


Obviously yes, and you need to confess for all the babies you murdered.


----------



## The Crow (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> _*2352* By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139
> 
> To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
> _
> Which means that your moral culpability is reduced since you masturbated before I told you that it is gravelly disordered, but now that you know it is, it is now a mortal sin for you to continue masturbating.



Marriage is nothing but a legal agreement between two partners, and the concept of marriage has been around long before Jesus and Christianity.

Also, when you think about it, the Catholic's depiction of God is a glorified passive-aggressive dictator. He gives you "free will" to do what you want, but you better live your life a certain way, or he'll send you to hell........hmm......kind of like how Hitler demanded his people to live their lives a certain way or else he would send them to a concentration camp.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Malodorous Merkin said:


> So they are burning in Hell.
> 
> Good.
> 
> Cat-worshipping shitheads.


The ones who sought the truth and did God's will in accordance with their own understanding are saved. They were ignorant of the fact that cat worship is idolatry.


----------



## Coldgrip (Feb 2, 2019)

Look @Jacob Harrison, I'm gonna give you some advice. If this is your idea of trolling, to convince us that you're an autistic retard, then you've succeeded. Now here's the problem with that master plan; no amount of _"I was only pretending!!1! LOL I trolled yu guiz!1!!" _is going to convince us you're not a pants sharting spegaloid. You will forever be known as that one tardbiscuit that tried to preach at and guilt-trip us for our actions.

Just a little friendly advice.



Malodorous Merkin said:


> Cat-worshipping shitheads.


Fuck you. It makes sense to worship cats. They catch vermin, are adorable and sometimes listen to you. Sounds a lot like a deity to me.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> While I was raised as a Catholic, I later found that my religious beliefs are validated by overwhelming evidence.


Well then why are you bullshitting us with a bunch of nonsense when you have overwhelming evidence? Do you want to save our souls or not, asshole?


----------



## Not an_ime g_irl (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> While I was raised as a Catholic, I later found that my religious beliefs are validated by overwhelming evidence.


_"What the thinker thinks, the prover proves"_
Why don't you give other religions a chance, i'm sure it would be an enlightening experience.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Do you not think a more plausible explanation is that God was made in the image of man, by men, who wanted to control other men? Do you not find it suspiciously convenient that just about every God people have ever worshiped always seem to reflect the preoccupations and the prejudices of the people that worship them?


That is true for the other religions, but Christianity stands out because the New Covenant caused an end to Kosher dietary restrictions. If Christianity is not true, then why would the early Jewish Christians abolish the Kosher laws?


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> If Christianity is not true, then why would the early Jewish Christians abolish the Kosher laws?



Because they really loved pork?


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Corbin Dallas Multipass said:


> Well then why are you bullshitting us with a bunch of nonsense when you have overwhelming evidence? Do you want to save our souls or not, asshole?


Because it is overwhelming evidence and you only consider it to be nonsense because your wicked hearts have made you oblivious to the truth. If you have an open mind and seek the truth, you will be granted wisdom.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Not an_ime g_irl said:


> _"What the thinker thinks, the prover proves"_
> Why don't you give other religions a chance, i'm sure it would be an enlightening experience.


Because the Catholic Church has the most evidence of it being true. It has the most documented miracles, the most eyewitness testimony of apparitions of angels, saints, and the Virgin Mary, and the most eyewitness testimony of visions of heaven, purgatory, and hell.

Also Christianity and Islam are the only religions where non believers get damned to hell, so leaving Christianity is the greatest risk, since there is more evidence proving Christianity than Islam. It's better to be safe than sorry.


----------



## The Crow (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Because it is* overwhelming evidence* and you only consider it to be nonsense because your wicked hearts have made you oblivious to the truth. If you have an open mind and seek the truth, you will be granted wisdom.



So please, enlighten us on this "overwhelming evidence". So I guess Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus are all going to hell for choosing the wrong god, eh?


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

The Crow said:


> So please, enlighten us on this "overwhelming evidence". So I guess Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus are all going to hell for choosing the wrong god, eh?


This is the site where I promoted Catholicism until I was banned. I made numerous posts with overwhelming evidence. http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?board=11.0


----------



## murgatroid (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Because the Catholic Church has the most evidence of it being true. It has the most documented miracles, the most eyewitness testimony of apparitions of angels, saints, and the Virgin Mary, and the most eyewitness testimony of visions of heaven, purgatory, and hell.
> 
> Also Christianity and Islam are the only religions where non believers get damned to hell, so leaving Christianity is the greatest risk, since there is more evidence proving Christianity than Islam. It's better to be safe than sorry.



I'm not a x-tian because Jesus was a gay foot fetishist and the new testament is a really shitty book by literary standards.

Your post inspired me to masturbate to this image.





 ​


----------



## drtoboggan (Feb 2, 2019)

@Jacob Harrison quit being a double and triple posting faggot or Sexy Jesus will condemn you to hell.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

The Crow said:


> Marriage is nothing but a legal agreement between two partners, and the concept of marriage has been around long before Jesus and Christianity.
> 
> Also, when you think about it, the Catholic's depiction of God is a glorified passive-aggressive dictator. He gives you "free will" to do what you want, but you better live your life a certain way, or he'll send you to hell........hmm......kind of like how Hitler demanded his people to live their lives a certain way or else he would send them to a concentration camp.


The difference is the proportions. God is an infinite being, so therefore sin is an infinite crime deserving of eternal punishment.


----------



## Not an_ime g_irl (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Because the Catholic Church has the most evidence of it being true. It has the most documented miracles, the most eyewitness testimony of apparitions of angels, saints, and the Virgin Mary, and the most eyewitness testimony of visions of heaven, purgatory, and hell.
> 
> Also Christianity and Islam are the only religions where non believers get damned to hell, so leaving Christianity is the greatest risk, since there is more evidence proving Christianity than Islam. It's better to be safe than sorry.


What about abramelin, solomon, the rosecroix, the aurum solis, the enochian... Are none of those valid? But they too have a ton of documented miracles, eyewitness testimony of apparition of angels and even rituals.
Are none of those valid just because they are not part of your movement? Even if they believe in the same things with the same objective?


----------



## The Crow (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> The difference is the proportions. God is an infinite being, so therefore sin is an infinite crime deserving of eternal punishment.



So is homosexuality a sin punishable by eternal damnation in hell? What about all of the homosexuals who don't cause harm to anyone and just want to live their lives freely and openly?


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Not an_ime g_irl said:


> What about abramelin, solomon, the roescroix, the aurum solis, the enochian... Are none of those valid? But they too have a ton of documented miracles, eyewitness testimony of apparition of angels and even rituals.
> Are none of those valid just because they are not part of your movement? Even if they believe in the same things with the same objective?


The documented miracles, and eyewitness testimonies is not nearly as numerous as in the Catholic Church. The more documented evidence something has, the more likely it is to be true.



The Crow said:


> So is homosexuality a sin punishable by eternal damnation in hell? What about all of the homosexuals who don't cause harm to anyone and just want to live their lives freely and openly?


They can achieve salvation as long as they abstain from having homosexual relations.


----------



## drtoboggan (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> They can achieve salvation as long as they abstain from having homosexual relations.


So pedophile priests go to hell then or do they get special treatment for spreading the word of Sexy Jesus?


----------



## ulsterscotsman (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> That is because Freemasons infiltrated the church in the 20th century and made the church corrupt and ordain pedophiles into the priesthood. They are also responsible for the horrible Vatican II reforms.


Well you're right about that. There needs to a serious reformation and purge within the Church to remove the corruption and degenerates.


----------



## The Crow (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> They can achieve salvation as long as they abstain from having homosexual relations.



Okay, then how do you explain all of the homosexual tendencies in non-human animals, such as dogs? Because there are plenty of male dogs who engage in homosexual acts with other male dogs. Are they all going to hell for engaging in such a sinful act?


----------



## Not an_ime g_irl (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> The documented miracles, and eyewitness testimonies is not nearly as numerous as in the Catholic Church. The more documented evidence something has, the more likely it is to be true.


You really can't prove that with a 5 minutes search, assuming an awful lot here, are we?
As i said earlier _"what the thinker thinks, the prover proves"_
Try to not be dragged by the current, echochambers can do an awful number on your brain.


----------



## Basketball Jones (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> So you would rather be with Hitler, serial killers, and rapists, and be burning in fire, then to enter a great paradise and hang out with kind loving people?



Depending on which version of the Apostles’  Creed you prescribe to, it’s debated that Jesus “suffered, died, and was buried; he decended into Hell.”

It’s suggested by some that this was part of that whole dying on the cross as the sacrifice for Original Sin thing and he was preaching to the dead and freeing them from Hell while he was taking a 3-day dirt nap.



Jacob Harrison said:


> If you repented on your deathbed, you would spend a long time in purgatory before entering heaven.



I guess that whole thing about Jesus forgiving the criminal on the cross beside him was just to make him look like a nice guy.

What version of the Bible are you using and which sect of Catholicism are you in? I’ve lost track of all you fundies and you’re different squads like Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinism, ect. It’s funny that you all hate each other because you think the division you’re in is the right one and the other people are doing the whole personal relationship with God thing wrong.

Westboro Baptist Church also thinks they’re the good guys. What’s you’re opinion on them and their brand of Orthodox Catholic?



Jacob Harrison said:


> Which means that your moral culpability is reduced since you masturbated before I told you that it is gravelly disordered, but now that you know it is, it is now a mortal sin for you to continue masturbating.



Old Testament? So everything in there is to be taken literally? You know, there’s sections of Deuteronomy that instruct people on how to properly farm and build a house...because these guidelines and laws were made 5000 years ago. In the deserts of the Middle East...and the average life expectancy was like...40 or something. So of course theirs some ancient text  about not wasting your baby gravy. Having children was necessary to survival. They didn’t know in BC times that men can remain fertile well into their elderly years, or that marrying 12-year-olds would be considered fucking gross thousands of years later.

Real talk: what relevance do 5000 year old texts that were created in a time when stoning women was for prostitution was also a law have in modern society? Why not just take the 10 commandments and the Golden Rule as good standards of moral value to live by, and live your life trying to be as good person as you can?



Spoiler



I heard you’re an ass man btw


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Also Christianity and Islam are the only religions where non believers get damned to hell, so leaving Christianity is the greatest risk, since there is more evidence proving Christianity than Islam. It's better to be safe than sorry.



You don't even believe in what you're preaching, you're just doing it to "play it safe". That's not faith.  Your ideas of what constitute evidence unfortunately mean every religion ever is true. Pascal's wager only works if you assume somehow that only christianity should be considered. What about the religions who punish you with eternal damnation for being a catholic?


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

drtoboggan said:


> So pedophile priests go to hell then or do they get special treatment for spreading the word of Sexy Jesus?


Of course they will go to hell, unless they repent and turn themselves into the authorities.


----------



## DCM90 (Feb 2, 2019)

cucktholicism and kike loving anglosaxon  scum WASPS worship a kike god.  Aranian Vandal/Visigoth "christians" are the only cool ones.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

The Crow said:


> Okay, then how do you explain all of the homosexual tendencies in non-human animals, such as dogs? Because there are plenty of male dogs who engage in homosexual acts with other male dogs. Are they all going to hell for engaging in such a sinful act?


They are not God's chosen species, so they are not culpable for their actions. All animals go to heaven since they do not have original sin like humans do.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> They are not God's chosen species, so they are not culpable for their actions. All animals go to heaven since they do not have original sin like humans do.


If heaven is full of bedbugs then I’m not going.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Not an_ime g_irl said:


> You really can't prove that with a 5 minutes search, assuming an awful lot here, are we?
> As i said earlier _"what the thinker thinks, the prover proves"_
> Try to not be dragged by the current, echochambers can do an awful number on your brain.


Here is a database for all the miracles. http://www.miraclesofthechurch.com/


----------



## Malodorous Merkin (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> The ones who sought the truth and did God's will in accordance with their own understanding are saved. They were ignorant of the fact that cat worship is idolatry.



And whose fault was that? Where was Jesus to tell them that worshiping cats is stupid? God didn't even bother inventing Jesus for them, he just sat back and laughed at all the dumbass Egyptians worshiping cats for thousands of years like a pack of speds.

God is pretty much a dick.



Jacob Harrison said:


> The difference is the proportions. God is an infinite being, so therefore sin is an infinite crime deserving of eternal punishment.



God is pretty much an infinite dick.


----------



## The Crow (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> They are not God's chosen species, so they are not culpable for their actions. All animals go to heaven since they do not have original sin like humans do.



Ah, original sin. AKA, the story about how a talking snake convinced some bitch to bite a "forbidden apple" then convinced her man to bite said apple, therefore deeming all humans as "sinners" the second they're born due to an event that was completely out of their control. 

Speaking of which, how does the bible explain the existence of dinosaurs and other pre-historic animals? You know, because scientific evidence kinda proves that they've been around for thousands of years before the first humans.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 2, 2019)

The Crow said:


> Ah, original sin. AKA, the story about how a talking snake convinced some bitch to bite a "forbidden apple" then convinced her man to bite said apple, therefore deeming all humans as "sinners" the second they're born due to an event that was completely out of their control.
> 
> Speaking of which, how does the bible explain the existence of dinosaurs and other pre-historic animals? You know, because scientific evidence kinda proves that they've been around for thousands of years before the first humans.


Something something test of faith


----------



## Not an_ime g_irl (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Here is a database for all the miracles. http://www.miraclesofthechurch.com/


K


Spoiler: nsfw


----------



## MrTroll (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Obviously yes, and you need to confess for all the babies you murdered.



Even the black ones?


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Basketball Jones said:


> Depending on which version of the Apostles’  Creed you prescribe to, it’s debated that Jesus “suffered, died, and was buried; he decended into Hell.”
> 
> It’s suggested by some that this was part of that whole dying on the cross as the sacrifice for Original Sin thing and he was preaching to the dead and freeing them from Hell while he was taking a 3-day dirt nap.


Us Catholics believe that. It is called the doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell, where he brought all the righteous who died to paradise.


> I guess that whole thing about Jesus forgiving the criminal on the cross beside him was just to make him look like a nice guy.
> 
> What version of the Bible are you using and which sect of Catholicism are you in? I’ve lost track of all you fundies and you’re different squads like Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinism, ect. It’s funny that you all hate each other because you think the division you’re in is the right one and the other people are doing the whole personal relationship with God thing wrong.
> 
> Westboro Baptist Church also thinks they’re the good guys. What’s you’re opinion on them and their brand of Orthodox Catholic?


I use the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate. I am a traditionalist Catholic, which means that I oppose the Vatican 2 reforms. 


> Old Testament? So everything in there is to be taken literally? You know, there’s sections of Deuteronomy that instruct people on how to properly farm and build a house...because these guidelines and laws were made 5000 years ago. In the deserts of the Middle East...and the average life expectancy was like...40 or something. So of course theirs some ancient text  about not wasting your baby gravy. Having children was necessary to survival. They didn’t know in BC times that men can remain fertile well into their elderly years, or that marrying 12-year-olds would be considered fucking gross thousands of years later.
> 
> Real talk: what relevance do 5000 year old texts that were created in a time when stoning women was for prostitution was also a law have in modern society? Why not just take the 10 commandments and the Golden Rule as good standards of moral value to live by, and live your life trying to be as good person as you can?
> 
> ...


The Old Testament documents the history of God's chosen people before the coming of Christ. Us Catholics do take the 10 commandments as morals to live by and try to be as good as we can by doing good works and preaching the truth to others.


----------



## murgatroid (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Because the Catholic Church has the most evidence of it being true. It has the most documented miracles, the most eyewitness testimony of apparitions of angels, saints, and the Virgin Mary, and the most eyewitness testimony of visions of heaven, purgatory, and hell.
> 
> Also Christianity and Islam are the only religions where non believers get damned to hell, so leaving Christianity is the greatest risk, since there is more evidence proving Christianity than Islam. It's better to be safe than sorry.


Actually being Christian is the biggest risk, because your betting that your one single interpretation of God is the one true god and not the thousands of other religions, god figures, etc. 

What you're suggesting is something commonly refered to as Pascals Wager, and it was demonstrably false centuries ago and you look like an even bigger idiot still trying to use that logic.

And a god that rewards blind obedience over logic, reason, and skepticism is not a god worth following anyway. 

You're clearly are having a crisis of faith yourself and you're trying to convince yourself of all the bullshit you're trying to convince us. If you have more retards to high five in your holy house on Sunday you think it will make you feel like less of an idiot. It won't.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Corbin Dallas Multipass said:


> You don't even believe in what you're preaching, you're just doing it to "play it safe". That's not faith.  Your ideas of what constitute evidence unfortunately mean every religion ever is true. Pascal's wager only works if you assume somehow that only christianity should be considered. What about the religions who punish you with eternal damnation for being a catholic?


I do have faith. Faith is different from absolute certainty and I am 99 percent certain due to all of the evidence. The religions that have eternal damnation for unbelief are the most important ones to consider because they have the greatest risk of loss. Those religions are the sects of Christianity and Islam.


----------



## Malodorous Merkin (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I do have faith. Faith is different from absolute certainty and I am 99 percent certain due to all of the evidence. The religions that have eternal damnation for unbelief are the most important ones to consider because they have the greatest risk of loss. Those religions are the sects of Christianity and Islam.



So you doubt the word of God?

Have fun burning for all eternity in a like of fire, buddy.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Malodorous Merkin said:


> And whose fault was that? Where was Jesus to tell them that worshiping cats is stupid? God didn't even bother inventing Jesus for them, he just sat back and laughed at all the dumbass Egyptians worshiping cats for thousands of years like a pack of speds.
> 
> God is pretty much a dick.


People often ask why God won't reveal himself to all of humanity. The reason is because he wants people to believe in him out of their free will.



The Crow said:


> Ah, original sin. AKA, the story about how a talking snake convinced some bitch to bite a "forbidden apple" then convinced her man to bite said apple, therefore deeming all humans as "sinners" the second they're born due to an event that was completely out of their control.
> 
> Speaking of which, how does the bible explain the existence of dinosaurs and other pre-historic animals? You know, because scientific evidence kinda proves that they've been around for thousands of years before the first humans.


I acknowledge that Dinosaurs were around millions of years before the first humans. Only Young Earth Creationists think otherwise because they take the 7 days of creation as literal.


----------



## StyrofoamFridge (Feb 2, 2019)

Arguments for pantheism makes more sense than Catholic beliefs. Your Abrahamic Angry Sky Daddy is laughable.


----------



## The Crow (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> 99 percent certain



>Only 99% sure


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Malodorous Merkin said:


> So you doubt the word of God?
> 
> Have fun burning for all eternity in a like of fire, buddy.


The Catholic Church never declared that the slightest doubt causes damnation. The definition of faith means believing in something with a strong conviction, not being absolutely certain.


----------



## Malodorous Merkin (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> People often ask why God won't reveal himself to all of humanity. The reason is because he wants people to believe in him out of their free will.



Explain this then-



> *This issue was resolved in the summer of 1608 when a few children tending their sheep in a field some distance away from Šiluva reported that they saw a beautiful woman holding a baby, appeared on the very spot where the church had stood. She was weeping bitterly. The children returned the next day accompanied by many from the whole village and a Calvinist minister, and they saw her, as well. *



Those people converted to Catholicism because God revealed himself(in a miraculous appearance), and not out of their own free will to believe based upon faith alone.



Jacob Harrison said:


> The Catholic Church never declared that the slightest doubt causes damnation. The definition of faith means believing in something with a strong conviction, not being absolutely certain.



Is God going to hook me up to the Conviction-O-Meter on judgement day?


----------



## MediocreMilt (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> How do you explain the fact that the population of Silvuna converted back to Catholicism.



Because whoever was in charge of Silvuna wanted to be Catholic again, so when he heard a story, he ran with it and ordered it to be written as official history, and got away with it due to poor literacy rates in that century.

Also ergot poisoning.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Malodorous Merkin said:


> Explain this then-
> 
> 
> 
> Those people converted to Catholicism because God revealed himself(in a miraculous appearance), and not out of their own free will to believe based upon faith alone.


He needs to reveal himself enough times so that there will be enough evidence for people in the future to be given the choice to believe in him out of their free will.


----------



## PorcupineTree (Feb 2, 2019)

Do you think Jesus is watching you get heckled on kiwifarms and adding salvation points to your roster?


----------



## Malodorous Merkin (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> He needs to reveal himself enough times so that there will be enough evidence for people in the future to be given the choice to believe in him out of their free will.



I agree. Evidence is important. I'll require much more of that.

Is it true that all my dead relatives up in Heaven watch me when I masturbate?

Cuz that's hot.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

PorcupineTree said:


> Do you think Jesus is watching you get heckled on kiwifarms and adding salvation points to your roster?


Yes because it shows that I am willing to be mocked and ridiculed for my faith.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> So you would rather be with Hitler, serial killers, and rapists, and be burning in fire, then to enter a great paradise and hang out with kind loving people?


Every kind and loving person who didn't happen to be Catholic is in Hell, too.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 2, 2019)

When I go to heaven, will all the guys I killed be able to get their revenge?

One of them probably isn’t there, he swore an awful lot after I shot him.


----------



## Coldgrip (Feb 2, 2019)

Malodorous Merkin said:


> Is it true that all my dead relatives up in Heaven watch me when I masturbate?
> 
> Cuz that's hot.


So, what if one of your ancestors is a total milf? Does that make it better or worse?


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Malodorous Merkin said:


> Is it true that all my dead relatives up in Heaven watch me when I masturbate?
> 
> Cuz that's hot.


While they are watching you, they are not watching you all the time because they do other things in heaven such as praying and interceding, praising God, talking to the other saints, feasting, and doing some other joyful activities. So it depends on what they are doing at the time that you are masturbating.


Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Every kind and loving person who didn't happen to be Catholic is in Hell, too.


Because even the most kind and loving non Christians have committed sins that they haven't confessed.



Tragi-Chan said:


> When I go to heaven, will all the guys I killed be able to get their revenge?
> 
> One of them probably isn’t there, he swore an awful lot after I shot him.


In heaven, they will forgive you.


----------



## PorcupineTree (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Yes because it shows that I am willing to be mocked and ridiculed for my faith.



You don’t sound like a loving person. You sound like someone who’s afraid of going to hell.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> In heaven, they will forgive you.


I don’t think the sweary one will. I shot his dick off.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

PorcupineTree said:


> You don’t sound like a loving person. You sound like someone who’s afraid of going to hell.


I also worry about you guys going to hell.


----------



## PorcupineTree (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I also worry about you guys going to hell.


Because you think you’ll go to hell if you don’t.


----------



## Graffiti canvas (Feb 2, 2019)

*GOD=7_4, 7/4=July 4th or 7 April 30 AD*: GOOD(7__4) Friday(74) when Jesus(74=J10+E5+S19+U21+S19) was nailed on(74) the Cross(74=C3+R18+O15+S19+S19).

GOD=7_4 whereas G is the 7th letter. A circle can be 15, zero, or ---, D=4. The ancients observed the '7 Classical Planets': Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn - 4 of these can't be easily seen during the day/4 don't cast shadows on Earth (Venus can). There's 4 lunar phases of roughly 7 days (~7.4 days) each, thus 4 weeks in a 'moonth'. Lunar year + 7 day week + 4 days = solar year. Etc.

The Constitution's 7 Articles were written on 4 pages. George Washington had 74 generals (33 Freemasons) in the Continental Army. Etc.

I WORSHIP @Brad Watson_Miami  AND KNOW THAT GOD (7_4) PLAN-IT THEORY IS THE ONE TRUE RELIGION AND YOU SHALL BE BURNED AT THE STAKE FOR THIS HERESY  @Jacob Harrison YOU SHALL BE CURSED FOR 1000 YEARS WITH REALLY BAD LUCK


----------



## TenMilesWide (Feb 2, 2019)

PorcupineTree said:


> Because you think you’ll go to hell if you don’t.


No, because you'll go to hell if he doesn't.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> They are not God's chosen species, so they are not culpable for their actions. All animals go to heaven since they do not have original sin like humans do.


Incorrect, animals do not have spiritual souls and lack spiritual existence.  They do not go to heaven or hell because they cease to be upon death.  This is basic Catholic doctrine, and you are wholly ignorant of it.


Jacob Harrison said:


> Because the Catholic Church has the most evidence of it being true. It has the most documented miracles, the most eyewitness testimony of apparitions of angels, saints, and the Virgin Mary, and the most eyewitness testimony of visions of heaven, purgatory, and hell.
> 
> Also Christianity and Islam are the only religions where non believers get damned to hell, so leaving Christianity is the greatest risk, since there is more evidence proving Christianity than Islam. It's better to be safe than sorry.


Miracles can be explained as coincidence, delusion, or the work of evil spirits.  A religion should be judged on the strength of its logical arguments, and in that case, the teachings of the Buddha are the most worthy faith, as they are based on reason and observation about the world.
The principles of reason also show that your conception of God is unworthy of worship.  Let us say there are two men: the first lives a life without harming another living soul.  His every breath in life is devoted to benevolence, peace, and the ending of suffering.  He does not eat meat, gives all he makes that he does not need to live to the poor, does not drink or swear or do any other thing to abuse his body or others, and has not even had an evil thought pass into his mind.  However, he lived in a circumstance where he could have become Catholic and did not, because his one exposure to the faith was an evil and lecherous priest.
The second man is a drunk, a rapist, a thief, and a murderer.  Throughout all of his life, he has abused others and himself.  He is a vile and debased creature, a stain upon the earth.  However, as he lay on his deathbed, he called for a priest, gave confession, and begged God for forgiveness.
According to your own faith and your own words, the first man will be sent to Hell and suffer eternally because he did not submit to the will of the evil priest and become baptized, while the second will go to heaven.  It is clear, then, that virtue and vice do not truly matter to your God, only a servile attitude towards Him.  You could be the most wicked of men, but so long as you fell to your knees at the end of your life and made a show of devotion, you would be saved.  You could be the purest and most noble soul, but if you did not, you would be damned.


----------



## Coldgrip (Feb 2, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> I don’t think the sweary one will. I shot his dick off.


Do you think he'll get his dick back if he goes to heaven?


----------



## Malodorous Merkin (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> While they are watching you, they are not watching you all the time because they do other things in heaven such as praying and interceding, praising God, talking to the other saints, feasting, and doing some other joyful activities. So it depends on what they are doing at the time that you are masturbating.



Damn, heaven sounds boring as fuck.

I choose Valhalla. Wenching, fighting, feasting halls...

You know what you get to do in Valhalla? Get this- snowball fights. Snowball fights in hot tubs. You sit in piping water in vast hot tubs full o' wenches in raging blizzards having snowball fights.

That's what I'm talking about.

You can keep your boring ass praying and praising with boring ass saints, I'll be in the hot tub with me wenches thankyouverymuch.

May it please Odin.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 2, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Incorrect, animals do not have spiritual souls and lack spiritual existence.  They do not go to heaven or hell because they cease to be upon death.  This is basic Catholic doctrine, and you are wholly ignorant of it.


I’m glad to hear clothes moths cannot go to heaven.


----------



## drtoboggan (Feb 2, 2019)

Is god an atheist?


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Incorrect, animals do not have spiritual souls and lack spiritual existence.  They do not go to heaven or hell because they cease to be upon death.  This is basic Catholic doctrine, and you are wholly ignorant of it.


https://www.uscatholic.org/blog/201602/heaven-all-30553


> Miracles can be explained as coincidence, delusion, or the work of evil spirits.  A religion should be judged on the strength of its logical arguments, and in that case, the teachings of the Buddha are the most worthy faith, as they are based on reason and observation about the world.
> The principles of reason also show that your conception of God is unworthy of worship.  Let us say there are two men: the first lives a life without harming another living soul.  His every breath in life is devoted to benevolence, peace, and the ending of suffering.  He does not eat meat, gives all he makes that he does not need to live to the poor, does not drink or swear or do any other thing to abuse his body or others, and has not even had an evil thought pass into his mind.  However, he lived in a circumstance where he could have become Catholic and did not, because his one exposure to the faith was an evil and lecherous priest.
> The second man is a drunk, a rapist, a thief, and a murderer.  Throughout all of his life, he has abused others and himself.  He is a vile and debased creature, a stain upon the earth.  However, as he lay on his deathbed, he called for a priest, gave confession, and begged God for forgiveness.
> According to your own faith and your own words, the first man will be sent to Hell and suffer eternally because he did not submit to the will of the evil priest and become baptized, while the second will go to heaven.  It is clear, then, that virtue and vice do not truly matter to your God, only a servile attitude towards Him.  You could be the most wicked of men, but so long as you fell to your knees at the end of your life and made a show of devotion, you would be saved.  You could be the purest and most noble soul, but if you did not, you would be damned.


The Catholic Church also bases it's faith on reason and observation. Observing the world makes one conclude that it is intelligently designed by a creator, and reason leads one to conclude that the creator is the Abrahamic God and Catholicism is the religion that worships him correctly.

And no one ever goes through life without committing sin. Even the most righteous have occasional evil thoughts. The difference is that the wicked person apologized and atoned for his sinful deeds by confessing them before death, and the righteous non Christian did not.


----------



## Monolith (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> https://www.uscatholic.org/blog/201602/heaven-all-30553
> 
> The Catholic Church also bases it's faith on reason and observation. Observing the world makes one conclude that it is intelligently designed by a creator, and reason leads one to conclude that the creator is the Abrahamic God and Catholicism is the religion that worships him correctly.
> 
> And no one ever goes through life without committing sin. Even the most righteous have occasional evil thoughts. The difference is that the wicked person apologized and atoned for his sinful deeds by confessing them before death, and the righteous non Christian did not.


You know who else claims to base his faith on observation and reason?

This guy.


----------



## MediocreMilt (Feb 2, 2019)

MediocreMilt said:


> Because whoever was in charge of Silvuna wanted to be Catholic again, so when he heard a story, he ran with it and ordered it to be written as official history, and got away with it due to poor literacy rates in that century.
> 
> Also ergot poisoning.





Jacob Harrison said:


> If that were the case, then there would be a record of



What? Why would illiteracy imply better records?


----------



## Black Waltz (Feb 2, 2019)

op, what are your opinions on black people


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> https://www.uscatholic.org/blog/201602/heaven-all-30553


You contradict yourself.  You claim that the current Catholic church has been corrupted by Freemasons who created Vatican II, and then use a man who's theology is the epitome of Vatican II to justify your false positions.  In addition, the Pope is fallible unless speaking _ex cathedra_ by your doctrine, and encyclicals are not _ex cathedra_.



> The Catholic Church also bases it's faith on reason and observation. Observing the world makes one conclude that it is intelligently designed by a creator, and reason leads one to conclude that the creator is the Abrahamic God and Catholicism is the religion that worships him correctly.


It is easy to proclaim this.  You cannot show this.  I look at the world and I see that it is full of impure things, and that these impure things are not just the result of actions, but are part of the world to begin with.  If your God intelligently designed the world, he designed it to have wasting illness, body-wracking parasites, and cancer.  These things are not evil in themselves, in the same way that the wildfire that destroys a village is not evil.  But to willfully create these things, which exist only to cause suffering, pain, and death, would be evil.  If your God is just and loving, why did he will such things into being? 
Show me the argument, in your own words, that Jehovah made the world and Catholics are the most pleasing to him.  Then show me why I should want to please him.  Threats of damnation are not a valid reason, and citing miracles is not an argument.  The Buddhist faith does not need threats to recruit; all it says is 'this is how the world is, this is why suffering happens, if you follow the vehicles, you can quell suffering'.  It does not need a supernal bully pulpit to threaten people into line.



> And no one ever goes through life without committing sin. Even the most righteous have occasional evil thoughts. The difference is that the wicked person apologized and atoned for his sinful deeds by confessing them before death, and the righteous non Christian did not.


So righteous is your God, that even the most atomic of impurities deserves infinite and transcendent punishment!  Who could meet such a standard?  And such forgiveness does he have, that even the most abominable of crimes might be forgiven with nothing more than empty words at life's end!  Once again, you have not proven that what pleases your God is leading a life of virtue, instead of groveling subservience.  Your own words paint your God as a sadistic and universal tyrant, more worthy of being reviled than loved.


----------



## Moon Jelly (Feb 2, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> I’m glad to hear clothes moths cannot go to heaven.



I'll believe in whatever this guy fucking wants if it means that I don't have to share the afterlife with clothes moths.


----------



## Outer Party Member (Feb 2, 2019)

The Catholic Church has declared papal doctrine infallible. What happens if a future pope redacts what a previous pope said on an issue?


----------



## Nacho Man Randy Salsa (Feb 2, 2019)

Well I'm convinced, bring on the booze and crackers. Bye bye Snake Handling.


----------



## Black Waltz (Feb 2, 2019)

op, have you considered Islam? it's like Catholicism except more authoritarian


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

MediocreMilt said:


> What? Why would illiteracy imply better records?


That was an accidental post.



Dink Smallwood said:


> op, what are your opinions on black people



“There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28 Douay Rheims version


----------



## TenMilesWide (Feb 2, 2019)

Outer Party Member said:


> The Catholic Church has declared papal doctrine infallible. What happens if a future pope redacted what a previous pope said on an issue?


He was right then, and he's right now.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 2, 2019)

I don't know what offends me more. The thread itself, or the terrible theology.

Please OP. At least read a Theology book if you want to preach to the heathen. Some of my more conservative Catholic and Orthodox teachers would be frothing at the mouth at this heresy.



Spoiler: Is this basically how you see God OP?


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> You contradict yourself.  You claim that the current Catholic church has been corrupted by Freemasons who created Vatican II, and then use a man who's theology is the epitome of Vatican II to justify your false positions.  In addition, the Pope is fallible unless speaking _ex cathedra_ by your doctrine, and encyclicals are not _ex cathedra_.


True, but it shows that it is a debated subject. I believe that animals go to heaven because I may have seen the ghost of my dead cat out of the corner of my eye indicating that he came from heaven to visit.


> It is easy to proclaim this.  You cannot show this.  I look at the world and I see that it is full of impure things, and that these impure things are not just the result of actions, but are part of the world to begin with.  If your God intelligently designed the world, he designed it to have wasting illness, body-wracking parasites, and cancer.  These things are not evil in themselves, in the same way that the wildfire that destroys a village is not evil.  But to willfully create these things, which exist only to cause suffering, pain, and death, would be evil.  If your God is just and loving, why did he will such things into being?
> Show me the argument, in your own words, that Jehovah made the world and Catholics are the most pleasing to him.  Then show me why I should want to please him.  Threats of damnation are not a valid reason, and citing miracles is not an argument.  The Buddhist faith does not need threats to recruit; all it says is 'this is how the world is, this is why suffering happens, if you follow the vehicles, you can quell suffering'.  It does not need a supernal bully pulpit to threaten people into line.


Humans would have been prevented from experiencing those things and would have been immortal but humanity has been cursed because of Adam and Eve bringing sin into the world. But these things will end after Satan is defeated and God creates a new heaven and new Earth. 

The argument is too long for me to post in my own words but here it is. http://www.clairval.com/lettres/en/textes/preuves_en.htm

We owe God our worship and obedience because he is our creator. 


> So righteous is your God, that even the most atomic of impurities deserves infinite and transcendent punishment!  Who could meet such a standard?  And such forgiveness does he have, that even the most abominable of crimes might be forgiven with nothing more than empty words at life's end!  Once again, you have not proven that what pleases your God is leading a life of virtue, instead of groveling subservience.  Your own words paint your God as a sadistic and universal tyrant, more worthy of being reviled than loved.


As I said, sin is a crime against an infinite being which makes it an infinite crime. God wants us to live a life of virtue as shown by the fact that the most righteous enter heaven immediately after death while the other righteous have to go through purgatory first. The most abominable sinners who repent before death spend the most time in purgatory and the time is reduced only by prayers for them.



Fagatron said:


> I don't know what offends me more. The thread itself, or the terrible theology.
> 
> Please OP. At least read a Theology book if you want to preach to the heathen. Some of my more conservative Catholic teachers would be frothing at the mouth at this heresy.
> 
> ...


How am I promoting heresy?


----------



## Splendid (Feb 2, 2019)

I'm a Catholic, and this thread is still based on a retarded premise and you should stop.
God clearly didn't give you the wisdom to know the difference between things you can and can't change buddy.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 2, 2019)

Well just on this thread alone you said you believe animals go to heaven, they don't. Only creatures made in _imago dei _can go to heaven (that's why euthanising your dog is okay, it doesn't have an immortal soul, only a material one that perishes at death), and "going to heaven" is partaking in the "Beatific vision". I.e: You see everything as god sees it, your will is one with Gods. You've said elsewhere in this thread that relatives might not be watching you all the time, if they're partaking in the beatific vision they are taking part in Gods omiscience.

You flap between arch liberalism and arch conservatism at the drop of a hat. Some of your proposals conflict with each other, that's why Theologians tend to fall in lines of different "schools" such as Scholastics and Thomists. You're darting all over the place.

TL;DR: There is no afterlife for anything but humans. No doggie heaven or hell, and Grandma is watching you wank off.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Splendid Meat Sticks said:


> I'm a Catholic, and this thread is still based on a exceptional premise and you should stop.
> God clearly didn't give you the wisdom to know the difference between things you can and can't change buddy.


How do I not know the difference between those things. I know I cannot change anything about God.


Fagatron said:


> Well just on this thread alone you said you believe animals go to heaven, they don't. Only creatures made in _imago dei _can go to heaven (that's why euthanising your dog is okay, it doesn't have an immortal soul, only a material one that perishes at death), and "going to heaven" is partaking in the "Beatific vision". I.e: You see everything as god sees it, your will is one with Gods. You've said elsewhere in this thread that relatives might not be watching you all the time, if they're partaking in the beatific vision they are taking part in Gods omiscience.
> 
> You flap between arch liberalism and arch conservatism at the drop of a hat. Some of your proposals conflict with each other, that's why Theologians tend to fall in lines of different "schools" such as Scholastics and Thomists. You're darting all over the place.
> 
> TL;DR: There is no afterlife for anything but humans. No doggie heaven or hell, and Grandma is watching you wank off.


The fact that the Pope believes that animals go to heaven shows that it is not heresy. And it is not Catholic doctrine that the saints are omniscient, it is just that they know all the prayers of people on Earth. https://forums.catholic.com/t/mary-and-the-saints-are-omniscient/205575


----------



## MrTroll (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> “There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28 Douay Rheims version



No Jews or Greeks? Okay, you've just made your first sale. Sign me up and give me my membership packet.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> The fact that the Pope believes that animals go to heaven shows that it is not heresy. And it is not Catholic doctrine that the saints are omniscient, it is just that they know all the prayers of people on Earth. https://forums.catholic.com/t/mary-and-the-saints-are-omniscient/205575



The Pope can be a heretic according to Catholicism, as we saw several times in history. Even Peter needed to be corrected by Paul, you said this yourself elsewhere. All he supposedly can't do is declare heresy infalliably, and unless he directly contradicts an earlier statement we have proof of that's basically impossible to even test.

But it shows what shite the idea of declaring or "using the teaching office" is, because the Pope believes animals go to heaven and openly states it when it's clearly heresy said directly to the worlds mass media.

If that's not "declaring", what is really?



> https://www.osv.com/Article/TabId/493/ArtMID/13569/ArticleID/16633/Do-animals-go-to-heaven.aspx
> 
> No other earthly creature has an immortal spirit for a soul. Their souls are not immortal, but mortal; it’s their nature to come to an end when they die.
> 
> ...



The article in question does point out that the Nouvelle Theologie that claims animals might be granted a place in the afterlife is special pleading based on a lack of comment in the OT (which isn't a suprise, considering Judaism doesn't have a heaven or hell afterlife), but contradicts centuries of Sacred Tradition.



> St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, taught that animal “souls” cannot by their nature survive death. Unlike human souls, they are perishable when separated from their proper bodies.



St Thomas Aquinas is the official chief Theologian of the Catholic Church. Who knows better, him or you? I thought Catholics were all about submission to authority.

As for the prayers, you contradict yourself. To know the prayers they would have to know that the prayers were taking place, and where/why. They can sense things from "outside eternity" (more Catholic word salad) automatically even when they're not there. If your apparitions are anything to go by, they also know and weep when people do bad things like masturbate (See "Our Lady of La Salette" about how much Mary cries and how hard she fights to stop Jesus killing everyone).


----------



## Splendid (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> How do I not know the difference between those things. I know I cannot change anything about God.





			
				The Serenity Prayer said:
			
		

> God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
> Courage to change the things I can,
> And wisdom to know the difference.


That's what I was referencing.

Anyways, you're probably just trying to troll or whatever, but if you aren't then this shit makes Catholics look bad. You really, really need to go back to square one with this.
If you're dead set on converting people through internet forums (which I *highly* recommend against, especially since here since now you will always be seen as an outsider who just came here for his own purposes instead of someone who's actually a member of the community who tries to fit in,) you'll need to reconsider everything from your tone in your posting to your selection of forum.


----------



## Theolology (Feb 2, 2019)

Let's go ahead and throw gas on this dumpster fire and see where it goes.

It's disgusting to conflate a man made political institution with Christ's sacrifice for us, and assume God somehow needs your corrupt organization to thrive.

The catholic church is fully reprobate at this point.  Mary worship and idolatry, you can call it 'reverence' all you want, but praying to bathtub statues and the marian processions with incense and chanting  shows it for the goddess worship it is.






Mary isn't mentioned that much, and it includes explicit rebuke of propping her up:
“Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed” Luke 11:27
“On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it” Luke 11:28​
Also Peter who is supposed to be the 'rock' of your organization is specifically called out for having Satanic thoughts right after.  There is no clear scripture for a pope, several layer deep church hierarchy, and Mary 'reverence'.  Go ahead and find something outside the man-directed encyclicals that supports those views.

Your leaders are in clear violation of scripture:
1 Tim 3:
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)​
So a leader in the Church should be married with kids.  Not 'celibate', not locked up in a monastery.  Instead it should be an even tempered normal head of his household.

Also the whole concept of the pope is completely against scripture:

Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.​
This is specifically talking about giving someone on earth the title 'Father' (i.e. not just your dad), such as your Papas you bow down to.

That's not even getting into the fact that most 'miracles' are akin to voodoo fetishes.  Bleeding statues, corpse skin, burial shrouds, etc.  Nor the literal hocus pocus (which comes from catholicism) of holy water. 

So it's your choice, you can believe in Jesus and the Holy Spirit to guide you.  Just like the Bible, that the catholic church has actively prevented people from reading and translating, says to do. Or follow a satanic man-made organization that protects homosexual pedos and leads millions of people to practice idolatry.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 2, 2019)

Fuck it, why not.







Theology said:


> So it's your choice, you can believe in Jesus and the Holy Spirit to guide you.  Just like the Bible, that the catholic church has actively prevented people from reading and translating, says to do. Or follow a satanic man-made organization that protects homosexual pedos and leads millions of people to practice idolatry.



>Complains about Catholics but still uses the book they/the Orthodox compiled.

Don'tcha think J.K Rowling might know more than anyone else about Harry Potter mate? Why's this any different other than you can pick out the bits you like and interpret them however you want? That and Christians operated without a bible for a good three hundered years mostly using now defunct books.

Protestantism is cherry picking, the whole idea of private interpretation is heretical and blasphemy against the Kingship of Christ and his delegate the Pontifex Maximus/Byzantine Emperor/The Bishops as Successors of the Apostles in far older thought closer to the source. To Jacob's credit he's trying to drink the Kool aid as pure and concentrated as he can.

I love it when religious people don't actually know their own religion.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 2, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> The Pope can be a heretic according to Catholicism, as we saw several times in history. Even Peter needed to be corrected by Paul, you said this yourself elsewhere. All he supposedly can't do is declare heresy infalliably, and unless he directly contradicts an earlier statement we have proof of that's basically impossible to even test.
> 
> But it shows what shite the idea of declaring or "using the teaching office" is, because the Pope believes animals go to heaven and openly states it when it's clearly heresy said directly to the worlds mass media.
> 
> ...


While Theologians have made speculations, the Church has never made an official teaching on the subject. Even the chief theologians can be incorrect. While Thomas Aquinas knows a lot about theology, I think he is wrong about animals, because Isaiah 11:6-9 talks about animals being in heaven.

“[6] The wolf shall dwell with the lamb: and the leopard shall lie down with the kid: the calf and the lion, and the sheep shall abide together, and a little child shall lead them. [7] The calf and the bear shall feed: their young ones shall rest together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. [8] And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp: and the weaned child shall thrust his hand into the den of the basilisk. [9] They shall not hurt, nor shall they kill in all my holy mountain, for the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the covering waters of the sea.”


> As for the prayers, you contradict yourself. To know the prayers they would have to know that the prayers were taking place, and where/why. They can sense things from "outside eternity" (more Catholic word salad) automatically even when they're not there. If your apparitions are anything to go by, they also know and weep when people do bad things like masturbate (See "Our Lady of La Salette" about how much Mary cries and how hard she fights to stop Jesus killing everyone).


That is a good point. I should confess for teaching error.



Splendid Meat Sticks said:


> That's what I was referencing.
> 
> Anyways, you're probably just trying to troll or whatever, but if you aren't then this shit makes Catholics look bad. You really, really need to go back to square one with this.
> If you're dead set on converting people through internet forums (which I *highly* recommend against, especially since here since now you will always be seen as an outsider who just came here for his own purposes instead of someone who's actually a member of the community who tries to fit in,) you'll need to reconsider everything from your tone in your posting to your selection of forum.


But this site is full of nonbelievers, so God’s word must be spread here, because how else can the people here learn about it?


----------



## Splendid (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> That is a good point. I should confess for teaching error.


> Going to confession for a harmless mistake
Holy roller confirmed.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> While Theologians have made speculations, the Church has never made an official teaching on the subject. Even the chief theologians can be incorrect. While Thomas Aquinas knows a lot about theology, I think he is wrong about animals, because Isaiah 11:6-9 talks about animals being in heaven.
> 
> “[6] The wolf shall dwell with the lamb: and the leopard shall lie down with the kid: the calf and the lion, and the sheep shall abide together, and a little child shall lead them. [7] The calf and the bear shall feed: their young ones shall rest together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. [8] And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp: and the weaned child shall thrust his hand into the den of the basilisk. [9] They shall not hurt, nor shall they kill in all my holy mountain, for the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the covering waters of the sea.”



Aquinas wasn't right on everything, in fact, some of his ideas such as that fetuses do not have souls from the moment of conception is heresy too, but this is what Catholic Theology describes as being a heretic "after the fact". In other words, Aquinas could not have been aware he was a heretic because the science of the age suggested that fetuses did not all have souls. At least, this is the excuse given for how he can be both a heretic and a saint.

This particular situation is more complicated still, because the Church of his day and prior did condemn abortion. It's not a sin to destroy creatures that don't have immortal souls, so why wasn't the Church up in arms about abortion being murder if the main theologian of the day was teaching error when the Aristotelianism of the day taught that Semen contained Homunculi (tiny men) which presumably would have had souls.

However, for animals there no historical precedent in sacred tradition to speak for their survival after death. There's also the ethical problem that for an animal to have an immortal soul, it would have to be made _imago dei._ And if cows are made _imago dei_, it means it would be a sin to kill and eat them.

As for the quote, that isn't a literal statement, but rather a Prophecy of the Davidic Kingship for Jews (Or the coming of Christ if you're a Christian).
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/isaiah/isaiah-11.html



> *6. wolf . . . lamb*--Each animal is coupled with that one which is its natural prey. A fit state of things under the "Prince of Peace" ( Isaiah 65:25 , Ezekiel 34:25 , Hosea 2:18 ). These may be figures for _men_ of corresponding animal-like characters ( Ezekiel 22:27 , 38:13 , Jeremiah 5:6 , 13:23 , Matthew 7:15 , Luke 10:3 ). Still a _literal_ change in the relations of animals to man and each other, restoring the state in Eden, is a more likely interpretation. Compare Genesis 2:19 Genesis 2:20 , with Psalms 8:6-8 , which describes the restoration to man, in the person of "the Son of man," of the lost dominion over the animal kingdom of which he had been designed to be the merciful vicegerent under God, for the good of his animal subjects ( Romans 8:19-22 ).



The Catholic Haydock commentary has additional commentary on how the animals refer to the new millennium as well as pagans and philosophers being subdued. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hcc/isaiah-11.html




Jacob Harrison said:


> That is a good point. I should confess for teaching error.



You don't need to confess to teaching error if you didn't know it was the error when you were teaching it. It's only a sin if you know what you're teaching isn't true. It certainly wouldn't do you any harm in Catholic thought if you did, but you wouldn't have to.


----------



## Basketball Jones (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> The Old Testament documents the history of God's chosen people before the coming of Christ. Us Catholics do take the 10 commandments as morals to live by and try to be as good as we can by doing good works and preaching the truth to others.



Why are the Jews God’s chosen people? What made them so special, honestly? There was so much other shit going on around the whole planet during the time Abraham was allegedly walking around, and by the time Jesus makes it to the scene Rome was now no longer a republic, but an empire. Why did God specifically single out this one section humans on the planet and determine that he was going to speak solely to them and get them to relay his word?



Jacob Harrison said:


> I use the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate. I am a traditionalist Catholic, which means that I oppose the Vatican 2 reforms.



Traditionalist. Oh  and of course, there’s different flavors of Traditionalist Catholic too. -_- So which brand of TradCath are you?

You know it’s weird. I went to catholic school for 13 years of my life in the Bible Belt and even we didn’t do all that. We thought the Baptist’s that equated dancing to sex were crazy...I knew a girl that thought you could get pregnant from kissing.

And it’s because there’s so many different sects and variants of Catholic, all with their own rules, beliefs, and egos that I left the church. It was crazy that all of them worshiped the same “supreme being” and read from the same book, and yet all of them thought everyone else was stupid because they weren’t doing it the “right way.” They’d read the same passages and came to different conclusions. The “word of God” varies depending on who you asked.

It just sounded like people could easily turn the words to mean whatever they wanted. And how divine can a message be if it’s that easily manipulated by anyone?



Jacob Harrison said:


> People often ask why God won't reveal himself to all of humanity. The reason is because he wants people to believe in him out of their free will.



If it’s our free will, then why are you here? That seems like you’re fucking with the divine plan by not allowing people to freely choose?



Jacob Harrison said:


> He needs to reveal himself enough times so that there will be enough evidence for people in the future to be given the choice to believe in him out of their free will.



But you just said he didn’t... See above quote dude. Lol



Malodorous Merkin said:


> Is it true that all my dead relatives up in Heaven watch me when I masturbate?
> 
> Cuz that's hot.



They are. And they’re cheering you on.


Spoiler


----------



## Randall Fragg (Feb 2, 2019)

@Jacob Harrison Lol you worship some dead kike on a cross.
The Great Old Ones were, the Great Old Ones are, and the Great Old Ones shall be again. Humanity rules blindly where they once ruled. 
Their long sleep of the aeons is coming to an end, as the stars come right. We all have seen the signs, the general feeling that reality is falling apart, the malaise which infests every waking moment of our lives. They shall return, and all shall be plunged into gribbly madness.  
The naive doctrine of Catholicism cannot save you against The Great Old Ones. What is a dead Jew on a stick compared to the squamous tendrils of Great Cthulhu, the blasphemous visage of Foul Tsaggotha, or the incandescent spheres of Yog-Sothoth, The Gate and The Key. 
Only those who embrace the madness and help The Great Old Ones return shall be rewarded with a swift and painless death. Those who fight against the darkness shall suffer an unending nightmare of a world ruled by The Things That Should Not Be.
Have you accepted The Great Old Ones as your Lords and Savior? Will you be among The First to Die? 
la Cthulhu la.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 2, 2019)

Everyone knows Christianity is a long game plot invented by a small cabal of Jewish bankers to get a monopoly on international finance. That’s why I joined the Church of Scientology (hail Cruise!).


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> But this site is full of nonbelievers, so God’s word must be spread here, because how else can the people here learn about it?


If I ever get the urge to fuck an altar boy the priest can fill me in on the details while we’re spitroasting the poor kid


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> True, but it shows that it is a debated subject. I believe that animals go to heaven because I may have seen the ghost of my dead cat out of the corner of my eye indicating that he came from heaven to visit.
> 
> Humans would have been prevented from experiencing those things and would have been immortal but humanity has been cursed because of Adam and Eve bringing sin into the world. But these things will end after Satan is defeated and God creates a new heaven and new Earth.
> 
> ...



1. You have committed a first-order heresy against the Catholic Church and its doctrine by claiming visitation from spirits.  The saints may appear in divine visions to relay messages from God, but the dead do not return to this world for any other reason.  Ghosts are deceits by Satan and his angels to tempt mortals into witchcraft.  If you are truly faithful, you would recant.
2. If a father is cruel and hateful to his child, ever punishing and torturing him, does the child still owe him love and obedience?
3. Everything regarding your statements RE: Purgatory would have been woefully outdated and in cases heretical 300 years ago.  Your understanding of the Catholic faith is a shambol of various era's teachings and your own heretical beliefs meant to justify yourself.  This is not your fault: it is the nature of the self to cling to things they desire, such as righteousness.  But these things cannot truly satisfy.  All things are transient.  Your faith is transient, as is your body and mind and self.  Even if you are right, the I that arises upon your death will not be the I you are: for how can it be?  The soul without the mind and body is not the same thing as you, just as a wheel is not a chariot.


----------



## Coldgrip (Feb 3, 2019)

drtoboggan said:


> Is god an atheist?


What if god was... One of us?


----------



## Nekromantik (Feb 3, 2019)

I pray that OP learns not to double post any more.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 3, 2019)

Theolology said:


> Let's go ahead and throw gas on this dumpster fire and see where it goes.
> 
> It's disgusting to conflate a man made political institution with Christ's sacrifice for us, and assume God somehow needs your corrupt organization to thrive.
> 
> ...


I will be working on a refutation of this heretic.



Fagatron said:


> Aquinas wasn't right on everything, in fact, some of his ideas such as that fetuses do not have souls from the moment of conception is heresy too, but this is what Catholic Theology describes as being a heretic "after the fact". In other words, Aquinas could not have been aware he was a heretic because the science of the age suggested that fetuses did not all have souls. At least, this is the excuse given for how he can be both a heretic and a saint.
> 
> This particular situation is more complicated still, because the Church of his day and prior did condemn abortion. It's not a sin to destroy creatures that don't have immortal souls, so why wasn't the Church up in arms about abortion being murder if the main theologian of the day was teaching error when the Aristotelianism of the day taught that Semen contained Homunculi (tiny men) which presumably would have had souls.
> 
> ...


Being made in the image of God means being the species that God chose to have a relationship with. Just because God does not have a relationship with animals, does not mean that they don't have immortal souls. And the bible commentary actually says that it is referring to literal animals.

_Still a literal change in the relations of animals to man and each other, restoring the state in Eden, is a more likely interpretation_



Basketball Jones said:


> Why are the Jews God’s chosen people? What made them so special, honestly? There was so much other shit going on around the whole planet during the time Abraham was allegedly walking around, and by the time Jesus makes it to the scene Rome was now no longer a republic, but an empire. Why did God specifically single out this one section humans on the planet and determine that he was going to speak solely to them and get them to relay his word?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. I am the type of traditionalist Catholic who is not a sedevacantist heretic.
2. The Israelites were God's chosen people because there were going to pave the way for the messiah. But because of Christ, Christians are now God's chosen people.
3. God needs to reveal himself enough times and have enough preachers to make people capable of believing in him but not too much times so that believing in him is still a choice. I am presenting evidence so that you will have the choice to believe in him.


----------



## PorcupineTree (Feb 3, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I will be working on a refutation of this heretic.



For all the time you spend arguing with  people who have already decided not to listen to you, you could’ve gotten a few hours of volunteer work done and bettered the quality of life for people in your own community.  

The fact you think this is the equivalent of some kind of saintly sacrifice is absurd.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 3, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Being made in the image of God means being the species that God chose to have a relationship with. Just because God does not have a relationship with animals, does not mean that they don't have immortal souls. And the bible commentary actually says that it is referring to literal animals.
> 
> _Still a literal change in the relations of animals to man and each other, restoring the state in Eden, is a more likely interpretation_


So God could have had a special relationship with dogs or elephants and he chose us instead?

Lol what a fucking dumbass


----------



## Non-Threatening Niall (Feb 3, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> 1. I am the type of traditionalist Catholic who is not a sedevacantist heretic.



So, what's your stance regarding the "Freemason-infiltrated" popes post-John XXIII? Are you one of those who maintain John Paul I was murdered to prevent him from steering the church back to their pre-Vatican II ways?


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 3, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Being made in the image of God means being the species that God chose to have a relationship with. Just because God does not have a relationship with animals, does not mean that they don't have immortal souls. And the bible commentary actually says that it is referring to literal animals.
> 
> _Still a literal change in the relations of animals to man and each other, restoring the state in Eden, is a more likely interpretation_



That site I linked covers both Protestant and Catholic interpretations of the bible, and you have selected the heretical portion. If you'd like the most recent commentary by the U.S Bishops you may find it here, and they affirm it is a non-literal statement upon the Davidic Kingship. http://www.usccb.org/bible/isaiah/11

Your beloved Catholic Answers likewise states that there is no, in their words, "Doggie Heaven" https://www.catholic.com/qa/do-animals-have-souls-like-human-beings.

Animals do not have immortal souls according to Catholic Tradition, they have material souls bound to their flesh that perishes upon death. This is in-keeping with ancient Jewish thought on the matter, however they went a step further and denied a human afterlife as well.

Being made in the image of God means just that, being made the closest to God. Older theologians would describe this in terms of sapience, but more modern ones shy away from it as it becomes more readily apparent animals actually do retain memories and display emotions.

This is why Catholicism does not recognise a concept of animal rights. Even in _Laudato Si,_ a document by Francis affirming John Paul II's opinions on Environmentalism and Stewardship the Catholic Church affirms it is acceptable to use and experiment on animals. If they had an eternal aspect, this would not be allowed.

Catholicism is not a buffet Jacob, it's a set course meal.


----------



## Splendid (Feb 3, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> 1. I am the type of traditionalist Catholic who is not a sedevacantist heretic.


Hahahahahah, repent heretic, you know you're wrong.
You were making a big show of how you were "teaching error" before, but now you've actually straight up admitted that you're engaged in heretical activities. How can you call yourself a member of the Catholic (universal) church if you're voluntarily fighting against its core tenants?


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 3, 2019)

Splendid Meat Sticks said:


> Hahahahahah, repent heretic, you know you're wrong.
> You were making a big show of how you were "teaching error" before, but now you've actually straight up admitted that you're engaged in heretical activities. How can you call yourself a member of the Catholic (universal) church if you're voluntarily fighting against its core tenants?


He said he wasn't sedevacantist.  He has heretical views on other things, but this post isn't apt to mock him with RE: those.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 3, 2019)

He already thinks the Pope is a heretic and a communist. The Holy Spirit must be off on sabbatical again like when Julius III the gay pope and Alexander "orgy" VI got in.

I'm calling them both out for being kinky, but they were probably some of the better among a bad bunch tbh.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 3, 2019)

Uncanny Valley said:


> Explain the little boy fucking now


Back in the day homosexuals were ousted from society and the church said they would take them in if they committed to a life of faith. Being homosexuals though kid fucking and degeneracy are your right and left hand. The reality is the amount of kids molested by priests isn't particularly high, you're just dumb and consume too much media. It's about 2% which is the estimate of pedos in all rungs of society.

Now let's look somewhere else, maybe a propaganda center that outed the Catholic Church for the deeds of some faggot clergy men. Maybe a boy raping machine like Hollywood, or gee IDK how about Judaism as a whole. How about rabbis giving babies herpes because when they are sucking on their little dicks, woops got a cold sore!

You anti Christ fags are the worst.


----------



## Fareal (Feb 3, 2019)

Traditionalists are heretics. Confess and repent.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 3, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. You have committed a first-order heresy against the Catholic Church and its doctrine by claiming visitation from spirits.  The saints may appear in divine visions to relay messages from God, but the dead do not return to this world for any other reason.  Ghosts are deceits by Satan and his angels to tempt mortals into witchcraft.  If you are truly faithful, you would recant.
> 2. If a father is cruel and hateful to his child, ever punishing and torturing him, does the child still owe him love and obedience?
> 3. Everything regarding your statements RE: Purgatory would have been woefully outdated and in cases heretical 300 years ago.  Your understanding of the Catholic faith is a shambol of various era's teachings and your own heretical beliefs meant to justify yourself.  This is not your fault: it is the nature of the self to cling to things they desire, such as righteousness.  But these things cannot truly satisfy.  All things are transient.  Your faith is transient, as is your body and mind and self.  Even if you are right, the I that arises upon your death will not be the I you are: for how can it be?  The soul without the mind and body is not the same thing as you, just as a wheel is not a chariot.


1. The dead also


friends o' niall said:


> So, what's your stance regarding the "Freemason-infiltrated" popes post-John XXIII? Are you one of those who maintain John Paul I was murdered to prevent him from steering the church back to their pre-Vatican II ways?


I'll do more research on it, but his death was suspicious.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 3, 2019)

If you have a beard and you shave it off, will you be reunited with it in heaven?


----------



## XYZpdq (Feb 3, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> If you have a beard and you shave it off, will you be reunited with it in heaven?


all hair you ever trim joins you in the afterlife
bigfoots are ghosts of people


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 3, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> 1. The dead also.


Don't leave me in suspense here.


----------



## Remove Goat (Feb 3, 2019)

God can't be real because no lolcow was ever killed by a meteor


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 3, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> That site I linked covers both Protestant and Catholic interpretations of the bible, and you have selected the heretical portion. If you'd like the most recent commentary by the U.S Bishops you may find it here, and they affirm it is a non-literal statement upon the Davidic Kingship. http://www.usccb.org/bible/isaiah/11
> 
> Your beloved Catholic Answers likewise states that there is no, in their words, "Doggie Heaven" https://www.catholic.com/qa/do-animals-have-souls-like-human-beings.
> 
> ...


The US Bishops commentary is heretical because they are using the New American Bible and not the Douay-Rheims Bible which is the true version of the bible as it is a direct translation of the Latin Vulgate. Them using the wrong bible demonstrates the heresy in the church after Vatican 2.

While I often use Catholic Answers as a source, there are many things I disagree with since they promote the Vatican 2 doctrine. I am a bigger fan of The Remnant which is a traditionalist Catholic site.

And yes we are made closest to God, but that fact does not exclude them from his kingdom. Us being God's chosen species gives us permission to eat other animals, but the bible is pro animal rights in that it condemns animal abuse in the story of Balaam and the talking donkey. Animals are God's creation too, so using common sense, why would an eternal God create animals who do not last forever? What would be the purpose of creating them? Why would God have Noah save a bunch of animals on the Ark during that great flood in the middle east?


Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Don't leave me in suspense here.


I am watching the Super Bowl so I will work on a good response tomorrow. The Patriots will win!


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 3, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> The US Bishops commentary is heretical because they are using the New American Bible and not the Douay-Rheims Bible which is the true version of the bible as it is a direct translation of the Latin Vulgate. Them using the wrong bible demonstrates the heresy in the church after Vatican 2.



The Douay-Rheims is but one acceptable translation, and not the only one endorsed by the Catholic Church. As an American, you are obligated to obey the decrees and guidance of the Americans Bishops council on matters of discipline. As they have declared the NAB acceptable, which they themselves had a big hand in producing, it cannot be heresy.

The Douay-Rheims is in fact the total opposite from a Vulgate translation, it was a response during the reformation against critique from the Reformists. Jeromes' Vulgate was a frankly awful translation fettered with errors, and the Catholics rather than reccomend Reform works, produced their own version of scriptures from Greek texts.

It's unfair to a degree to levy too much critique against the vulgate, because the producers of the Douay-Rheims and Reform versions had access to many original greek texts earlier translators did not. That said, scholars within the Catholic Church were already long aware prior to the Reformation that the Vulgate was not entirely accurate. It wasn't until the fall of Constantinople and the surge of Greek speakers from there into Western Europe (especially Italy) that the Catholic church was once again able to reaccess classical literature it had lost the capacity to read and copies of texts brought from the east it was not aware existed.



Jacob Harrison said:


> While I often use Catholic Answers as a source, there are many things I disagree with since they promote the Vatican 2 doctrine. I am a bigger fan of The Remnant which is a traditionalist Catholic site.



Catholic Answers is an officialy endorsed apostolate of the Catholic Church, the Remnant is not. Due to its support for the still-partially schismatic Society of Saint Pius X, it may be heretical. It certainly wouldn't gain a nihil obstat ot imprimatur from a mainstream bishop unlike Catholic Answers.



Jacob Harrison said:


> And yes we are made closest to God, but that fact does not exclude them from his kingdom. Us being God's chosen species gives us permission to eat other animals, but the bible is pro animal rights in that it condemns animal abuse in the story of Balaam and the talking donkey. Animals are God's creation too, so using common sense, why would an eternal God create animals who do not last forever? What would be the purpose of creating them? Why would God have Noah save a bunch of animals on the Ark during that great flood in the middle east?



Why would God create an angel purely to lead his most loved creation into damnation? Why would God create a world in which it's possible to rape little girls? Why would God create a world in which people can eat each other? I know the only answer that makes logical sense, but you won't like it.

In any case, on the subject of animal souls if you're a Catholic _Roma Locuta Est_.


----------



## Terrorist (Feb 3, 2019)

Not tryna hate, but you could use stronger evidence than some church in lithuania nobody's heard of. Martyrs, for example, make a way better case for Catholicism than that.

I also think you need a better answer to the priestly diddling than "Masonsdidit, anytime fucked up shit happened in the church it was a mason."


----------



## Splendid (Feb 3, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> The US Bishops commentary is heretical because they are using the New American Bible and not the Douay-Rheims Bible which is the true version of the bible as it is a direct translation of the Latin Vulgate. Them using the wrong bible demonstrates the heresy in the church after Vatican 2.


If you're gonna wave around an old ass Bible translation and claim it's somehow uniquely divinely inspired, just become a fundamentalist instead, you'll fit in much better.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 3, 2019)

Splendid Meat Sticks said:


> If you're gonna wave around an old ass Bible translation and claim it's somehow uniquely divinely inspired, just become a fundamentalist instead, you'll fit in much better.



It's not so much that it's divinley inspired, a lot of Catholic teachings hinge upon specific words in the bible. Take Parthenos, it can mean "Maiden" but it can also mean "Virgin".

In "Protestant bibles" Mary is often described as a "Young Woman". In the Douay-Rheims, she's a "Virgin". I'm sure you can see the issue. Same for James being described as the cousin in Catholic bibles vs the brother of Jesus Christ in Protestant ones.

There's other examples, and translations out there with much bigger arguing points.

As far as I'm aware, it is still a sin for a Catholic to read a "Protestant Bible" like the KJV. I don't know if it's a sin for an Orthodox (as they have larger bibles than both Catholics and Protestants) to read them.

As for this fellow....



Bleachedanoos said:


> Back in the day homosexuals were ousted from society and the church said they would take them in if they committed to a life of faith.



Homosexuals have long been a staple of the Catholic priesthood for three reasons. 

1)Very few straight men are willing to renounce sex unless forced, like the second son of a nobleman.
2) It's an easy way for a gay man to hide in plain sight. Not being married or under holy vows was not, and still is not, an option in many Catholic societies. 
3) Homosexual men are more likely than heterosexual men to hold supernatural beliefs. http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/quick_question19.html



> A study by Darren E. Sherkat, Professor of Sociology at Southern Illinois University, published in the latest issue of the* Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion *found that gay men were significantly more active in religious organizations when compared to heterosexual men.  Gay men were also more active in religious groups when compared to lesbians and male and female bisexuals.





Bleachedanoos said:


> Being homosexuals though kid fucking and degeneracy are your right and left hand. The reality is the amount of kids molested by priests isn't particularly high, you're just dumb and consume too much media. It's about 2% which is the estimate of pedos in all rungs of society.



Yes. I'm sure the Irish just made up their fifty odd years under a Catholic theocracy where having your spouse die was adequate reason to be incacerated for life in a laundry and your baby sold to rich Americans.

It's Satan and the Freemasons and the Gay Space Communism I'm sure. 



Bleachedanoos said:


> Now let's look somewhere else, maybe a propaganda center that outed the Catholic Church for the deeds of some faggot clergy men. Maybe a boy raping machine like Hollywood,



Ironic that you call Hollywood a baby raping machine, considering that the Catholic Church controlled it for so long. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Legion_of_Decency



Bleachedanoos said:


> or gee IDK how about Judaism as a whole.How about rabbis giving babies herpes because when they are sucking on their little dicks, woops got a cold sore!



Muslims are cunts. Orthodox Judaism is cunty too.

Just because they are cunts, does not make you or your fellow cultists any less of a cunt either. 



Bleachedanoos said:


> You anti Christ fags are the worst.



Love you too boo <3


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 3, 2019)

Splendid Meat Sticks said:


> If you're gonna wave around an old ass Bible translation and claim it's somehow uniquely divinely inspired, just become a fundamentalist instead, you'll fit in much better.


The pope has the power of the grand magisterium when he makes interpretations of the Bible he is speaking as a divine messenger of Christ and can say no wrong. The Protestant religion has no objective interpretation. It is not so much the content or the exact words of the Bible that matter it is how they are interpreted.


----------



## MeatRokket08 (Feb 3, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Obviously by having it's property taken away.
> 
> If you repented on your deathbed, you would spend a long time in purgatory before entering heaven.



that ain't how it works boi

t. catholic


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 3, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> Yes. I'm sure the Irish just made up their fifty odd years under a Catholic theocracy where having your spouse die was adequate reason to be incacerated for life in a laundry and your baby sold to rich Americans.
> 
> It's Satan and the Freemasons and the Gay Space Communism I'm sure.
> 
> ...



That's like saying the ESRB controls video games. Hollywood has always been a bastion of jewry. Jewry has always gone hand in hand with blood ritual and child sacrifices.

Homosexuality is homosexuality. The gay virus spreads through child rape, even the most conservative liberal studies trying to isolate as many factors and have as many asterisks in their study as possible have found that child molestation increases the chance of being gay by as much as ten percent. If we drill down into the study and actually address the weaknesses that are present in any psychological study the inability to isolate variables, the inability to define certain variables, the inability to publish papers that go against established dogmas because there is no money, the complete lack of empiricism, we can assume the number is higher significantly. It's well known and has been written about by gay scholars that grooming is part of homosexuality. It's inseperable.

It's easy to focus on anything white or male instead of addressing the real problem. That's why Jews decided to make a pinata out of the Catholic Church and for the Right they gave them Muslims and hid in their Jewish shadows. Gays and Jews, typically one in the same are responsible for a majority of child rape. Not Catholicism
Jews have work around in their talmud to allow fucking if children because the goyim aren't human. Muslims are similar. Not the GOC the grand ol christ followers.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 3, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> That's like saying the ESRB controls video games. Hollywood has always been a bastion of jewry. Jewry has always gone hand in hand with blood ritual and child sacrifices.
> 
> Homosexuality is homosexuality. The gay virus spreads through child rape, even the most conservative liberal studies trying to isolate as many factors and have as many asterisks in their study as possible have found that child molestation increases the chance of being gay by as much as ten percent. If we drill down into the study and actually address the weaknesses that are present in any psychological study the inability to isolate variables, the inability to define certain variables, the inability to publish papers that go against established dogmas because there is no money, the complete lack of empiricism, we can assume the number is higher significantly. It's well known and has been written about by gay scholars that grooming is part of homosexuality. It's inseperable.
> 
> ...


Spouting /pol/ memes doesn't make them true.  Produce specific citations for your claims.
EDIT: Shouting "THE JEWS AND FAGGOTS COVERED IT ALL UP" isn't proof.


----------



## Black Waltz (Feb 3, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> That's like saying the ESRB controls video games. Hollywood has always been a bastion of jewry. Jewry has always gone hand in hand with blood ritual and child sacrifices.
> 
> Homosexuality is homosexuality. The gay virus spreads through child rape, even the most conservative liberal studies trying to isolate as many factors and have as many asterisks in their study as possible have found that child molestation increases the chance of being gay by as much as ten percent. If we drill down into the study and actually address the weaknesses that are present in any psychological study the inability to isolate variables, the inability to define certain variables, the inability to publish papers that go against established dogmas because there is no money, the complete lack of empiricism, we can assume the number is higher significantly. It's well known and has been written about by gay scholars that grooming is part of homosexuality. It's inseperable.
> 
> ...


do you have any charts to prove that


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 3, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> The pope has the power of the grand magisterium when he makes interpretations of the Bible he is speaking as a divine messenger of Christ and can say no wrong. The Protestant religion has no objective interpretation. It is not so much the content or the exact words of the Bible that matter it is how they are interpreted.



I suggest you read Pius IX _Syllabus of Errors_, where amongst other things he declared democracy and freedom of religion to be heretical.

What a surprise, today the Pope does not consider voting to be heretical or a sin worthy of eternal damnation as it was for many Italians for decades after reunification.

If you'd like a less modern but more glaring example, google up Ursury and come back to me.



Bleachedanoos said:


> That's like saying the ESRB controls video games. Hollywood has always been a bastion of jewry. Jewry has always gone hand in hand with blood ritual and child sacrifices.



Most Jews today, even in Israel, are "Reform". That's basically a fancy way of saying Ethnically Jewish Atheists.

You may have not realised this, but Atheists aren't usually big into magic and worshipping nothing.



Bleachedanoos said:


> Homosexuality is homosexuality. The gay virus spreads through child rape,



Can someone put this as a random.txt, please?



Bleachedanoos said:


> even the most conservative liberal studies trying to isolate as many factors and have as many asterisks in their study as possible have found that child molestation increases the chance of being gay by as much as ten percent.



Would you please link me to this study you're talking about. Is it the Narf one?



Bleachedanoos said:


> If we drill down into the study and actually address the weaknesses that are present in any psychological study the inability to isolate variables, the inability to define certain variables,



Less word salad, please. Baffling with bullshit might be a Catholic go to, but keep it in English.


Bleachedanoos said:


> the inability to publish papers that go against established dogmas because there is no money,


There's plenty of money in contrarianism. See the Church Militant, Alex Jones etc.



Bleachedanoos said:


> the complete lack of empiricism, we can assume the number is higher significantly. It's well known and has been written about by gay scholars that grooming is part of homosexuality. It's inseparable.



The Catholic Medical Association itself alone is not all "gay scholars". And being gay does not guarantee you're the best qualified to speak about the mechanics of it anyway.



Bleachedanoos said:


> It's easy to focus on anything white or male instead of addressing the real problem. That's why Jews decided to make a pinata out of the Catholic Church and for the Right they gave them Muslims and hid in their Jewish shadows. Gays and Jews, typically one in the same are responsible for a majority of child rape. Not Catholicism



The race has nothing do to with this. No matter where in the world the Catholic Church has gone; Africa, Australia, America, Europe; we have a long and glorious history of sex abuse.

Even the fucking Synod of Elvira back in 305-306 AD had to fuck talk about priestly sexual abuse. It's not just the odd bad person, it has been institutionalised for _more than a millennium and a half_.


Bleachedanoos said:


> Jews have work around in their talmud to allow fucking if children because the goyim aren't human. Muslims are similar. Not the GOC the grand ol christ followers.



"I have not come to bring peace, but a sword"

Guess who said that about unbelievers?


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 3, 2019)

@Bleachedanoos, have you ever considered that being a Catholic Nazi might have something to do with your little inceldom problem?


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 3, 2019)

@Fagatron make no mistake Judaism is indeed a race but that doesn't stop the blatant worship that Jews do of heretical demons from the old testament, baphomet, moloch, why are these always seen with Jews? One reason is Jews detest Jesus Christ. They are behind the church of Satan. 

Funny you bring up Alex Jones, he used to talk about Israel's role in 9/11 he hasn't mentioned the Jews since. It's funny the people you've set up to be contrarian are really just Zionist cucks. You don't even realize that the figures that you believe to be on the outskirts were set up as fenceposts so you can't even consider the verboten ideas. 
https://youtu.be/O3aBQNdqJO4


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 3, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> @Fagatron make no mistake Judaism is indeed a race but that doesn't stop the blatant worship that Jews do of heretical demons from the old testament, baphomet, moloch, why are these always seen with Jews? One reason is Jews detest Jesus Christ. They are behind the church of Satan.



Which part of modern Orthodox/Conservative Jews being monotheists did you miss?

Baphomet isn't in the Old Testament, it's a mistranslation of Muhammad. Moloch was a deity of a foreign people. Even when the Jews were polytheists before the Babylonian Captivity, Yahwists still pushed them to shun the worship of the rest of the Caananite Pantheon like Baal and Ashera.  


Bleachedanoos said:


> Funny you bring up Alex Jones, he used to talk about Israel's role in 9/11 he hasn't mentioned the Jews since.



Has he had a reason to bring up Jews since? Not all right wingers feel a need to shriek about religion.  


Bleachedanoos said:


> It's funny the people you've set up to be contrarian are really just Zionist cucks.



How is the Church Militant a zionist cuck? They were among the ones pushing for the reinstatement of the Good Friday prayers for the conversion of the "Impudent Jews" mainstream Catholicism condemned. 



Bleachedanoos said:


> You don't even realize that the figures that you believe to be on the outskirts were set up as fenceposts so you can't even consider the verboten ideas.
> https://youtu.be/O3aBQNdqJO4



Don't just wear a tin foil hat, work it baby. Give it some sass.


----------



## Black Waltz (Feb 3, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> @Fagatron make no mistake Judaism is indeed a race but that doesn't stop the blatant worship that Jews do of heretical demons from the old testament, baphomet, moloch, why are these always seen with Jews? One reason is Jews detest Jesus Christ. They are behind the church of Satan.
> 
> Funny you bring up Alex Jones, he used to talk about Israel's role in 9/11 he hasn't mentioned the Jews since. It's funny the people you've set up to be contrarian are really just Zionist cucks. You don't even realize that the figures that you believe to be on the outskirts were set up as fenceposts so you can't even consider the verboten ideas.
> https://youtu.be/O3aBQNdqJO4


are jews the reason why you can't get laid


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 3, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> Which part of modern Orthodox/Conservative Jews being monotheists did you miss?
> 
> Baphomet isn't in the Old Testament, it's a mistranslation of Muhammad. Moloch was a deity of a foreign people. Even when the Jews were polytheists before the Babylonian Captivity, Yahwists still pushed them to shun the worship of the rest of the Caananite Pantheon like Baal and Ashera.
> 
> ...


The Jewish god is Judaism, they can lie steal cheat kill rape etc so long as it's for the good of the Jews . To call it a religion is laughable, it's completely amorphous in it's beliefs so long as it benefits Judaism anything is forgiven how do you think these orthodox rabbis got herpes in the first place. Prostitution. Jews drink children's blood and worship baphomet because they believe it will increase their power, their life span etc. The talmud forgives all because the spoken word of God passed down by the tradition is that goyim are nothing more than cattle, the Jewish goyim converts are no more than goyim slaves. 

Yeah the Catholic Church has fucked boys throughout time, but the hyper focus is brought on by a magnifying glass shaped like a yamulke.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 3, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> Prostitution. Jews drink children's blood and worship baphomet because they believe it will increase their power, their life span etc.


damn, Judaism sounds pretty lit, how do I convert?


----------



## Black Waltz (Feb 3, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> damn, Judaism sounds pretty lit, how do I convert?


bring 100 foreskins to your local rabbi


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 3, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> The Jewish god is Judaism, they can lie steal cheat kill rape etc so long as it's for the good of the Jews . To call it a religion is laughable, it's completely amorphous in it's beliefs so long as it benefits Judaism anything is forgiven how do you think these orthodox rabbis got herpes in the first place.



Judaism is defined by Orthopraxy rather than Orthodoxy. Belief in "right doctrine" is something unique to Christianity and Islam. The Hasidic sects adopted it later in the 18th centuries, but for the vast majority of Jews, the idea you can be condemned for not all sharing the same scholarly opinion is totally alien.

Perhaps this is helped by a more cohesive social identity alongside racial unity.



Bleachedanoos said:


> Prostitution. Jews drink children's blood and worship baphomet because they believe it will increase their power, their life span etc. The talmud forgives all because the spoken word of God passed down by the tradition is that goyim are nothing more than cattle, the Jewish goyim converts are no more than goyim slaves.



Uh. Did we read the same Talmud? I know they accused Jesus of being a fraud who was hanged but the first mention "Baphomet" gets is by Catholics in reference to the Knights Templars in the 11th century. Baphomet has no link to Judaism at all.



Bleachedanoos said:


> Yeah the Catholic Church has fucked boys throughout time, but the hyper focus is brought on by a magnifying glass shaped like a yamulke.



The core difference being Jews claim to be a light unto the nations and the most beloved of their deity in their own land, for most of history they have not been the largest corporation the Earth has ever known claiming absolute divine authority from God to rule the entire world spiritually who can and will consign you to eternal damnation for even looking at his avatar on earth funny.

Jews have done some strange things, but they've never had the global cover ups as Catholics have orchestrated.

The very earliest exposes on Catholicism such as that by the Boston papers weren't done by Jews, they were done by Catholics. As Catholics were the victims, and Catholics who continue to come forward.


----------



## murgatroid (Feb 3, 2019)

Mr. Jacob Harrison, have you considered trying to convert some of the uncontacted tribes in the world who will never have a chance to hear the gospel like the Sentinelese?

God would surely reward you if you could finish what the last missionary who tried to visit and convert them didn't finish.

Death of John Allen Chau ( 2018 )

In November 2018, John Allen Chau, a 26-year-old American missionary trained and sent by Missouri-based missionary organization All Nations, travelled illegally to North Sentinel Island by paying local fishermen, intending to make contact with and live among the Sentinelese in the hope of converting them to Christianity. 

...

On his final visit, on 17 November, Chau instructed the fishermen to leave without him. The fishermen later saw the islanders dragging Chau's body, and the next day they saw his body on the shore.

Or perhaps you could visit North Korea and spread the gospel like missionary Kenneth Bae, with God on your side I'm sure nothing could go wrong.


----------



## Coldgrip (Feb 4, 2019)

Which sect of Catholicism lets me whip vampires and throw crosses at other monsters?


----------



## Terrorist (Feb 4, 2019)

Priests get a bad rep (in my experience growing up catholic, a lot of them were genuinely great guys as angry about all the bad shit as anyone), but child abuse is a real issue in the church you can't just scapegoat away. I think the problem is a lot of catholic families send their misfit, deviant sons to the monastery in hopes they'll shape up. Sounds like a good idea in theory but if you think about it a minute, you'll realize that's probably the last place the black sheep of a community should be.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 4, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> Judaism is defined by Orthopraxy rather than Orthodoxy. Belief in "right doctrine" is something unique to Christianity and Islam. The Hasidic sects adopted it later in the 18th centuries, but for the vast majority of Jews, the idea you can be condemned for not all sharing the same scholarly opinion is totally alien.
> 
> Perhaps this is helped by a more cohesive social identity alongside racial unity.
> 
> ...


@Bleachedanoos is incapable of communicating except in angry /pol/ack ranting.  He unironically views 4chan circa 2014 as the pinnacle of human civilization, and views "are you jewish BTW" as an unassailable logical deathblow.  He is one of the few people on this site I'd say don't really merit anything above a shitpost in response to his angry tantrums.


----------



## The Cunting Death (Feb 4, 2019)

You remind me of an episode of Moral Orel, except replace Orel's Christianity with Catholicism and the other guy in the video's Catholicism as people not giving a shit

Also I still have christian guilt in me


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 4, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> That site I linked covers both Protestant and Catholic interpretations of the bible, and you have selected the heretical portion. If you'd like the most recent commentary by the U.S Bishops you may find it here, and they affirm it is a non-literal statement upon the Davidic Kingship. http://www.usccb.org/bible/isaiah/11
> 
> Your beloved Catholic Answers likewise states that there is no, in their words, "Doggie Heaven" https://www.catholic.com/qa/do-animals-have-souls-like-human-beings.
> 
> ...


The US Bishops commentary is heretical because they are using the New American Bible and not the Douay-Rheims Bible which is the true version of the bible as it is a direct translation of the Latin Vulgate. Them using the wrong bible demonstrates the heresy in the church after Vatican 2.

While I often use Catholic Answers as a source, there are many things I disagree with since they promote the Vatican 2 doctrine. I am a bigger fan of The Remnant which is a traditionalist Catholic site.


Fagatron said:


> The Douay-Rheims is but one acceptable translation, and not the only one endorsed by the Catholic Church. As an American, you are obligated to obey the decrees and guidance of the Americans Bishops council on matters of discipline. As they have declared the NAB acceptable, which they themselves had a big hand in producing, it cannot be heresy.
> 
> The Douay-Rheims is in fact the total opposite from a Vulgate translation, it was a response during the reformation against critique from the Reformists. Jeromes' Vulgate was a frankly awful translation fettered with errors, and the Catholics rather than reccomend Reform works, produced their own version of scriptures from Greek texts.
> 
> It's unfair to a degree to levy too much critique against the vulgate, because the producers of the Douay-Rheims and Reform versions had access to many original greek texts earlier translators did not. That said, scholars within the Catholic Church were already long aware prior to the Reformation that the Vulgate was not entirely accurate. It wasn't until the fall of Constantinople and the surge of Greek speakers from there into Western Europe (especially Italy) that the Catholic church was once again able to reaccess classical literature it had lost the capacity to read and copies of texts brought from the east it was not aware existed.


The Catholic Church accepted the New American Bible after Vatican II. It goes against the Council of Trent which declared that only the Latin Vulgate could be used as a bible. And speaking of the Latin Vulgate, an incident in 1592 regarding the translation of the Latin Vulgate proves that Catholicism is true because it proves the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Pope Sixtus V died before he could teach error.

_Sixtus V reigned as pope from 1585-1590. He has been described as a "brilliant leader in political and ecclesiastical arenas, a tireless innovator in agriculture, engineering and law, he effectively enacted and enforced laws, created an impressive aqueduct system, reformed clergy and the Church’s liturgical customs, tackled building projects, drained the swamps near Rome to eliminate the siege of malaria, spent large amounts of money on charitable works and missions, and oversaw the completion of the St. Peter’s Basilica."  Unfortunately he had an ego to match and this got him into serious trouble when a revision of the Latin Vulgate edition of the holy Bible was begun.  "Historian Francis Gasquet explains the background of the Vulgate: ‘The Latin text of the Sacred Scriptures had existed from the earliest times of Christianity.’ The translators were unknown to St. Augustine and St. Jerome; but the former says that the old Latin version had certainly come ‘from the first days of the Faith’, and the latter that it ‘ had helped strengthen the Faith of the infant Church.’ Made and copied without any official supervision these western texts soon became corrupt or doubtful."

    Since the Church was much threatened by Protestant doctrines that were fast appearing throughout much of Europe and since there were numerous editions of the Vulgate in circulation, Pope Sixtus recognized that the Church required best biblical translation possible to meet Protestant arguments.  He acted forthrightly in assembling a team of scholars and linguists, headed by eminent theologians like Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and others.  They compiled as many Greek manuscripts as could be assembled and finished the revision process by the end of 1588. But apparently overcome by pride, the pope found the ten thousand readings they had diligently chosen inadequate, and angrily announced he would personally revise the Vulgate. He declared, ‘We, weighing the importance of the matter, and considering carefully the great and singular privilege we hold of God, and our true and legitimate succession from Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles . . . Are the proper and specially constituted Person to decide this whole question."

    Ill equipped for the task, Sixtus eliminated all the work done by the former commission, and started fresh. Unfortunately his abilities to translate, edit and make all the appropriate decisions were beyond his capabilities and the result was an error filled translation presented to the cardinals in early 1590.

    Cardinal Bellarmine and Fr. Toledo, another Jesuit scholar revealed their fears "…that by such mutilation he [Sixtus] was laying himself open to the attacks of the heretics, and was giving more serious scandal to the faithful than anything else the pope could do . . . "  If Sixtus had formally promulgated this distorted version, it would have allowed a strong case to be argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility since the Pope would have fulfilled the three requirements layed out by Vatican I for an infallible teaching.  But the weight of opposition was sufficient, thanks to Bellarmine and others, to stope the Pope from releasing it.  Still, he worked on correction of typographical errors with the apparent intention of releasing a corrected version soon. Patrick Madrid writes, "Expectation was at a boiling point. The news in Rome had it that the official promulgation would happen any day. Advance copies of the new Vulgate had been bound and delivered to all the cardinals in Rome along with advance copies of the bull officially publishing it. Everything was ready for the pope to promulgate the new version. Nothing could stop him."  But at the last moment Sixtus, whose health and vigor were never questioned, took to his bed, dying on August 27, 1590 after a brief illness.  The Holy Spirit's promise to guide the Church to all truth seems to have been fulfilled again.  "Only God knows if Sixtus’ sudden death was dramatic proof of divine intervention-- the evidence that papal infallibility isn’t just a Catholic idea, but that God Himself will prevent, by death if necessary, the pope from teaching an error formally to the Church." (Madrid, pps. 242-51, Pope Fiction)._


> Catholic Answers is an officialy endorsed apostolate of the Catholic Church, the Remnant is not. Due to its support for the still-partially schismatic Society of Saint Pius X, it may be heretical. It certainly wouldn't gain a nihil obstat ot imprimatur from a mainstream bishop unlike Catholic Answers.


Wikipedia explains why The Remnant is called the remnant. 

_The name The Remnant is a reference to the remnant of Isaiah and the belief that only a remnant of Catholics holding to the traditional teachings and practice of the Church remain after the sweeping changes brought by the Second Vatican Council._

Therefore, the mainstream bishops are not holding to the traditional teachings and practices of the Church. And Benedict XVI(the best and most ultra conservative of the post Vatican II popes who was likely forced to resign) lifted the excommunications of the 4 bishops of the society and finally allowed for traditionalist churches to have the traditional Latin mass so the SSPX is no longer schismatic. 


> Why would God create an angel purely to lead his most loved creation into damnation? Why would God create a world in which it's possible to rape little girls? Why would God create a world in which people can eat each other? I know the only answer that makes logical sense, but you won't like it.


God did not intend for Satan to rebel against him, but at the same time he did not want to interfere with the free will of his angels so he allowed it to happen. Things would have been perfect for humans, but then Adam and Eve brought sin into the world, which is why there are sinners who commit crimes like rape. But God will make the world perfect again after he defeats Satan.


> In any case, on the subject of animal souls if you're a Catholic _Roma Locuta Est_.


As I said, while many in the church have said that animals don't have souls, the church has never made it an infallible doctrine for the entire church, meaning that Catholics are allowed to believe that animals live eternally.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 4, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. You have committed a first-order heresy against the Catholic Church and its doctrine by claiming visitation from spirits.  The saints may appear in divine visions to relay messages from God, but the dead do not return to this world for any other reason.  Ghosts are deceits by Satan and his angels to tempt mortals into witchcraft.  If you are truly faithful, you would recant.
> 2. If a father is cruel and hateful to his child, ever punishing and torturing him, does the child still owe him love and obedience?
> 3. Everything regarding your statements RE: Purgatory would have been woefully outdated and in cases heretical 300 years ago.  Your understanding of the Catholic faith is a shambol of various era's teachings and your own heretical beliefs meant to justify yourself.  This is not your fault: it is the nature of the self to cling to things they desire, such as righteousness.  But these things cannot truly satisfy.  All things are transient.  Your faith is transient, as is your body and mind and self.  Even if you are right, the I that arises upon your death will not be the I you are: for how can it be?  The soul without the mind and body is not the same thing as you, just as a wheel is not a chariot.


1. The dead can also return to Earth to perform miracles such as healing people. And it is believed by many in the church including me that the ghosts who haunt places are the souls of those in purgatory. As for my dead cat, God likely allowed him to return from heaven to relay the message that animals have afterlife.
2. But God is a loving father who only is harsh with his creation if they disobey him. Loving parents still have rules for their children to obey.
3. Purgatory is an official doctrine of the Catholic Church. And the soul without the mind and body still has the same consciousness that the person had while alive. They remember the events in their life, and they will have even more knowledge because they will have the beatific vision of God and have a greater understanding of him. The souls of the saved have happy memories of their life but be happier that they are in a happier place while the souls of the damned are tormented with eternal regret that they did not repent of their sins as well as the pain of fire and the chief punishment they have is eternal separation from God.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 4, 2019)

murgatroid said:


> Mr. Jacob Harrison, have you considered trying to convert some of the uncontacted tribes in the world who will never have a chance to hear the gospel like the Sentinelese?
> 
> God would surely reward you if you could finish what the last missionary who tried to visit and convert them didn't finish.
> 
> ...


Good for both of them, but I think that it is the will of God for me to live a long time so that I can win the most converts. Though if it is his will, I am willing to go to North Korea and become a martyr.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> Judaism is defined by Orthopraxy rather than Orthodoxy. Belief in "right doctrine" is something unique to Christianity and Islam. The Hasidic sects adopted it later in the 18th centuries, but for the vast majority of Jews, the idea you can be condemned for not all sharing the same scholarly opinion is totally alien.
> 
> Perhaps this is helped by a more cohesive social identity alongside racial unity.
> 
> ...


You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying the talmud explicitly mentions demons like moloch. It merely provides a framework for Jews to act with objectively evil intentions by excusing all their sins with but it was for much Jewish race. Judaism is a race, the evolutionary strategy is that of a parasite, usury on the host nation to build wealth to distribute among your own kind.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 4, 2019)

I wish I never started on these. Now I feel like I have to answer.



Jacob Harrison said:


> The US Bishops commentary is heretical because they are using the New American Bible and not the Douay-Rheims Bible which is the true version of the bible as it is a direct translation of the Latin Vulgate. Them using the wrong bible demonstrates the heresy in the church after Vatican 2.



The Bishops have approved the bible. Your opinions are irrelevant. Catholicism is not a buffet, it's all or nothing.

Obedience to the Successor of the Apostles in both the Pope and his fellow Bishops is not optional. You are in heresy and have incurred Latae sententiae excommunication and should not take communion, otherwise, you would be committing the additional mortal sin of sacrilege for receiving Christ in a state of mortal sin.

I don't make the rules or follow them, but I do know them as should you.



Jacob Harrison said:


> The Catholic Church accepted the New American Bible after Vatican II. It goes against the Council of Trent which declared that only the Latin Vulgate could be used as a bible. And speaking of the Latin Vulgate, an incident in 1592 regarding the translation of the Latin Vulgate proves that Catholicism is true because it proves the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Pope Sixtus V died before he could teach error.



We were not talking about Sixtus. We were talking about the sanction from the American Bishops to use a bible that you do not approve of. You are not a successor of the apostles. The Vulgate is still in use by the Catholic Church, so is the NAB, so is the Douay-Rheims and many others.

_Also, please cite your sources rather than Plagerise Jacob. http://art-of-attack.blogspot.com/2007/06/are-there-errors-in-latin-vulgate.html_

Maybe if you actually did do some reading yourself, you'd actually know why the Vulgate is only used by the Pontifical college and not Biblical studies, _Even by the Catholic Church itself!_



Jacob Harrison said:


> Wikipedia explains why The Remnant is called the remnant.



The Remnant can claim to be the Pope, it is not an approved apostolate neither does it hold an Nihil Obstat or an Imprimatur. The Remnant supports sects not in full communion with the Pope and teaches that the Church has somehow been corrupted; that the gates of hell have prevailed. This is heresy, and anyone who contributes and belives in it is in a state of mortal sin.



Jacob Harrison said:


> As I said, while many in the church have said that animals don't have souls, the church has never made it an infallible doctrine for the entire church, meaning that Catholics are allowed to believe that animals live eternally.



Only animals made in Gods image have immortal souls. To say God has given an immortal soul to a cow, or a pig, or a cockroach is heresy and blasphemy against God.

You're saying other animals are as important as humans, this is heresy and you should refrain from communion as only humans were created to be lord over all animals and the stewards of creation. You contradict Genesis, let alone the piles of material that come later.

The highest virtue behind holiness for a Catholic, and a requirement for holiness is *obedience to Jesus in the form of his successors. *You seem to be struggling with this.

If you are actually doing your own work for a degree in the sciences, you might be reasonably intelligent (not necessarily, I've met plenty of morons with degrees too). But as arrogant, pig-headed and as large as your inquisitorial rage boner might be; you do not know as much about religion as the American Bishops or someone who actually has qualified in Theology, Religious Anthropology or the like.

From your copypastes and what you've said, you knowing basically nothing about your faith at all. Which hardly suprises me, nothing cures Catholic faith faster than actually reading the bible, Papal decrees like _Dum Diversias _and _Syllabum Errorum_ or the history of the Catholic Church.



Bleachedanoos said:


> You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying the talmud explicitly mentions demons like moloch. It merely provides a framework for Jews to act with objectively evil intentions by excusing all their sins with but it was for much Jewish race. Judaism is a race, the evolutionary strategy is that of a parasite, usury on the host nation to build wealth to distribute among your own kind.



So does all flavors of Abrahamism.

If your Orthodox or Catholic, you can do whatever you want and provided you fear hell enough (imperfect contrition), you can go to heaven. If you believe in Jesus as a Protestant, you're "Saved" and still can do whatever you want.

If you're a Muslim, so long as you do it to Kufir not paying or elidgeable for _Jizya _it's fine and you can rape and kill as much as you like.

One aspect of religion is to remove guilt, even when you really should feel guilty for being an asshole. All of them do it, this isn't something unique to Jews.

Are you seriously going to tell me me Polish Catholics, Pakistani Muslims, Evangelical Africans etc don't all stick together and buy/trade within their community. Hell, we're not even a race and gays do it. It's human to work with those you share features or beliefs with over others.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

@Fagatron we're talking about Catholicism not the other fake and gay shit. Catholicism has an objective moral code that is decided through God . There is a clear right and wrong, both Judaism and Mudslime have an other ingredients category to allow you to inflict as much carnage and suffering upon others so long as they are goyim or a kafir. 

There's some questionable things in the old testament but God sent down his son from heaven to amend the wrongs. If you remember one of the only times Jesus was violent was when he was beating up rabbis in synagogues because they were gambling. 

Also Catholicism doesn't permit such a clean entrance into heaven, not by faith alone.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> @Fagatron we're talking about Catholicism not the other fake and gay shit. Catholicism has an objective moral code that is decided through God . There is a clear right and wrong, both Judaism and Mudslime have an other ingredients category to allow you to inflict as much carnage and suffering upon others so long as they are goyim or a kafir.



>Ursury was a sin until it wasn't a sin.
>Black and illegitimate priests was a sin until it wasn't a sin
>Burning heretics was a holy virtue until it was a sin.
>Marrying a protestant was a sin until it wasn't a sin.
>Taking communion in the hand was a sin until it wasn't a sin.
>Eating meat during Lent or on Fridays was a sin, until it wasn't a sin, until Benedict XIV decided it was a sin again.
>Beliving slavery should be abolished was a sin until shortly decided before Vatican II that Slavery was a sin instead.

Some absolute moral code given by God there yeah.


Bleachedanoos said:


> There's some questionable things in the old testament but God sent down his son from heaven to amend the wrongs.



"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."



Bleachedanoos said:


> If you remember one of the only times Jesus was violent was when he was beating up rabbis in synagogues because they were gambling.



So you're not gonna include Annias & Saphira, attacking the merchants in the temple, the herd of pigs, God hates figs etc?



Bleachedanoos said:


> Also Catholicism doesn't permit such a clean entrance into heaven, not by faith alone.



You just have to fear Hell and confess your sins before death, google "Imperfect Contrition". That's all that is required.


----------



## Jan_Hus (Feb 4, 2019)

HAHAHAHA ID RATHER BE BURNED AT THE STAKE THAN BE CATHOLIC....

...wait a minute...


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> @Fagatron we're talking about Catholicism not the other fake and gay shit. Catholicism has an objective moral code that is decided through God . There is a clear right and wrong


So which side of that line does being a Nazi incel fall on?


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

@Fagatron objective, not absolute .When the pope invokes the grand magisterium his words are those of Simon Peter's himself . He is given divine right.

I googled the attrition thing you were talking about and it's a bit unrealistic to begin with. In what case will a man be able to predict his own death? Are you just going to go to confession daily until you die? You really simplified it and made it seem so easy.

@ProgKing of the North shhh adults are talking go play Minecraft on your iPad sweetie


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> objective, not absolute .When the pope invokes the grand magisterium his words are those of Simon Peter's himself . He is given divine right.



They're hardly objective. Slavery isn't a sin while we make money off it, but then it is a sin when the modern world starts to call us out on it. The sinfulness of eating meat on a Friday _literally depends on what part of the world you eat it. _If you do it in America or the UK, you're going to hell. Do it in Germany? It's fine because the bishops can set "disciplines"; literally their own rules they make up for whatever reason that don't necessarily have a basis in faith or morals, but you still have to obey or you sin.

After all, this is why it's still a sin today to join a union in Catholicism; the serfs should bow to their betters.



Bleachedanoos said:


> I googled the attrition thing you were talking about and it's a bit unrealistic, to begin with. In what case will a man be able to predict his own death? Are you just going to go to confession daily until you die? You really simplified it and made it seem so easy.[/USER]



You don't actually have to go to confession either, or rely upon a cleric being near you at death. You can also die fearing hell without confessing if you fully intend to go to confession straight away if you survive. That's also acceptable for avoiding hell, it's called making an "Act of Contrition".

This is why serial killers are in heaven. The Catholic approach isn't to not steal a bike; it's to steal a bike and then feel guilty afterwards.

Another more controversial option is to use sacramentals like that of St Carmel and praying the Divine Mercy prayer. In those cases, Mary and Jesus separately have supposedly appeared to saints in "Private revelations" and taught that either wearing the Brown Scapular or praying the Chaplet of Divine Mercy at the time of death likewise saves you from hell.

These claims have not been condemned by the Church, but they haven't been supported fully either. The only "safe and guranteed" route is via dying in a state of grace after confession, or with the full intent to go as soon as possible by performing an "Act of Contrition".


----------



## Nekromantik (Feb 4, 2019)

This thread is a honey pot, and it worked.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> They're hardly objective. Slavery is a sin while we make money off it, but then it isn't a sin when the modern world starts to call us out on it. The sinfulness of eating meat on a Friday _literally depends on what part of the world you eat it. _If you do it in America or the UK, you're going to hell. Do it in Germany? It's fine because the bishops can set "disciplines"; literally their own rules they make up for whatever reason that don't necessarily have a basis in faith or morals, but you still have to obey or you sin.
> 
> After all, this is why it's still a sin today to join a union in Catholicism; the serfs should bow to their betters.
> 
> ...


Objectivity doesn't imply a lack of caveats. What is meant by objective morality is that it is the one truth. Take for example this apple *clibms tree to grab apple* we can say that it is objectively red, but then let's say a cataclysmic event occurs and we start humanity over without Jews. The English word red and brown have switched, it is now objectively a brown apple when we look back on it. The problem with protestantism is the lack of an objective morality, one pastor could say it's wrong to fuck children but being ethnically Jewish I interpret it as ok, both of us are right. An objective morality is not absolute in that it doesn't shift or evolve, it is simply the codified moral arbiter . Now as a smelly yid I want to fuck a kid but I see that it's wrong, it is objectively a horrible thing. I don't fuck the kid and go back to scrounging up change under vending machines and trying to put hair in my food at restaurants to get a free meal.

NO. Not realistic. In what situation does someone have the luxury of time when they are dying. Assuming they aren't incapacitated or physically lame there is still the manner of all sorts of Earthly desires and connections in the forefront of the mind .You make it sound so easy.

Also serial killers are not in heaven to say that are is simply incorrect because you don't know nor does that catechism offer any such information. It would be something you assumed based off your understanding of attrition not something spoken of invoking the grand magisterium.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> @Fagatron we're talking about Catholicism not the other fake and gay shit. Catholicism has an objective moral code that is decided through God . There is a clear right and wrong, both Judaism and Mudslime have an other ingredients category to allow you to inflict as much carnage and suffering upon others so long as they are goyim or a kafir.
> 
> There's some questionable things in the old testament but God sent down his son from heaven to amend the wrongs. If you remember one of the only times Jesus was violent was when he was beating up rabbis in synagogues because they were gambling.
> 
> Also Catholicism doesn't permit such a clean entrance into heaven, not by faith alone.


You realise that, objectively speaking, Catholicism is also fake and gay, right?


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 4, 2019)

@Jacob Harrison You literally lack the basic understanding of your own faith to have a discussion with you about it.  I seriously suspect a divine vision could strike you showing all you believe is heretical and you would reject the vision.  You are a stubborn ass, a zealot, and a heretic, and I will not waste any more of my time with you.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> You realise that, objectively speaking, Catholicism is also fake and gay, right?


Explain the arrow of time and the problem of causality if there is no God you edgy little fedora totting atheist. You faggots think science is on your side, but science and education in general came from theologians, the Bible was ahead of it's time describing several physical properties of objects that we're not discovered till later. You atheists are dumb children not even capable of arguing this but you've got your head so far up your dyel ass that you don't realize you're being mogged by a crusader like me


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Feb 4, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> True, but it shows that it is a debated subject. I believe that animals go to heaven because I may have seen the ghost of my dead cat out of the corner of my eye indicating that he came from heaven to visit.



Uhh... dude resurrection is like the biggest deal there is in the bible.  Animal ghosts, in fact, all ghosts (except the holy ghost/spirit, but that's a translation thing) are not real. You must have been under the influence of satan, perhaps you performed some witchcraft to see the soul of your dead cat?

Hey, here's a question for you, since you brought up original sin.

Original sin was committed when Satan, in the form of a talking snake (with legs) convinced Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  She did so. However, before eating from the tree, she didn't have knowledge of good and evil!  How is it her fault? God's the one who made Satan, why didn't he do something to prevent this sequence of events? And how does an all knowing god get fooled by a mischievous angel he created?

So then, to punish the humans for listening to the evil snake that he created, a bunch of other evil shit was created, pretty much everything bad is because of this (except satan?).  

Sorry man, in that story, God is lying about being all knowing, or he's lying about being completely benevolent.  Otherwise, he should have known exactly what was going to happen from the first moment he willed himself into existence.

That suggests God is more of an experimenter with incomplete knowledge.  In which case, why would we listen to a lying alien scientist who has shown he's willing to murder us?


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Corbin Dallas Multipass said:


> Uhh... dude resurrection is like the biggest deal there is in the bible.  Animal ghosts, in fact, all ghosts (except the holy ghost/spirit, but that's a translation thing) are not real. You must have been under the influence of satan, perhaps you performed some witchcraft to see the soul of your dead cat?
> 
> Hey, here's a question for you, since you brought up original sin.
> 
> ...


Brainlet tier. You said she had no knowledge but she was explicitly told by God to not eat from that tree. She and Adam both knew, which is why Adam was reticent in eating from the tree of knowledge. If anything it's a parable where our boy JC is telling us to not trust a roastie.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> Brainlet tier. You said she had no knowledge but she was explicitly told by God to not eat from that tree. She and Adam both knew, which is why Adam was reticent in eating from the tree of knowledge. If anything it's a parable where our boy JC is telling us to not trust a roastie.


Genesis is Jewish.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Genesis is Jewish.


Look at this brainlet he legitimately is a monkey wearing a suit, he's a child with a fake wheel pretending to drive the car in the passenger seat. Sweetie go make yourself some juicey juice ok I'll let you stay up an hour later if you leave daddy and the adults to discuss.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> Look at this brainlet he legitimately is a monkey wearing a suit, he's a child with a fake wheel pretending to drive the car in the passenger seat. Sweetie go make yourself some juicey juice ok I'll let you stay up an hour later if you leave daddy and the adults to discuss.


The only reason you engage in these childish tantrums is because you legitimately cannot counterargue the fact that Genesis is a Jewish text and Christianity, the religion you uphold as great, is founded on Judaism, the religion you hold as the font of earthly evil.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> the Bible was ahead of it's time describing several physical properties of objects that we're not discovered till later.



Apologists of numerous religions make arguments along these lines, but notice that these 'revelations' are only ever announced *after* scientists have made the discovery. You never see theologians beating scientists to the punch, despite the fact that their entire job is to study the texts that apparently had this stuff figured out all along. Why is that?

Have you ever thought that perhaps these passages are not as revelatory as they're being made out to be, and that people are just reading stuff into them after the fact?


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Apologists of numerous religions make arguments along these lines, but notice that these 'revelations' are only ever announced *after* scientists have made the discovery. You never see theologians beating scientists to the punch, despite the fact that their entire job is to study the texts that apparently had this stuff figured out all along. Why is that?
> 
> Have you ever thought that perhaps these passages are not as revelatory as they're being made out to be, and that people are just reading stuff into them after the fact?


No there are over 100 predictions that came true in the Bible including the idea of crucifixion which at the time of the old testament was not a thing. 

As for what you said it's wrong on it's face it isn't the duty of theologians to understand physical properties of objects. It's to study and interpret the word of God not pontificate on physics . The fact that scientists can corroborate ideas spelled out in the Bible just further proves it's validity. 

You edgelords need to stop thinking science is on your side University was created to further the pursuits of theologians.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> Explain the arrow of time and the problem of causality if there is no God you edgy little fedora totting atheist.


I don't see how God explains either of those things. Can you point to specific, objective scientific evidence that says that God and only God explains these things? Because "You don't know? Then it must be God!" is a non-sequitur.


> You faggots think science is on your side, but science and education in general came from theologians, the Bible was ahead of it's time describing several physical properties of objects that we're not discovered till later. You atheists are dumb children not even capable of arguing this but you've got your head so far up your dyel ass that you don't realize you're being mogged by a crusader like me


A crusader? Like Richard the Lionheart? Or is it the kind of crusade that doesn't involve leaving the house?


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> You edgelords need to stop thinking science is on your side University was created to further the pursuits of theologians.


And the OT was created to further the pursuits of the Jews.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 4, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> And the OT was created to further the pursuits of the Jews.


As was the Catholic Church, according to Stormfront and some super fundie Protestant sects.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 4, 2019)

Corbin Dallas Multipass said:


> Uhh... dude resurrection is like the biggest deal there is in the bible.  Animal ghosts, in fact, all ghosts (except the holy ghost/spirit, but that's a translation thing) are not real. You must have been under the influence of satan, perhaps you performed some witchcraft to see the soul of your dead cat?
> 
> Hey, here's a question for you, since you brought up original sin.
> 
> ...


1. There have been visitations from the saints and remember that we don't get new bodies until judgement day, so until then, the dead are ghosts. 
2. As Bleachedanoos said, while Adam Eve did not have knowledge of the greater concept good and evil, they still knew that they were not allowed to eat the fruit. A good analogy is that young children do not have a greater concept of morality, but they still know what they should and should not do based on what their parent's command them to do. God forbidden Adam and Eve from eating from the tree but did not prevent Satan from tempting Eve to do so because that would be interfering with her free will.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 4, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> 1. There have been visitations from the saints and remember that we don't get new bodies until judgement day, so until then, the dead are ghosts.
> 2. As Bleachedanoos said, while Adam Eve did not have knowledge of the greater concept good and evil, they still knew that they were not allowed to eat the fruit. A good analogy is that young children do not have a greater concept of morality, but they still know what they should and should not do based on what their parent's command them to do. God forbidden Adam and Eve from eating from the tree but did not prevent Satan from tempting Eve to do so because that would be interfering with her free will.


Why put the tree there in the first place?


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> I don't see how God explains either of those things. Can you point to specific, objective scientific evidence that says that God and only God explains these things? Because "You don't know? Then it must be God!" is a non-sequitur.
> 
> A crusader? Like Richard the Lionheart? Or is it the kind of crusade that doesn't involve leaving the house?



Certainly, here is the problem, every single effect has a cause that it stems from. similarly with the arrow of time time has a beginning point that extends infinitely in one way. You can say that time is a construct of humanity, certainly on a subatomic level each particle acts in tandem but on a macro molecular level objects move sequentially, rather than thinking of time as a set of numbers think of it sequentially. In other words CECECECECECECE extending to this point, in order for the universe to exist there needs to be a start point which none of you edgy retard atheists ever address, you just say nothing exploded and created matter. You dont even have a comprehension of what nothing is, it would be impossible for you to comprehend nothing because the second you do it becomes something. So you need an external force one that is not subjected to the laws of causality a being that exists in a different physical plane who has always existed to act as the first domino to start both time and the universe. In the philosophical sense that being (the first cause) is called God.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> Certainly, here is the problem, every single effect has a cause that it stems from. similarly with the arrow of time time has a beginning point that extends infinitely in one way. You can say that time is a construct of humanity, certainly on a subatomic level each particle acts in tandem but on a macro molecular level objects move sequentially, rather than thinking of time as a set of numbers think of it sequentially. In other words CECECECECECECE extending to this point, in order for the universe to exist there needs to be a start point which none of you edgy exceptional individual atheists ever address, you just say nothing exploded and created matter. You dont even have a comprehension of what nothing is, it would be impossible for you to comprehend nothing because the second you do it becomes something. So you need an external force one that is not subjected to the laws of causality a being that exists in a different physical plane who has always existed to act as the first domino to start both time and the universe. In the philosophical sense that being (the first cause) is called God.


Well, that’s kind of moving the goalposts, isn’t it? Your initial claim was that the Christian version of God, the one talked about in the Bible, who has very specific qualities and attributes ascribed to Him, is real. But when I ask you what the evidence is, you say basically that there must be a first cause for the universe, and you call that God. Which is not the same thing at all - all you’ve argued is that a concept exists, and you choose to call that concept God. I could call the same concept “Cthulhu” and thus prove that Cthulhu exists. It’s just word games.

What is lacking is specific, objective evidence that God, specifically the God as described in the Bible, is that first cause.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 4, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> I wish I never started on these. Now I feel like I have to answer.
> 
> 
> The Bishops have approved the bible. Your opinions are irrelevant. Catholicism is not a buffet, it's all or nothing.
> ...


While it is true that Catholics should generally obey the church, God's authority is higher than the church's so when the church defies the will of God, then Catholics must put obedience to God first. That is the argument that Marcel Lefebre of the Society of Saint Pius X used when he defied the church.

And I never said that the Latin Vulgate does not have errors. As the article says _St. Jerome did the best job possible for his time. What makes a "good" Biblical translation changes from one time period to another and what works in one period may not work as well in another. _And as I said, the Latin Vulgate was revised during the Renaissance to make it even better. As shown by wikipedia. the infallible Council of Trent said that only the Latin Vulgate and it's translations are authentic. By using the New American Bible as authentic, the bishops are defying a holy ecumenical council. 

_Moreover, this sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.[61]_


> The Remnant can claim to be the Pope, it is not an approved apostolate neither does it hold an Nihil Obstat or an Imprimatur. The Remnant supports sects not in full communion with the Pope and teaches that the Church has somehow been corrupted; that the gates of hell have prevailed. This is heresy, and anyone who contributes and belives in it is in a state of mortal sin.


The Church thanks to Benedict XVI allows for certain sects like the SSPX to hold the traditional Latin mass and still be in communion with the church. Furthermore, they do not believe that the gates of hell have prevailed because they believe that there is still a faithful remnant of the church which they are part of.


> Only animals made in Gods image have immortal souls. To say God has given an immortal soul to a cow, or a pig, or a cockroach is heresy and blasphemy against God.
> 
> You're saying other animals are as important as humans, this is heresy and you should refrain from communion as only humans were created to be lord over all animals and the stewards of creation. You contradict Genesis, let alone the piles of material that come later.
> 
> ...


I never said that animals are important as humans. They are not because they do not have a relationship with God. However how can humans be lords of all the animals and the stewards of creation in heaven if there are no animals there?

And actually nothing brings someone to Catholic faith faster than reading the bible and researching the history of the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ gave supreme authority to Saint Peter by telling him that he is the rock on which the church was built, and the church fathers recognized the supremacy of the bishops of Rome as the successors to Saint Peter. 

_*Ignatius of Antioch: *"… to the Church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

*Cyprian of Carthage: "*Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"

*Cyprian of Carthage: *"the Lord says to Peter;  ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251])._

This is the source. http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-infallibility.html

And it is also the same article that contains undeniable proof of papal infallibility that I mentioned in my previous comment. How do you explain the fact that Pope Sixtus V suddenly and unexpectedly died before he could teach error if it was not God who struck him dead before he could proclaim error to the entire church?



Tragi-Chan said:


> Why put the tree there in the first place?


God put the tree there so that he could establish a rule for Adam and Eve to obey since he wanted his creation to obey him, but at the same time wanted them to have the free will to obey him or not.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> Well, that’s kind of moving the goalposts, isn’t it? Your initial claim was that the Christian version of God, the one talked about in the Bible, who has very specific qualities and attributes ascribed to Him, is real. But when I ask you what the evidence is, you say basically that there must be a first cause for the universe, and you call that God. Which is not the same thing at all - all you’ve argued is that a concept exists, and you choose to call that concept God. I could call the same concept “Cthulhu” and thus prove that Cthulhu exists. It’s just word games.
> 
> What is lacking is specific, objective evidence that God, specifically the God as described in the Bible, is that first cause.


No it wasnt not being able to read kun, my point was you atheists have nothing, the idea that nothing exists and there is no metaphysical force that created the world is dumber than santa claus, and I know you and several other retarded losers in this thread thought you were so cool because you heard of Dawkins, but you just got mogged stomped. Like I said science is not on your side, because using a simple proof we can ascertain an existence of some form of God.

Now as for the catholic god of course I believe but it takes several more arguments to get to that and a bit of faith, none of them are as strong as the cosmological argument, which i just consider to be a point of fact.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 4, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> God put the tree there so that he could establish a rule for Adam and Eve to obey since he wanted his creation to obey him, but at the same time wanted them to have the free will to obey him or not.


I once dated someone like that. I dumped her because she was obviously way psycho.


Bleachedanoos said:


> No it wasnt not being able to read kun, my point was you atheists have nothing, the idea that nothing exists and there is no metaphysical force that created the world is dumber than santa claus, and I know you and several other exceptional losers in this thread thought you were so cool because you heard of Dawkins, but you just got mogged stomped. Like I said science is not on your side, because using a simple proof we can ascertain an existence of some form of God.
> 
> Now as for the catholic god of course I believe but it takes several more arguments to get to that and a bit of faith, none of them are as strong as the cosmological argument, which i just consider to be a point of fact.


Why do you think we believe that “nothing exists?” Because plainly things do exist. It seems to me that you’re deliberately mischaracterising the atheistic world view because that’s the only way you can argue against it.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> I once dated someone like that. I dumped her because she was obviously way psycho.
> 
> Why do you think we believe that “nothing exists?” Because plainly things do exist. It seems to me that you’re deliberately mischaracterising the atheistic world view because that’s the only way you can argue against it.


the atheist view is that there is no God, in the philosophical sense where god is a first cause, you know how i know that because they have another word for some form of belief in God called agnosticism. Atheists dont believe in anything metaphysical they are complete brainlets. Me and my boy JC will be roasting marshmellows over your hell fire ladened bodies


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> the atheist view is that there is no God, in the philosophical sense where god is a first cause, you know how i know that because they have another word for some form of belief in God called agnosticism. Atheists dont believe in anything metaphysical they are complete brainlets. Me and my boy JC will be roasting marshmellows over your hell fire ladened bodies


You’re deliberately mischaracterising atheism. The atheist does not believe in the supernatural concept of God or gods. That’s all.

If you choose to take something other than the supernatural all-powerful being described in the Bible and call that God, which is what you’re doing here, then you’re changing the argument.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 4, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> While it is true that Catholics should generally obey the church, God's authority is higher than the church's so when the church defies the will of God, then Catholics must put obedience to God first. That is the argument that Marcel Lefebre of the Society of Saint Pius X used when he defied the church.



Lefebre died a heretic and is near enough an apostate. He was condemned by John Paul and John.

It remains at best a near occasion of sin to this day for a Catholic to attend an SSPX Mass, and to let other Catholics know would be a sin. You are a heretic Jacob.



Jacob Harrison said:


> And I never said that the Latin Vulgate does not have errors. As the article says _St. Jerome did the best job possible for his time. What makes a "good" Biblical translation changes from one time period to another and what works in one period may not work as well in another._



You claimed the mistakes were good and part of Sixtus' infalliability. Being able to excommunicate everyone who disagrees with you, as Sixtus did with the college regarding his translation does not mean it is correct.
_
_


Jacob Harrison said:


> And as I said, the Latin Vulgate was revised during the Renaissance to make it even better. As shown by wikipedia. the infallible Council of Trent said that only the Latin Vulgate and it's translations are authentic. By using the New American Bible as authentic, the bishops are defying a holy ecumenical council.



Again, you affirm you are a heretic for denying the decree of both the Catholic Church and the Bishops.



Jacob Harrison said:


> _Moreover, this sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.[61]_



See Ursury, and any of the others already mentioned in this thread how things "To be held for now and for all time" are basically held until it becomes inconvenient for Catholic leaders.



Jacob Harrison said:


> The Church thanks to Benedict XVI allows for certain sects like the SSPX to hold the traditional Latin mass and still be in communion with the church. Furthermore, they do not believe that the gates of hell have prevailed because they believe that there is still a faithful remnant of the church which they are part of.



No it doesn't. It is permissible to attend the "Valid, but Illicit" Masses of the SSPX if there are no alternatives available. They are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Francis has thrown them a bone in the form of granting them "faculties" to hear confessions, but it is not possible for a SSPX cleric to perform a wedding, extreme unction or the like.

To attend an SSPX Mass is to risk the sin of scandal.




Jacob Harrison said:


> I never said that animals are important as humans. They are not because they do not have a relationship with God. However how can humans be lords of all the animals and the stewards of creation in heaven if there are no animals there?



_F_or the same reason there are no marriages in the Catholic heaven, the role has become defunct and obsolete.




Jacob Harrison said:


> And actually nothing brings someone to Catholic faith faster than reading the bible and researching the history of the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ gave supreme authority to Saint Peter by telling him that he is the rock on which the church was built, and the church fathers recognized the supremacy of the bishops of Rome as the successors to Saint Peter.



I know a hell of a lot more about the Catholic faith than you will ever know , as demonstrated by your incopetence in this thread alone. I think Catholicism is horseshit. Probably worth less, because at least manure can be used in agriculture.
_
_


Jacob Harrison said:


> And it is also the same article that contains undeniable proof of papal infallibility that I mentioned in my previous comment. How do you explain the fact that Pope Sixtus V suddenly and unexpectedly died before he could teach error if it was not God who struck him dead before he could proclaim error to the entire church?



Bullshit. Hans Kung wrote a book that slamdunked Papal Infalliability so hard it's still a mortal sin for Catholics to even mention it outside of academia or condemnation when asked and it's banned in every Catholic state in Europe.

Now despite being banned, Hans Kung is still a Catholic priest in good standing and still teaches Theology. Would you like to know why?

To defrock a cleric, you have to prove they are a heretic and they're telling lies.

More than four decades later, nobody has ever been able to do it. The Vatican has tried, many times, and still can't debunk him.

But of course, you won't read it. It doesn't come with pictures or the ability to shriek about Jews. https://www.amazon.com/Infallible-Hans-Kung/dp/0002153432

I'm bored . At least Catholics who actually believe, know and follow their own rules are able to respond fairly. I feel like I'm kicking a blind man at this point.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> You’re deliberately mischaracterising atheism. The atheist does not believe in the supernatural concept of God or gods. That’s all.
> 
> If you choose to take something other than the supernatural all-powerful being described in the Bible and call that God, which is what you’re doing here, then you’re changing the argument.


again the laws of the physical universe dictate that every effect had a cause, in order for the universe to have any starting point you would need to believe in the supernatural, and if you do you arent an atheist which makes you even MORE fucking dumb because you dont even know how to identify yourself. It'd be like calling yourself an athlete when you meant that you're a furry.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> again the laws of the physical universe dictate that every effect had a cause, in order for the universe to have any starting point you would need to believe in the supernatural, and if you do you arent an atheist which makes you even MORE fucking dumb because you dont even know how to identify yourself. It'd be like calling yourself an athlete when you meant that you're a furry.


I’m not arguing that the universe came from nothing. Do you understand that? Please answer either “yes” or “no,” and I will explain my argument further.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 4, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> I’m not arguing that the universe came from nothing. Do you understand that? Please answer either “yes” or “no,” and I will explain my argument further.



As someone whose gone to deep in trying to reason with a cow, I really advise fleeing while you can.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> I’m not arguing that the universe came from nothing. Do you understand that? Please answer either “yes” or “no,” and I will explain my argument further.


then you're wrong, there is nothing until the start point, so technically yes the universe came from nothing. If you want to say everything always existed you're wrong because you have a (ECE)x inifnity scenario and youre also wrong.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> then you're wrong, there is nothing until the start point, so technically yes the universe came from nothing. If you want to say everything always existed you're wrong because you have a (ECE)x inifnity scenario and youre also wrong.


Irrelevant. Did you understand my previous post, yes or no?


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> then you're wrong, there is nothing until the start point, so technically yes the universe came from nothing. If you want to say everything always existed you're wrong because you have a (ECE)x inifnity scenario and youre also wrong.



You'd think the ultimate life form and the creator of all things could afford a better PR team.


----------



## Ijime (Feb 4, 2019)

Catholicism is an insanely amazing supplement for your life so you can live a responsible life as a decent human being. Sadly in the current moment, I'm not converting since the Vatican is riddled with faggots (especially the Pope) and I'm scared of going to Catholic Hell if convert at this very moment. Someone needs to shoot up the place or something to kill all the faggot priests and re-institute people and powers more adequate  for the Church. When that happens, convert and raise your children Catholic with Christ and Love in your heart and they'll grow healthy.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> Irrelevant. Did you understand my previous post, yes or no?


Yes yes



Fagatron said:


> You'd think the ultimate life form and the creator of all things could afford a better PR team.


I dont claim to act on behalf of the lord, and besides its not in your puny mortal brain to fathom the paradigms by which the almighty thinks. Concepts like good and evil are too simplistic, its literally 10 dimensional chess.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 4, 2019)

Ijime said:


> Catholicism is an insanely amazing supplement for your life so you can live a responsible life as a decent human being. Sadly in the current moment, I'm not converting since the Vatican is riddled with faggots (especially the Pope) and I'm scared of going to Catholic Hell if convert at this very moment. Someone needs to shoot up the place or something to kill all the faggot priests and re-institute people and powers more adequate  for the Church. When that happens, convert and raise your children Catholic with Christ and Love in your heart and they'll grow healthy.


WE HAVE A HAT TRICK PEOPLE
Please, do name what "powers" would be more adequate.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> Yes yes


Good. So what is missing here is evidence that the thing that started the universe off can only have been the God of the Bible. Simply not knowing what caused it does not automatically mean that it ipso facto was God.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> Good. So what is missing here is evidence that the thing that started the universe off can only have been the God of the Bible. Simply not knowing what caused it does not automatically mean that it ipso facto was God.


No, again, atheists don't believe in the first cause, because they would need to believe in something supernatural, in other words something that is not bound to the laws of the physical universe. I doubt most atheists understand the problem of causality and are only edgy fedora children who have never really looked into anything.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 4, 2019)

What are the odds Ijime is Jacob?



Bleachedanoos said:


> No, again, atheists don't believe in the first cause, because they would need to believe in something supernatural, in other words something that is not bound to the laws of the physical universe. I doubt most atheists understand the problem of causality and are only edgy fedora children who have never really looked into anything.



I can't believe I'm linking to these fuckers but I can't be arsed to type it out myself

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause

TL;DR: Long answered, dead horse, yawn, move on.


----------



## Ijime (Feb 4, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> WE HAVE A HAT TRICK PEOPLE
> Please, do name what "powers" would be more adequate.



Most things are more adequate at the moment I'm writing things. You could excommunicate and lynch half of the Vatican and replace them with homeless and junkies and the Catholic Church would become more respected and holier. The whole institution has become a pinata and an easy target to mock and that's the fault of the latest administrations. They had been letting loose too much lately, they have to become a solid and stable whale-thick wall of their values and impose respect  for the whole Church. I don't want to go to Hell


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 4, 2019)

Ijime said:


> Most things are more adequate at the moment I'm writing things. You could excommunicate and lynch half of the Vatican and replace them with homeless and junkies and the Catholic Church would become more respected and holier. The whole institution has become a pinata and an easy target to mock and that's the fault of the latest administrations. They had been letting loose too much lately, they have to become a solid and stable whale-thick wall of their values and impose respect  for the whole Church. I don't want to go to Hell


This is a non-answer.  How should they impose respect for the whole church when the world as a whole has become secular?


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> What are the odds Ijime is Jacob?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


isnt this destiny's website? wew lad really earning your name

first one i already addressed and knocked it out of the park, the idea of an uncaused cause is not illogical.

second one is garbage its a thought experiment that doesnt make it pass go

multiple causes: ok then they are all god

radio active decay; this guy doesn't understand what an effect is, to compare literal nothingness to an arrangement of matter that already exists and then to judge this effect as uncaused is beyond stupid. -1 for atheists 

virtual particles; this is something hawking recently came up with the idea that the a blackhole periodically emits what is called a firewall, spitting back up particles. Again we are dealing with the existence of forms of matter this isn't nothing, to equate this to nothing is just incorrect once again.

"For instance, while it is absolutely true that within a flock of sheep that every member ("an individual sheep") has a mother, it does not therefore follow that the flock has a mother." Literally brainlet tier, this is called the devils proof not the fallacy of composition, the lack of proof that the devil exists is not proof the devil does not exist. You cant say something can be uncaused simply because it has yet to be proven that everything has a cause. Further its confounding what an actual effect is, the mere existence of matter is an effect, in order to prove this theory right you would need to be able to get a hold of nothing and create something from it. But it's just literally impossible because nothing is not a conceivable idea or property. It is the absence of ANYTHING. 

Equivocation: brainlet tier

anything else gay guy?


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> isnt this destiny's website? wew lad really earning your name



Yeah, can't all be as famous as you with the fanclub following you.



Bleachedanoos said:


> first one i already addressed and knocked it out of the park, the idea of an uncaused cause is not illogical.



It really is.






Maybe a visual aid will help. The idea being, there's no reason not to have an infinite regress.

Why stop at God? Why wouldn't God have a God who in turn has a God?



Bleachedanoos said:


> second one is garbage its a thought experiment that doesnt make it pass go



Science doesn't have the answer, therefore suck Jesus' cock.

That sounds legit.



Bleachedanoos said:


> multiple causes: ok then they are all god



Why God? Why not Galactos or Jubileus? Hell, why not Ymir?



Bleachedanoos said:


> radio active decay; this guy doesn't understand what an effect is, to compare literal nothingness to an arrangement of matter that already exists and then to judge this effect as uncaused is beyond stupid. -1 for atheists
> 
> virtual particles; this is something hawking recently came up with the idea that the a blackhole periodically emits what is called a firewall, spitting back up particles. Again we are dealing with the existence of forms of matter this isn't nothing, to equate this to nothing is just incorrect once again.
> 
> ...



Okay, so you don't like these ideas. If we're really going to use Aqunas' causes, shall we pick one to focus upon?

Just bear in mind most Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church, also consider the causes to be faulty arguments and only basic entry tier preaching material.



Bleachedanoos said:


> anything else gay guy?



Yo mom fat an ur dad ghey.

Seeing as this is the level we're working with.


----------



## Ijime (Feb 4, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> How should they impose respect for the whole church when the world as a whole has become secular?



The whole world is becoming more secular because households and schools are becoming more careless and no longer care about traditional values. Religion is a double-edge sword that will either  help teaching and instructing youths of said values when used properly or cut the wielder and fuck their entire foundation and respect.
The Church has to be more careful and consistent with what they say and what they teach and hold traditional values with an extreme grip instead of tripping every 5 years because of some stupid controversies. Or even better the should practice what they preach. How? The should excommunicate the current Pope all the faggot child touchers send them stranded on Madagascar with only their underwear so they can be eaten alive by the bugs and the cannibals there


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 4, 2019)

Ijime said:


> The should excommunicate the current Pope all the faggot child touchers send them stranded on Madagascar with only their underwear so they can be eaten alive by the bugs and the cannibals there



You sound as if you've put a great deal of thought into this sexual fantasy of yours, would you please tell us more?


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 4, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> Lefebre died a heretic and is near enough an apostate. He was condemned by John Paul and John.
> 
> It remains at best a near occasion of sin to this day for a Catholic to attend an SSPX Mass, and to let other Catholics know would be a sin. You are a heretic Jacob.
> 
> ...


Ok, since I try to have all the facts in the debates, I will do research on that book and the debunking attempts. But keep in mind that it the reason why he was not defrocked and excommunicated for heresy could be that the Vatican which has been taken over by Freemasons and Communists since Vatican II, like his work because it is part of their agenda to lead the church astray.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

@Fagatron 
No.

Ok think about it like this you are playing crash bandicoot and you want to pick up and throw one of the apples, but you can't you can only walk into it and collect it, or spin it out, because thats the mechanics of the game. So you close down the game, now in IRL you walk to your kitchen grab an apple and smash it on the floor. Different rules apply to different physical states, in the realm where God exists he isn't bound by any laws of our physical universe in the same way that Crash Bandicoot cant actually do anything else other than what the developers programmed him to do. This God's god is something that you already hear covering acquinas its not a real argument if you arent a brainlet. 

That's pretty dumb, who cares what He is called, we are referring to the concept not the actual name. That's like saying why not call him Kami or Dieu.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 4, 2019)

Ijime said:


> The whole world is becoming more secular because households and schools are becoming more careless and no longer care about traditional values. Religion is a double-edge sword that will either  help teaching and instructing youths of said values when used properly or cut the wielder and fuck their entire foundation and respect.
> The Church has to be more careful and consistent with what they say and what they teach and hold traditional values with an extreme grip instead of tripping every 5 years because of some stupid controversies. Or even better the should practice what they preach. How? The should excommunicate the current Pope all the faggot child touchers send them stranded on Madagascar with only their underwear so they can be eaten alive by the bugs and the cannibals there


Why are traditional values automatically better in your mind? Not saying they never are, but traditional doesn’t automatically equal good or right.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 4, 2019)

@Fagatron Now I have a dilemma. I am having trouble trying to find a refutation of Kung's book. For the debate, I would have to know about the contents of the book, but buying the book would be a mortal sin because it helps the heretic make money off his work of heresy. You seem confident that the book completely disproves papal infallibility, so have you read the book? If so, then can you give me a summary of the important points so that I can try to refute them? If you haven't read the book, then you are just assuming that it does, probably due to your biases against the church for saying that fucking with your fellow faggots is a mortal sin.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 4, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> @Fagatron Now I have a dilemma. I am having trouble trying to find a refutation of Kung's book. For the debate, I would have to know about the contents of the book, but buying the book would be a mortal sin because it helps the heretic make money off his work of heresy. You seem confident that the book completely disproves papal infallibility, so have you read the book? If so, then can you give me a summary of the important points so that I can try to refute them? If you haven't read the book, then you are just assuming that it does, probably due to your biases against the church for saying that fucking with your fellow faggots is a mortal sin.



I own two copies of the book in different languages (I wanted to check it once for differences in content). It's a full damning rebuttal. It is a bit sad however you instantly want to read a rebuttal, rather than actually weigh an argument for its merits yourself. It does say a lot about how you approach a discussion with the "I must win" mentality rather than a desire to understand or develop one way or the other.

If you buy a copy of the book second hand (so that the money does not go to Fr Kung) for the purposes of defending the faith and do not make it known that you have aquired a copy (public knowledge being "the sin of scandal"), that would be permissible and is how most religious Theolgians (there are Atheist Theology, Ecclesiastics and Divinity PhD's out there) aquire works of rival denominationsfor study (it's also a very nice moneyspinner for non-fanatical students to sell their books on!). That would only be a sin if you are a member of an order that still maintains an index of banned books which you're probably not.

I can pick out a few highlights tomorrow, but it's more a full history of infalliability, how and why it developed and why ultimatley it lead to Vatican II, which really couldn't have come about without it.


----------



## PorcupineTree (Feb 4, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> If you haven't read the book, then you are just assuming that it does, probably due to your biases against the church for saying that fucking with your fellow faggots is a mortal sin.



The passive aggressiveness of this thread is reaching comedic heights.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 4, 2019)

Oh God, are you still going as well?



Bleachedanoos said:


> @Fagatron
> No.





Bleachedanoos said:


> Ok think about it like this you are playing crash bandicoot and you want to pick up and throw one of the apples, but you can't you can only walk into it and collect it, or spin it out, because thats the mechanics of the game. So you close down the game, now in IRL you walk to your kitchen grab an apple and smash it on the floor. Different rules apply to different physical states, in the realm where God exists he isn't bound by any laws of our physical universe in the same way that Crash Bandicoot cant actually do anything else other than what the developers programmed him to do. This God's god is something that you already hear covering acquinas its not a real argument if you arent a brainlet.



So you're sayin humans can only do what God programmed us to do?

So God programmed men to rape babies? Good to know, that would explain why nonconsenual prepubescent Sodomy appears to be the eighth sacrament.

This is what that Rationalwiki author described a "special pleading", you're claiming God isn't bound by laws, when really he could just as feasibly be bound by laws himself. If God is all good as is claimed, he is bound by a force that prevents him from doing evil . You cannot have your cake, and eat it too. Pick one.



Bleachedanoos said:


> That's pretty dumb, who cares what He is called, we are referring to the concept not the actual name. That's like saying why not call him Kami or Dieu.



The Kami arern't Gods, so no I wouldn't use that name. All the arguments used to support the first cause, if we accepted them as valid (which I do not) could just as easily (if not more easily) be used to justify the existance of Cuthulu.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 4, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> I own two copies of the book in different languages (I wanted to check it once for differences in content). It's a full damning rebuttal. It is a bit sad however you instantly want to read a rebuttal, rather than actually weigh an argument for its merits yourself. It does say a lot about how you approach a discussion with the "I must win" mentality rather than a desire to understand or develop one way or the other.
> 
> If you buy a copy of the book second hand (so that the money does not go to Fr Kung) for the purposes of defending the faith and do not make it known that you have aquired a copy (public knowledge being "the sin of scandal"), that would be permissible and is how most religious Theolgians (there are Atheist Theology, Ecclesiastics and Divinity PhD's out there) aquire works of rival denominationsfor study (it's also a very nice moneyspinner for non-fanatical students to sell their books on!). That would only be a sin if you are a member of an order that still maintains an index of banned books which you're probably not.
> 
> I can pick out a few highlights tomorrow, but it's more a full history of infalliability, how and why it developed and why ultimatley it lead to Vatican II, which really couldn't have come about without it.


Out of curiosity, what made you decide to get the book? Do you have Catholic background?


----------



## Bogs (Feb 4, 2019)




----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 4, 2019)

Ijime said:


> The whole world is becoming more secular because households and schools are becoming more careless and no longer care about traditional values. Religion is a double-edge sword that will either  help teaching and instructing youths of said values when used properly or cut the wielder and fuck their entire foundation and respect.
> The Church has to be more careful and consistent with what they say and what they teach and hold traditional values with an extreme grip instead of tripping every 5 years because of some stupid controversies. Or even better the should practice what they preach. How? The should excommunicate the current Pope all the faggot child touchers send them stranded on Madagascar with only their underwear so they can be eaten alive by the bugs and the cannibals there


Define "traditional values".  It is a "traditional value" in India to burn a widow on her husband's funeral pyre.  Cannibalism of both enemy and ancestor is a Maori "traditional value".  Just because your ancestors did it does not mean it is good to do.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> Oh God, are you still going as well?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No No nO NO NO N O N O NO NO

I'm saying the logic in the two worlds is different, the rules of the video game world only allow for certain things it is the physical laws that limit the capability. It's not a direct analogy. Even if it were though the programmers logic is not all encapsulating and it is possible to act against the desires of a programmer speed running and glitches in general are built off of this. 

The rationalwiki is brainlet tier, I am defining God as one who is not bound by laws because hes all powerful. Rational Wiki is trying to put the cart before the horse and assume that I have a conceptualization of God and that he doesn't have the power I ascribed to Him. But its wrong God by my definition is omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent. If he isnt he isn't god. 

His conception of morality isnt the same as what you or I would think again he is capable of observing all 10 dimensions simultaneously. The argument from evil is brainlet tier. Human beings can't comprehend the actions of God, they can't even conceptualize the 5th dimension, why would you ever think you could understand the motives of God? I do not assume him to be malevolent or benevolent.  I realize I do not know nor can I ever think in the same paradigm as God as he is all knowing.  

Kami is god in japanese, when used together with other syllables it becomes gami such as shinigami.  When said alone it means God. Typically the honorific sama will go after it, e.g. Kami-sama tasuketeeeeeeee


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> No, again, atheists don't believe in the first cause, because they would need to believe in something supernatural, in other words something that is not bound to the laws of the physical universe. I doubt most atheists understand the problem of causality and are only edgy fedora children who have never really looked into anything.


This is entirely irrelevant, and the reason you keep coming back to it is because you simply cannot answer the question of what evidence there is that the “first cause” must be the Christian God. If you can’t answer that without resorting to word games, then as far as I’m concerned, you forfeit the argument.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> This is entirely irrelevant, and the reason you keep coming back to it is because you simply cannot answer the question of what evidence there is that the “first cause” must be the Christian God. If you can’t answer that without resorting to word games, then as far as I’m concerned, you forfeit the argument.


I already addressed this, the argument is step one on the path to the catholic God. try re reading the thread.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 4, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Out of curiosity, what made you decide to get the book? Do you have Catholic background?







Something like that. I've gotten better since.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> I already addressed this, the argument is step one on the path to the catholic God. try re reading the thread.


No, your argument was:
- There must be a first cause.
- I call that cause “God.”
- ???
- It’s definitely the God from the Bible and could not possibly be anything else.


----------



## SelmaHendersen (Feb 4, 2019)

C.S. Lewis has some very thought-provoking quotes on Christianity and religion if anyone is interested!  My apologies and I mean no harm, as I'm just passing through this thread; good luck to you all!


----------



## Slap47 (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> No, again, atheists don't believe in the first cause, because they would need to believe in something supernatural, in other words something that is not bound to the laws of the physical universe. I doubt most atheists understand the problem of causality and are only edgy fedora children who have never really looked into anything.



It's difficult to understand because rooted in a baseless assumption that comes out of nowhere.  The leap to it referring to one specific institution that formed from political events that are clearly documented and_ entirely political_ doesn't help.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> No No nO NO NO N O N O NO NO
> 
> I'm saying the logic in the two worlds is different, the rules of the video game world only allow for certain things it is the physical laws that limit the capability. It's not a direct analogy. Even if it were though the programmers logic is not all encapsulating and it is possible to act against the desires of a programmer speed running and glitches in general are built off of this.



But your God decides everything, what is possible and what isn't. Any capacity to break the rules or to not.



Bleachedanoos said:


> The rationalwiki is brainlet tier, I am defining God as one who is not bound by laws because hes all powerful.



Which God is this then? Because the Trinitarian Christian God is (allegedly) all good, he's bound by his own nature to be incapable of evil.

This however does invoke Epicurian riddle, which might be worth you looking into as an introduction to the problem of evil as to why an all good deity cannot be all powerful.


Bleachedanoos said:


> Rational Wiki is trying to put the cart before the horse and assume that I have a conceptualization of God and that he doesn't have the power I ascribed to Him. But its wrong God by my definition is omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent. If he isnt he isn't god.



So your God is all powerful and all seeing, but not all good?

It's more consistent. It doesn't explain why an evil deity would make the world but at least we're getting somewhere.



Bleachedanoos said:


> His conception of morality isnt the same as what you or I would think again he is capable of observing all 10 dimensions simultaneously.



Can we just clarify which denomination you follow? Because several denominations condemn multi dimensional/universe theories as heretical.



Bleachedanoos said:


> The argument from evil is brainlet tier. Human beings can't comprehend the actions of God, they can't even conceptualize the 5th dimension, why would you ever think you could understand the motives of God? I do not assume him to be malevolent or benevolent.  I realize I do not know nor can I ever think in the same paradigm as God as he is all knowing.



So you're cool with baby rape and genocide. That's cute. Whatever happened to the ends not justifying the means?

You might enjoy reading into Divine Command theory in this regard, though it's certainly not Catholic.



Bleachedanoos said:


> Kami is god in japanese, when used together with other syllables it becomes gami such as shinigami.  When said alone it means God. Typically the honorific sama will go after it, e.g. Kami-sama tasuketeeeeeeee



Uh huh, it's popularly translated as God. But Kami are mortal and can be destroyed. I'm assuming your deity, or any proposed creator of the universe isn't killable like a Kami.

So no actually, Kami would be a poor replacement to describe an omnipotent God.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> No, your argument was:
> - There must be a first cause.
> - I call that cause “God.”
> - ???
> - It’s definitely the God from the Bible and could not possibly be anything else.


Yikes. Please learn how to read

>no cause is uncaused
>there must be something outside the bounds of causality that caused the entire existence of the universe
>that thing is therefore God

>teleological argument
>it is possible to use theoretical physics to predict never seen before phenomena because the laws of the universe are stackable in that they are able to be applied on a macro scale to larger concepts
>numbers like phi and pi can be found within all objects in the universe no matter the scale
>the unique combination of carbon atoms that would produce a living breathing human capable of abstraction is so succinct 
>the universe is intelligently designed
>the architect is therefore God

>the old testament has over 100 revelations that came to pass with the advent of Christ
>the catechism is most likely the most correct interpretation of God
>the christian god is the real god


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> >the old testament has over 100 revelations that came to pass with the advent of Christ
> >the catechism is most likely the most correct interpretation of God
> >the christian god is the real god


for this to be objectively true there would have to be objective fact that Jesus was the son of God, which there isn't (the Bible isn't proof that other parts of the Bible are true). I'm sure there was a Jew named Jesus who did a lot of preaching back in the day, and he might have even claimed to be the son of God, but there's no verifiable proof that he was


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 4, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> But your God decides everything, what is possible and what isn't. Any capacity to break the rules or to not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't have all the answers I don't know everything, the denomination I follow is irrelevant because I'm not a perfect depiction of that domination. What I personally and most strongly believe in is God as the first cause, which I touched on earlier in this thread. Then through several other arguments and logical leaps and a bit of FAITH we get to the Christian God. 

My interpretation of the will of God would be most closest to a deist, God created the world set up the rules to the board game, offered salvation with his Son and then just leaves it be. The Epicurean problem of evil is irrelevant as God has decided to let his children do as they want in the aquarium he created. Think about it like this, I can beat you up, at any time I'm incredibly strong and a good fighter, but I don't, I just don't beat you up. But I can. Does that suddenly make me weaker than you? Is because I chose to not do something to prove your action I'm suddenly not all powerful? No.

God is not all good in the concept of mortal's good, and I don't pretend to know the intentions of God. But he passed down a set of rules on how to live to achieve salvation with him. In the eyes of God who is eternal our life spans on this Earth are essentially meaningless because 80/oo is 0. In that sense the question of good and evil isn't applicable. 

Kami could refer to shinto gods which were killable but when a japanese christian is praying they also say Kami and there is a large denomination of them there.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 4, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> View attachment 657274
> 
> Something like that. I've gotten better since.


Some of the best people I know are Catholics and I think it's as arrogant to assert that religion is useless horseshit or actively evil as it is to be a zealot.  Religion can give many people peace of mind and lead them to be better people; no view should be judged by the worst examples of its kind.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 4, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Some of the best people I know are Catholics and I think it's as arrogant to assert that religion is useless horseshit or actively evil as it is to be a zealot.  Religion can give many people peace of mind and lead them to be better people; no view should be judged by the worst examples of its kind.



This would be a good conversation, and I'd be delighted to continue it on another thread or in DM's rather than de-rail this thread further. 



Bleachedanoos said:


> I don't have all the answers I don't know everything, the denomination I follow is irrelevant because I'm not a perfect depiction of that domination. What I personally and most strongly believe in is God as the first cause, which I touched on earlier in this thread. Then through several other arguments and logical leaps and a bit of FAITH we get to the Christian God.



But your denomination helps us understand what you think the Christian God is.  And the first cause has been long addressed elsewhere.

It's taught in freshman applied theology for historical interest, not practical use.



Bleachedanoos said:


> My interpretation of the will of God would be most closest to a deist, God created the world set up the rules to the board game, offered salvation with his Son and then just leaves it be. The Epicurean problem of evil is irrelevant as God has decided to let his children do as they want in the aquarium he created. Think about it like this, I can beat you up, at any time I'm incredibly strong and a good fighter, but I don't, I just don't beat you up. But I can. Does that suddenly make me weaker than you? Is because I chose to not do something to prove your action I'm suddenly not all powerful? No.



But your god is going to roast us all if we don't do exactly what he wants.

This is why knowing your denomination helps, because a Christian can't be a deitst. The Christian God is a pro active force in the world.



Bleachedanoos said:


> God is not all good in the concept of mortal's good, and I don't pretend to know the intentions of God. But he passed down a set of rules on how to live to achieve salvation with him. In the eyes of God who is eternal our life spans on this Earth are essentially meaningless because 80/oo is 0. In that sense the question of good and evil isn't applicable.



What you're essentially saying is that might makes right, it's good because God says so even if it doesn't make any sense.

What is the point of giving us senses if they're useless for leading us to the "correct" answer that we're going to be punished for not finding?



Bleachedanoos said:


> Kami could refer to shinto gods which were killable but when a japanese christian is praying they also say Kami and there is a large denomination of them there.



Only 1% of Japans population describes itself as Christian, and just over half (*509,000) *of these are Catholics.

They're essentialy irrelevant in Japan, most of them living in Nagasaki.

A large proportion of Japanese Christians are middle class bilinguals, and will often switch in and out of English during Liturgy and prayer as very often (especially the Catholics due to a shortage of native preists) they're usually being ministered by non-japanese with a weak grasp of the language. But also purposefully to avoid nuances like that in the language since Kami is really very, very basic and not quite hitting the mark. Japanese really just doesn't have the vocabulary to even describe an Abrahamic deity, let alone enter into a discussion about Western Theology.

In any case, I still wouldn't use Kami because there and in the west, it conjures to mind the Shinto powers like Amaterasu rather than an all powerful creator. Powerful as Amaterasu was said to be, she was neither omnipotent nor omniscient.

....For fucks sake, she was tricked by _a mirror. _


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 4, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> I don't have all the answers I don't know everything, the denomination I follow is irrelevant because I'm not a perfect depiction of that domination. What I personally and most strongly believe in is God as the first cause, which I touched on earlier in this thread. Then through several other arguments and logical leaps and a bit of FAITH we get to the Christian God.
> 
> My interpretation of the will of God would be most closest to a deist, God created the world set up the rules to the board game, offered salvation with his Son and then just leaves it be. The Epicurean problem of evil is irrelevant as God has decided to let his children do as they want in the aquarium he created. Think about it like this, I can beat you up, at any time I'm incredibly strong and a good fighter, but I don't, I just don't beat you up. But I can. Does that suddenly make me weaker than you? Is because I chose to not do something to prove your action I'm suddenly not all powerful? No.
> 
> ...


As @Fagatron pointed out, you've turned God into a sadistic tyrant who creates rules that neither align with the world as we know it nor any kind of logic that has not been twisted into impossible shapes.  At least Judaism and Islam have some logical system to their beliefs, even if their axioms are odd.


----------



## Daughter of Cernunnos (Feb 5, 2019)

Instead of coming here flapping your arms like an autistic, be a positive representation of your faith. You are being an embarrassment. You are the equivalent of the idiot Lokean Tumblr godspouses who all think the Norse God Loki is their husband. Or that stupid cringey cunt Galina Krasskova (another cringey polytheist and godspouse). Be based and cool like these Catholics that make the Marxists looks lame in comparison in this situation.





PS- I can be paternalistic too so I will make an offering praying that your noble Pagan ancestors forgive you for your disrespect of them by practicing a fake imperialist religion. A religion without animism in it is not real because it has no connection to a land and physical reality. That's why we should seek to preserve indigenous people's knowledge of all lands and waters.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 5, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> >there must be something outside the bounds of causality that caused the entire existence of the universe
> >that thing is therefore God


Your point here, as far as I can tell, is that God must exist because nothing can exist without being created. Except God is immune to the need for a prior cause himself because he doesn’t follow the laws which dictate that he must exist. You follow a line of logic until that line of logic becomes problematic, whereupon you abandon it.


> >teleological argument
> >it is possible to use theoretical physics to predict never seen before phenomena because the laws of the universe are stackable in that they are able to be applied on a macro scale to larger concepts
> >numbers like phi and pi can be found within all objects in the universe no matter the scale
> >the unique combination of carbon atoms that would produce a living breathing human capable of abstraction is so succinct
> ...


This is so ass-backwards I don’t even know where to begin. All this proves is that there are consistent laws governing the entire universe.


> >the old testament has over 100 revelations that came to pass with the advent of Christ
> >the catechism is most likely the most correct interpretation of God
> >the christian god is the real god


Any historical documentation? Anything not couched in vague metaphor? It’s going to take more than “a thing was predicted in one book of the Bible and then another book of the Bible said it happened!” On that basis, we can prove Harry Potter is real.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 5, 2019)

@Jacob Harrison You need to register, but there's a copy free to loan a pdf of here https://archive.org/details/infallibleinquir00kngh


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 5, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> @Jacob Harrison You need to register, but there's a copy free to loan a pdf of here https://archive.org/details/infallibleinquir00kngh


Thank you. I registered just now. Can you tell me the important pages that I should read?


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 5, 2019)

With no disrespect intended Jacob in this instance, you don't really seem to know much about Church history and the development of the Papal Office. It might be worth going through from Part 1 explaining how it began and what it turned into.

If you're looking only just to dip in, the sections on language (Humans can't make infalliable decrees because of the limitation of language), examples of where Popes have contradicted each other might be more to the point (e.g: Pope Innocent III, Pope Gregory IX, Sixtus V and Gregory XVI all contradicting each other over when a fetus gets a soul and declaring each others bulls invalid). Books III and IV contain the bulk of this, but II does highlight some less pressing examples too. Trent vs Vatican II is quite interesting, because Vatican II does openly contradict Trent, but Vatican II has been commanded by the Bishops to be held as truth just as Trent was, regardless of which invocations to the Holy Spirit were used at the council or not.

It's a shame the archive doesn't have the more recent edition (I say recent, it was printed back in 1994) becaue Kung did write two more chapters about more recent developments and examples.

Edit: If it matches my print edition, pg.56-64 might be worth reading for you seeing as you seem to not acknowledge the authority of Vatican II.


----------



## ICametoLurk (Feb 5, 2019)




----------



## MW 590 (Feb 5, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> With no disrespect intended Jacob in this instance, you don't really seem to know much about Church history and the development of the Papal Office. It might be worth going through from Part 1 explaining how it began and what it turned into.
> 
> If you're looking only just to dip in, the sections on language (Humans can't make infalliable decrees because of the limitation of language), examples of where Popes have contradicted each other might be more to the point (e.g: Pope Innocent III, Pope Gregory IX, Sixtus V and Gregory XVI all contradicting each other over when a fetus gets a soul and declaring each others bulls invalid). Books III and IV contain the bulk of this, but II does highlight some less pressing examples too. Trent vs Vatican II is quite interesting, because Vatican II does openly contradict Trent, but Vatican II has been commanded by the Bishops to be held as truth just as Trent was, regardless of which invocations to the Holy Spirit were used at the council or not.
> 
> ...


Do you remember the name of the chapter where that mentions the Popes declarations about fetus's souls? In order to disprove papal infallibility, they would have to be speaking ex cathedra, declaring it to be doctrines concerning faith or morals to be upheld by the entire church. If they were just stating their opinions without declaring it to be upheld by the entire church, then they wouldn't be speaking ex cathedra.

In the meantime, I will read what it says about Vatican II.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 5, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> Your point here, as far as I can tell, is that God must exist because nothing can exist without being created. Except God is immune to the need for a prior cause himself because he doesn’t follow the laws which dictate that he must exist. You follow a line of logic until that line of logic becomes problematic, whereupon you abandon it.



Oh boy this goes way over your head doesn't it? Try rereading the thread as this has been explained through numerous analogies. 



Tragi-Chan said:


> This is so ass-backwards I don’t even know where to begin. All this proves is that there are consistent laws governing the entire universe.



Yes there is an order to the universe, there is a series of laws that are followed by the universe that make any form of mathematics a possibility. It's not random. It's by design. 



Tragi-Chan said:


> Any historical documentation? Anything not couched in vague metaphor? It’s going to take more than “a thing was predicted in one book of the Bible and then another book of the Bible said it happened!” On that basis, we can prove Harry Potter is real.


Yes there is historical evidence a man named Jesus walked on Earth and was killed by Jews. The metaphor is not vague when taken as a whole there are several passages throughout the old testament that reflect the lineage of Jesus the miracles he would perform and his death. 
Again read the thread, I already said it is not air tight and it requires a bit of faith. 

read


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 5, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Do you remember the name of the chapter where that mentions the Popes declarations about fetus's souls. In order to disprove papal infallibility, they would have to be speaking ex cathedra, declaring it to be doctrines concerning faith or morals to be upheld by the entire church. If they were just stating their opinions without declaring it to be upheld by the entire church, then they wouldn't be speaking ex cathedra.



Not off the top of my head, but I can get back to you on it once I'm back home. If you'd like an example I can recall from memory _Vix pervenit _is a bull from 1745 that wasn't initally considered _ex cathedra_, but was later applied and taught to the whole church by Gregory XVI.

Contrast to to Code of Canon Law of 1918 (you can still find this online) which says the Church can charge and take interest. Or just look at the Institute for the Works of Religion (The Vatican Bank) today.

Ursury was condemned as a sin by a long chain of popes even as late as 1891 in _Rerum Novarum_, and the most the Church really says on banking today comes from _Quadragesimo anno _which bans...."Economic violence".

Ursury was a sin worth several pogroms over.....Until it became expedent for the Vatican to become a major player on the stock market.

The Church likes to claim today that _Vix Pervenit_ is not infalliable, but the problem is there's essentially no way of knowing when a Pope is speaking infalliably. If he is, he is....But if he isnt, we don't actually know until a Pope says the opposite. 

A pope _can't actually be proven to have spoken infalliably_, it can only later be proven not through contradiction that he wasn't. 

We've got two outcomes.

A) Charging interest will send you to hell literally depending on what century you did it in, as eating meat will send you to hell depending on what part you do it and how the bishop feels about it. Meaning contradictory papal statements to the whole Church are only infalliable while that pope is in power.

B) Ursury was never a sin to begin with and the Popes prior to 1918 were wrong.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Feb 5, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> Brainlet tier. You said she had no knowledge but she was explicitly told by God to not eat from that tree. She and Adam both knew, which is why Adam was reticent in eating from the tree of knowledge. If anything it's a parable where our boy JC is telling us to not trust a roastie.


And... without the knowledge of good and evil, how should they have known that doing what god said is good, and doing what evil satan snake said is evil? They had no knowledge of good and evil.  Why did god allow satan to talk to these people who literally did not have the faculties to know better than to do what he said?  

A system in which you are guilty automatically is great for controlling people, something we've seen throughout human history.  An all knowing benevolent god does not jive with the stories in the bible.  The stories really paint him as more of an amoral alien scientist experimenting on humans, with no real ability to predict the future.

Of course, the stories are fake, it's all fake, but even if we take the stories at face value they don't say what they claim to.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 5, 2019)

Corbin Dallas Multipass said:


> And... without the knowledge of good and evil, how should they have known that doing what god said is good, and doing what evil satan snake said is evil? They had no knowledge of good and evil.  Why did god allow satan to talk to these people who literally did not have the faculties to know better than to do what he said?
> 
> A system in which you are guilty automatically is great for controlling people, something we've seen throughout human history.  An all knowing benevolent god does not jive with the stories in the bible.  The stories really paint him as more of an amoral alien scientist experimenting on humans, with no real ability to predict the future.
> 
> Of course, the stories are fake, it's all fake, but even if we take the stories at face value they don't say what they claim to.


Extreme brainlet tier. 

As I said before you dumb extremely dumb fuck Adam knew it was wrong which was why he hesitated. You don't need a developed moral paradigm in order to discern what is right or wrong, for children they don't get the concept of good or evil but when their parents say don't do x. They know not to do it. 

Please volunteer for some brain mass increasing experiments, even if they are dangerous you cant continue being this dumb in life.


----------



## Fougaro (Feb 5, 2019)

I'm afraid to tell you OP, but I don't think that you'll fit in here well. You see, Kiwifarms is a Jewish forum and an internet sanctuary for the prosecuted sons and daughters of David and the children of Israel. After eons of prosecution, intolerance and hatred in other forums run by the goyim and - Yahweh forgive me for saying this word - normies, our owner Mohamed "Jihadi" Jarbo gave us finally a Jewish internet homeland. This place is e-Zionism come true as foretold by the protocols of our elders.

Not to mention that we all harshly condemn antisemitism, especially the Catholic Church's centuries long mistreatment of the Chosen People✡.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 5, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> Extreme brainlet tier.
> 
> As I said before you dumb extremely dumb fuck Adam knew it was wrong which was why he hesitated. You don't need a developed moral paradigm in order to discern what is right or wrong, for children they don't get the concept of good or evil but when their parents say don't do x. They know not to do it.
> 
> Please volunteer for some brain mass increasing experiments, even if they are dangerous you cant continue being this dumb in life.



I bet you watch Rick and Morty.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 5, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> I bet you watch Rick and Morty.


He probably stopped watching when women joined the writing staff


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 5, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> I bet you watch Rick and Morty.


I dont watch anything produced by jews. The reason you're lame weak skinny fat and a homosexual is likely because you consume too much media.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 5, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> Oh boy this goes way over your head doesn't it? Try rereading the thread as this has been explained through numerous analogies.


It goes over my head because it makes no sense. If you want to resolve the grand questions of science with a being who is not subject to the laws that govern the universe, then that’s fine, if you have some proof that such a being exists. But you don’t. Your argument is basically “God could do this, so God must exist.” It’s a hypothesis, not a proven solution.


> Yes there is an order to the universe, there is a series of laws that are followed by the universe that make any form of mathematics a possibility. It's not random. It's by design.


I’m going to recommend literally any science textbook not written by someone named “Reverend.”


> Yes there is historical evidence a man named Jesus walked on Earth and was killed by Jews. The metaphor is not vague when taken as a whole there are several passages throughout the old testament that reflect the lineage of Jesus the miracles he would perform and his death.
> Again read the thread, I already said it is not air tight and it requires a bit of faith.
> 
> read


Again, this is a leap. I accept that someone named Jesus existed, but that doesn’t prove the events described in the Bible true. Faith is fine, but it’s not proof. I mean, L. Ron Hubbard existed, does that make his claims about Scientology true as well?



Bleachedanoos said:


> Extreme brainlet tier.
> 
> As I said before you dumb extremely dumb fuck Adam knew it was wrong which was why he hesitated. You don't need a developed moral paradigm in order to discern what is right or wrong, for children they don't get the concept of good or evil but when their parents say don't do x. They know not to do it.
> 
> Please volunteer for some brain mass increasing experiments, even if they are dangerous you cant continue being this dumb in life.


Lol calm down.


----------



## Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (Feb 5, 2019)

Islam is the true path. Alhamdulillah.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 5, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> It goes over my head because it makes no sense. If you want to resolve the grand questions of science with a being who is not subject to the laws that govern the universe, then that’s fine, if you have some proof that such a being exists. But you don’t. Your argument is basically “God could do this, so God must exist.” It’s a hypothesis, not a proven solution.
> 
> I’m going to recommend literally any science textbook not written by someone named “Reverend.”
> n.


No, the argument is that it can only be done by a thing that would be ordained God. Again you're putting the cart before the horse, the problem with causality isn't one that could be addressed by God it is merely one that IS addressed by God. It must be so based on the laws of the Universe we live in. The existence of a metaphysical force that could create the universe is simply a fact. What that force is labeled is God. That's not to say its a monotheisitic j*deo christian God. Simply that that is a fact. 



Tragi-Chan said:


> I’m going to recommend literally any science textbook not written by someone named “Reverend.”
> n.



This is just the kind of dumb shit I would expect from an atheist, LOL ITS CALLED SCIENCE DUDE. 
The zealotry associated with these nu-intellectuals who can't define the scientific method but will automatically use appeal to authority to outsource their belief pattern to a guy they find reputable. They themselves have no understanding of the ideas discussed nor do they understand the structure of academia and the inherent bias that comes from funding. To top it all off their precious science doesn't explain the human beings ability to abstractly think a so called ghost in the shell, or the magnitude of order that is present in the universe such that theoretical constructs like black holes could have been predicted before they were discovered.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 5, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> No, the argument is that it can only be done by a thing that would be ordained God. Again you're putting the cart before the horse, the problem with causality isn't one that could be addressed by God it is merely one that IS addressed by God. It must be so based on the laws of the Universe we live in. The existence of a metaphysical force that could create the universe is simply a fact. What that force is labeled is God. That's not to say its a monotheisitic j*deo christian God. Simply that that is a fact.


So yes, God in this sense is a hypothesis.



> This is just the kind of dumb shit I would expect from an atheist, LOL ITS CALLED SCIENCE DUDE.
> The zealotry associated with these nu-intellectuals who can't define the scientific method but will automatically use appeal to authority to outsource their belief pattern to a guy they find reputable.


Unlike people who base their scientific position on the Bible.


> They themselves have no understanding of the ideas discussed nor do they understand the structure of academia and the inherent bias that comes from funding. To top it all off their precious science doesn't explain the human beings ability to abstractly think a so called ghost in the shell, or the magnitude of order that is present in the universe such that theoretical constructs like black holes could have been predicted before they were discovered.


Lol calm down.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Feb 5, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> Extreme brainlet tier.
> 
> As I said before you dumb extremely dumb fuck Adam knew it was wrong which was why he hesitated. You don't need a developed moral paradigm in order to discern what is right or wrong, for children they don't get the concept of good or evil but when their parents say don't do x. They know not to do it.
> 
> Please volunteer for some brain mass increasing experiments, even if they are dangerous you cant continue being this dumb in life.


You reused the same insult, stupid.

Children were born with original sin, AKA the knowledge of good and evil, you absolute retard, while Adam and Eve weren't even born.  So your experience as a child is irrelevant.  Why wouldn't Adam and Eve take the talking magic snake as a parental figure as much as god?

Now up your shitposting game turdnugget, and if you use the word "tier" again you're going to prove you need a lolcow thread.


----------



## AF 802 (Feb 5, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> I dont watch anything produced by jews. The reason you're lame weak skinny fat and a homosexual is likely because you consume too much media.



I seriously hope to God you're shitposting and don't actually believe this. Avoiding Jewish produced media is impossible, my friend, they're everywhere.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 5, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> Not off the top of my head, but I can get back to you on it once I'm back home. If you'd like an example I can recall from memory _Vix pervenit _is a bull from 1745 that wasn't initally considered _ex cathedra_, but was later applied and taught to the whole church by Gregory XVI.
> 
> Contrast to to Code of Canon Law of 1918 (you can still find this online) which says the Church can charge and take interest. Or just look at the Institute for the Works of Religion (The Vatican Bank) today.
> 
> ...


I did research on it and found a website that says this. https://www.hprweb.com/2015/01/religious-freedom-slavery-and-usury/

_However, since the document itself was penned just to the Church in one country, it seems to fall short of the requirements for infallibility as laid down by Vatican I. _

In order for a Pope's statement to be ex cathedra, it has to be given to the entire church. 

I went to page 56 and I don't think the editions match because it was talking about the church's teachings on contraception, not about Vatican II. What was the name of the chapter? 

However, Vatican II was a pastoral council not a dogmatic council so it did not define any doctrines infallibly like the Council of Trent and Vatican I. https://forums.catholic.com/t/is-vatican-ii-infallible/319025


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 5, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I did research on it and found a website that says this. https://www.hprweb.com/2015/01/religious-freedom-slavery-and-usury/
> 
> _However, since the document itself was penned just to the Church in one country, it seems to fall short of the requirements for infallibility as laid down by Vatican I.
> 
> In order for a Pope's statement to be ex cathedra, it has to be given to the entire church._



Initially yes, but it was widened by Gregory to the whole world. The same way many other bulls have been earlier in history. I've since noticed this is even cited on Wikipedias article on the subject, so I know you've seen this and are just choosing to ignore it because it doesn't align with your own belief. It was enforced on the whole church under a later pontificate and further built upon by Leo XIII.

Reorum only echoed the article once again. The Church did not like Capitalism or Republicanism until it realised it was the best deal it was going to get with the fall of the final absolute monarchies.



Jacob Harrison said:


> I went to page 56 and I don't think the editions match because it was talking about the church's teachings on contraception, not about Vatican II. What was the name of the chapter?
> 
> However, Vatican II was a pastoral council not a dogmatic council so it did not define any doctrines infallibly like the Council of Trent and Vatican I. https://forums.catholic.com/t/is-vatican-ii-infallible/319025



Every Pope during and since Vatican II has commanded Catholics on pain of schism (i.e: Eternal damnation as punishment for it) to accept its teachings, this is why the SPPX were cast out and have been excommunicated for so long.

Vatican II has been declared by every single one of them as Valid. The only way it could be proved invalid was if a future Pope said so....The very same way Francis could declare Trent invalid if he ever so wished to.

There's no way to prove if a council or a decree is valid until a pope says it isn't. As of now, it's valid. It's one aspect of why Infalliability is nonsensical. Not only because there are multiple examples of Popes contradicting each other while teaching to the whole church, but because you just have to assume this time a Pope is right without any way of knowing until the next guy says otherwise.


----------



## Slap47 (Feb 5, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> I dont watch anything produced by jews. The reason you're lame weak skinny fat and a homosexual is likely because you consume too much media.



Christianity is a sect of Judaism


----------



## Rat Lord (Feb 5, 2019)

After reading this entire thread I've come to the conclusion that I'd rather go back to worshipping cats and ancient furries. At least cats physically show me they care or not


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Feb 5, 2019)

Rat Lord said:


> After reading this entire thread I've come to the conclusion that I'd rather go back to worshipping cats and ancient furries. At least cats physically show me they care or not


Nah dog, you gotta get on the Ra train.  Do you deny the sun provides us with our sustenance and life giving warmth? Can you deny the bright ball of light we see every day?

I've seen the sun, like... so many times I've lost count. And if I look at it too long, its brilliance hurts my eyes.  On the other hand, I've never seen even a single jesus or god, and the pictures of jesus never hurt my eyes.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 5, 2019)

Corbin Dallas Multipass said:


> You reused the same insult, stupid.
> 
> Children were born with original sin, AKA the knowledge of good and evil, you absolute exceptional individual, while Adam and Eve weren't even born.  So your experience as a child is irrelevant.  Why wouldn't Adam and Eve take the talking magic snake as a parental figure as much as god?
> 
> Now up your shitposting game turdnugget, and if you use the word "tier" again you're going to prove you need a lolcow thread.


Yes children were born with original sin, does that mean a baby can differentiate between good and evil? A child is basically the chinese room experiment they process inputs without understanding the underlying functions. Even if they do have some concept of morality it isn't because it's something they worked out, its because their parents said don't do x. 

You keep going back to the same thing but it's just patently false because Adam acts as the voice of reason in the parable, saying No Roastie this is a bad idea God will be mad.  He clearly understands the snake as the devil, in the same way a child understands that a stranger that comes up to them is unwelcome. 1488 gang gang



Apoth42 said:


> Christianity is a sect of Judaism


No it ain't the other guy who is leader of my fan club wrote something along the lines of this too very stupidly.Christ gave "god's chosen" the ability to repent and join him in salvation and they betrayed him. Those who were jews who converted are no longer jews, and the jews left  behind are demonic and hate christ and whitey. 

revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Thessalonians 2.14-16 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last.


----------



## Black Waltz (Feb 5, 2019)

I'm not sure who's more entertaining, the op or this brainlet over here


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 5, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> Initially yes, but it was widened by Gregory to the whole world. The same way many other bulls have been earlier in history. I've since noticed this is even cited on Wikipedias article on the subject, so I know you've seen this and are just choosing to ignore it because it doesn't align with your own belief. It was enforced on the whole church under a later pontificate and further built upon by Leo XIII.
> 
> Reorum only echoed the article once again. The Church did not like Capitalism or Republicanism until it realised it was the best deal it was going to get with the fall of the final absolute monarchies.


I will do research to see if there are Catholic explanations on Vix Pervenit. 


> Every Pope during and since Vatican II has commanded Catholics on pain of schism (i.e: Eternal damnation as punishment for it) to accept its teachings, this is why the SPPX were cast out and have been excommunicated for so long.
> 
> Vatican II has been declared by every single one of them as Valid. The only way it could be proved invalid was if a future Pope said so....The very same way Francis could declare Trent invalid if he ever so wished to.
> 
> There's no way to prove if a council or a decree is valid until a pope says it isn't. As of now, it's valid. It's one aspect of why Infalliability is nonsensical. Not only because there are multiple examples of Popes contradicting each other while teaching to the whole church, but because you just have to assume this time a Pope is right without any way of knowing until the next guy says otherwise.


Vatican II was not infallible because all it did was make reforms in church practices. It did not declare new doctrine concerning faith or morals. The SSPX were not excommunicated for not accepting Vatican II's teachings, they were excommunicated in 1988 because Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without papal approval. Many within the society opposed Lefebvre's actions and founded the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, a traditionalist Catholic organization that is in full communion with the church. So Catholics are allowed to reject Vatican II without being excommunicated.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 5, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I will do research to see if there are Catholic explanations on Vix Pervenit.
> 
> Vatican II was not infallible because all it did was make reforms in church practices. It did not declare new doctrine concerning faith or morals. The SSPX were not excommunicated for not accepting Vatican II's teachings, they were excommunicated in 1988 because Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without papal approval. Many within the society opposed Lefebvre's actions and founded the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, a traditionalist Catholic organization that is in full communion with the church. So Catholics are allowed to reject Vatican II without being excommunicated.



I'm well aware of what the SSPX and God Emperor Lefebvre taught Jacob and of what lineage their clerics are, I'm guessing you didn't see the certificate I posted earlier in this thread. They are wrong, and do not hold all the faculties of a priest in good standing. Their sacrements of Holy Communion and Baptism along with the mass are "valid but illicit", but as part of Francis' gesture they can perform valid confessions. This will cease upon the end of his pontificate unless his successor chooses to extend it. They cannot perform last rites or marriages due to their schism with the Holy See.

The SSPX for all their sabre rattling and cries of Deus Vult has accepted the still-in-the-works "Hybrid Mass"  said in the vernacular, and are slowly cowing to all the demands of Vatican II as their funds slowly dry up. They did expand well in Africa, but Africa is poor and unless Sugar Daddy Francis takes up their bills they're done for.

The SSPX are in schism. The Fraternity of Saint Peter is not, however the Fraternity of Saint Peter does accept Vatican II and is condemned by the SSPX for it.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 5, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> I'm well aware of what the SSPX and God Emperor Lefebvre taught Jacob and of what lineage their clerics are, I'm guessing you didn't see the certificate I posted earlier in this thread. They are wrong, and do not hold all the faculties of a priest in good standing. Their sacrements of Holy Communion and Baptism along with the mass are "valid but illicit", but as part of Francis' gesture they can perform valid confessions. This will cease upon the end of his pontificate unless his successor chooses to extend it. They cannot perform last rites or marriages due to their schism with the Holy See.
> 
> The SSPX for all their sabre rattling and cries of Deus Vult has accepted the still-in-the-works "Hybrid Mass"  said in the vernacular, and are slowly cowing to all the demands of Vatican II as their funds slowly dry up. They did expand well in Africa, but Africa is poor and unless Sugar Daddy Francis takes up their bills they're done for.
> 
> The SSPX are in schism. The Fraternity of Saint Peter is not, however the Fraternity of Saint Peter does accept Vatican II and is condemned by the SSPX for it.





Fagatron said:


> I'm well aware of what the SSPX and God Emperor Lefebvre taught Jacob and of what lineage their clerics are, I'm guessing you didn't see the certificate I posted earlier in this thread. They are wrong, and do not hold all the faculties of a priest in good standing. Their sacrements of Holy Communion and Baptism along with the mass are "valid but illicit", but as part of Francis' gesture they can perform valid confessions. This will cease upon the end of his pontificate unless his successor chooses to extend it. They cannot perform last rites or marriages due to their schism with the Holy See.
> 
> The SSPX for all their sabre rattling and cries of Deus Vult has accepted the still-in-the-works "Hybrid Mass"  said in the vernacular, and are slowly cowing to all the demands of Vatican II as their funds slowly dry up. They did expand well in Africa, but Africa is poor and unless Sugar Daddy Francis takes up their bills they're done for.
> 
> The SSPX are in schism. The Fraternity of Saint Peter is not, however the Fraternity of Saint Peter does accept Vatican II and is condemned by the SSPX for it.


But the SSPX is no longer excommunicated, so while they have irregular status, being a member of it does not cause damnation.

Also, you said that you will tell me the specific chapter in the book that mentions the important highlights such as the different Pope's statements on fetus's souls.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 5, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> But the SSPX is no longer excommunicated, so while they have irregular status, being a member of it does not cause damnation.
> 
> Also, you said that you will tell me the specific chapters in the book that mention the important highlights such as the different Pope's statements on Fetus's souls.



Ah. Now that is misleading.

Several high ranking members are no longer excommunicated, such as Fellay (an act that led to the SSPX themselves having a schism leading to the SSPX remnant). That does not mean all the laity and clergy are back in communion. Some of the younger clergy and laity raised within the SSPX are in irregular communion (it depends mostly if they've given much thought to condemning Vatican II or not), the vast majority of the older members are still excommunicated.

A Catholic who goes from the Novus Ordo Latin Rite (That is, "normal" Catholic Mass) to an SSPX Chapel risks both the sins of scandal and schism depending....On their mindset (I'm not kidding). If they go because they believe the SSPX mass is somehow better or more valid than a Novus Ordo one, they're excommunicated. If they go because they don't accept Vatican II, they're excommunicated. If they go because they can't feasibly get to a normal Church or because they were born into the SSPX...That one more grey, but is mostly held as acceptable. That's where they could be irregular, but still in partial communion but it's very narrow criteria. 

As for the Fetus it's discussed in Book 1 of the 1994 edition, but I'm told it's stretched further across Books 1 and 2 in the earlier one.


----------



## The Cunting Death (Feb 5, 2019)

What if Im already saved with another Religion?


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 5, 2019)

FatFuckFrank said:


> What if In already saved with another Religion?


I was wondering this myself, as an OT-VIII Scientologist.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 5, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> Ah. Now that is misleading.
> 
> Several high ranking members are no longer excommunicated, such as Fellay (an act that led to the SSPX themselves having a schism leading to the SSPX remnant). That does not mean all the laity and clergy are back in communion. Some of the younger clergy and laity raised within the SSPX are in irregular communion (it depends mostly if they've given much thought to condemning Vatican II or not), the vast majority of the older members are still excommunicated.
> 
> ...


According to the Wikipedia article on the Canonical situation of the SSPX, the excommunications of the SSPX bishops did not extend to the other SSPX members. But while I am traditionalist, I only support what the SSPX were doing up until Lefebrve commited schism in 1988 so I will not attend a SSPX mass and while I wish I could go to a traditionalist church in good standing with the Vatican, there aren’t any close by so I have to attend the Novus Ordo Mass.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 5, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> According to the Wikipedia article on the Canonical situation of the SSPX, the excommunications of the SSPX bishops did not extend to the other SSPX members.



Not all ex-communications need a formal decree from the Vatican or to be done "By Book and By Crook". When someone commits a mortal sin they're said to have incurred a _Latae sententiae_ excommunication.  It means they excommunicated themselves, but this can be restored by confession. They don't necessarily need to be sorry for it (That would be perfect contrition if they felt sorrow for offending God), but merely fearing hell (Imperfect Contrition) is adequate to be restored.

Most of the older SSPX members would have at one point been members of Mainstream/Novus Ordo Latin Rite parishes, and have migrated from that rite to the SSPX. If they shunned the Novus Ordo in favour of the SSPX for theological reasons like not accepting Vatican II, they would be excommunicate. Younger ones (attending SSPX at all at one time was mortal sin, not now) who attend because it's all they've ever known? That wouldn't incur it.



Jacob Harrison said:


> But while I am traditionalist, I only support what the SSPX were doing up until Lefebvre committed schism in 1988 so I will not attend a SSPX mass and while I wish I could go to a traditionalist church in good standing with the Vatican, there aren’t any close by so I have to attend the Novus Ordo Mass.



They're both equally valid in the eyes of the Vatican, so it meets the requirements. If you want a more "smells and bells" experience, modern Latin Rite parishes do sometimes offer Latin Mass depending on demand in the area (You could check with the Latin Mass society for your country, or State if yours has one). Alternatively, the US is rather unique in that many other Eastern Rites such as the Byzantine, Ruthenian etc all operate within Latin Rite dioceses. The rites aren't necessarily as old as the Tridentine, some are really quite modern, but the rejection of the vernacular tends to make it popular among traditionalists without access to a Latin mass.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 6, 2019)

@Fagatron I have been looking at the chapters, and so far, I haven't found the parts that mention historical examples such as the different Pope's statements on fetus' souls. It might not be in the edition I'm reading. So can you explain how the different Popes allegedly made ex cathedra statements on fetuses that contradict each other? What are the other historical examples that you remember from that edition. In a debate I had, someone mentioned the Galileo controversy, but that was done by the church tribunal. The pope himself never made an ex cathedra statement condemning Galileo. I also learned about the fact that Pope Sixtus V did a poor translation of the Latin Vulgate. However as I said before, he died before he officially proclaimed his botched translation to be the official bible of the church, which indicates that God had him die before he could teach error.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Feb 6, 2019)

Wow...

Well, you are committed, I'll give you that. Or at least, you should be.
Rimshot.gif


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 6, 2019)

@Fagatron I did research on the Popes alleged contradictions of fetuses, and according to commenters on Catholic Answers forums, the only sites that mention it are anti catholic sites. https://forums.catholic.com/t/papal-contradictions-on-abortion/47552/4 Furthermore, the RationalWiki article on papal infallibility doesn’t have citations when mentioning the different Pope’s statements on fetuses. Are there contemporary sources on their statements?


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 6, 2019)

I'm not ignoring you @Jacob Harrison I've just had a busy day and it's the early hours where I am right now. I'll get my sources together once I'm up with a clear head.

To be fair, Catholic Answers as an apostolate is beholden to only portray the Church in a good light. If you google "Catholic Answers Banned" you'll see people get banned for everything from winning public debates to sharing breaking news example of abuses. It's fairly rare someone gets banned for trolling. Even among Traditionalist Catholic sites with a far more hardline interpretation like FishEaters, TradInfo and Suscipe Domine you'll find widespread critique of how defensive the "Liberal" Catholic Answers is. 

By the Catholic definition, anything that doesn't 100% agree with the current party line (including reporting sex abuse) is "Anti Catholic" and "Atheistic/Secularist/Democrat hate" so I'll take that with a pinch of salt.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 7, 2019)

Alright here we go. I apologise for the wait, think I'm coming down with something.



Jacob Harrison said:


> @Fagatron I have been looking at the chapters, and so far, I haven't found the parts that mention historical examples such as the different Pope's statements on fetus' souls. It might not be in the edition I'm reading.



I've only read the 1994 edition but the contents, new additions aside, should be the same. All that was changed was instead of going through things by type of controversy he went through them chronologically.



Jacob Harrison said:


> So can you explain how the different Popes allegedly made ex cathedra statements on fetuses that contradict each other? What are the other historical examples that you remember from that edition.





Jacob Harrison said:


> @Fagatron I did research on the Popes alleged contradictions of fetuses, and according to commenters on Catholic Answers forums, the only sites that mention it are anti catholic sites. https://forums.catholic.com/t/papal-contradictions-on-abortion/47552/4 Furthermore, the RationalWiki article on papal infallibility doesn’t have citations when mentioning the different Pope’s statements on fetuses. Are there contemporary sources on their statements?



I'm not suprised RationalWiki has an article on it. It's one of the more easily verified examples of dogmatic contradiction and has been mentioned in TV shows like CSI before. I've also already commented on Catholic Answers and their policing of wrongthink.

As for Catholic commentary on abortion over the ages....

St. Jerome (4th century) wrote in a letter to Aglasia: _"_The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs_"_

Penitentials prior to the 10th century (they were most popular during the 7th) in the West were a convenient way for Catholics to recieve penance if/when clergy were not available to prescribe it. The most "serious" sexual sins like oral intercourse required between several years and a lifetime of penance as punishment....Wheras abortion was fairly consistently only given one hundered and twenty days penance. It clearly was not seen as severe.

Pope Stephen V *(*887 AD, Epistle to the Archbishop of Mainz): "If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old".

Thomas Aquinas (13th Century): He's the best known propoment of the "Quickening" test within the _Summa Theologica_ (the literal Theology handbook of the Catholic Church) to test when a fetus was "ensouled". Only the abortion of an "_animated_" fetus as murder.

This position was held consistently until Pope Sixtus V declared within _Effraenatam_ (158  which threatened those who recieved or carried out abortions at any stage of pregnancy with excommunication and the death penalty.This was revoked immediatly by Pope Gregory XIV as heretical (because claiming the quickening test was false amounted to accusing the chief Catholic theologian of heresy, the Church had not accepted aspects of Aquinas writing were heretical yet). He reinstated the "_quickening_" test among several other changes pertaining to abortion in _Sedes Apostolicae_, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy. Gregory XVI did consider abortion to be a sin, but certainly not murder and a far lesser one than fornication or sodomy (the Church today still does consider climxing outside the vagina worse than abortion, one of the "sins that cry to heaven for vengence").

This arragement more or less carried on until Pope Pius IX dropped the distinction between an animated and inanimated fetus in his writing (the lesser punishment for abortion never changed until the release of the revised cannon code of law in 1917, and further clarified in 1983), and it wasn't until as late as the 19th century that Leo XIII declared abortion in as always mortally sinful without exception, even to save the life of the mother when the infant has no hope of surival (In statements on specific cases in 1884, 1885, 1886 and 1889, the Catholic Church confirmed its view that a pregnant woman must not be saved from death when she and her child would otherwise both die. This was confirmed in 1930 in Pius XI's _Casti connubii_. If you can get a copy of Uta Ranke-Heinemann's, _Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven_, I suggest you read his commentary on pages 271-2)

I hope that last bit strikes you as interesting, because the Church today *does* believe that abortion as a side affect of medical treatment for the mother is permissible.




Jacob Harrison said:


> In a debate I had, someone mentioned the Galileo controversy, but that was done by the church tribunal. The pope himself never made an ex cathedra statement condemning Galileo.



Not all statements to be held with Catholic faith need to come from the Pope. The American Bishops for instance have declared it is a mortal sin to eat meat on a Friday as highlighted elsewhere.

The Holy Office (A.K.A: The Doctrine of the Congregation of the Faith, formerly known as the Inquisition) declared belief in the Copernician model of the Earth was heresy. This wasn't a short term thing and as late as the 1800's "belief" in Uranus (at the time, the "Gregorian Star") was mortal sin and all books describing it were on the Index of Forbidden Books.

Of course in practice Catholics in more advanced societies like France and England just ignored this, but in Italy you would be charged for heresy.

The Pope doesn't have to personally go around and declare in each country if it's a sin to eat meat on Friday or if women may serve the altar or not, his delegates have some power to set disciplines as they please for the most part.



Jacob Harrison said:


> I also learned about the fact that Pope Sixtus V did a poor translation of the Latin Vulgate. However as I said before, he died before he officially proclaimed his botched translation to be the official bible of the church, which indicates that God had him die before he could teach error.



The same deity that used to appear before mortals and ask them to change their ways like Saul seems to have backslid back into defaulting to murder as the answer relativley quickly.

The point in that story is that while Sixtus was alive, his translation was "Infalliable" and he insisted it was. The next person who came along insisted that it wasn't.

That's not a miracle Jacob, that's contradiction. There's literally nothing stopping Francis coming out tomorrow and declaring Trent to be invalid, because if those words leave his lips it is. Until the next Pope cares to contradict him in turn.

That's not infalliability, that's just absolute elective monarchy.

Many of us arent atheists because we need the "Good News" shared with us Jacob or to see the light. It's because we've seen rather a bit too much of it to buy into the illusion of continuity.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 7, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> Alright here we go. I apologise for the wait, think I'm coming down with something.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now you shown that the Popes contradicted each other on Fetuses. I am now having a spiritual crisis as this affects the doctrine of papal infallibility. Do you know if there are Catholic explanations about the Pope's contradictions?


----------



## Meat Poultry Veg (Feb 7, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Now you shown that the Popes contradicted each other on Fetuses. I am now having a spiritual crisis as this affects the doctrine of papal infallibility. Do you know if there are Catholic explanations about the Pope's contradictions?


Serious reply.

Visit Ann Barnhardt at www.barnhardt.biz and on the header is a link to a +2 hour video explaining that Heresiarch Jorge the Humble is not the real pople (and B16 is... while he's still alive, that is).


----------



## Ama Dablam (Feb 7, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I was banned because I was falsely accused of promoting antisemitism which I wasn’t because I was only talking about the Jews in Spain.
> 
> I am not being judgemental, I am explaining the reason why it is our duty as Christians to convert others. Jesus Christ dying for our sins so that our souls can be saved is the meaning of Christianity.


Catholics and christians are two different bowls of fruit.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 7, 2019)

Meat Poultry Veg said:


> Serious reply.
> 
> Visit Ann Barnhardt at www.barnhardt.biz and on the header is a link to a +2 hour video explaining that Heresiarch Jorge the Humble is not the real pople (and B16 is... while he's still alive, that is).


I heard of that theory. That is because canon law says that a resignation under duress is not a valid resignation and many believe that Benedict XVI was forced to resign against his will.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 7, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Now you shown that the Popes contradicted each other on Fetuses. I am now having a spiritual crisis as this affects the doctrine of papal infallibility. Do you know if there are Catholic explanations about the Pope's contradictions?



I'll have a look and see if there's something like that available free online, it is expensive getting hard copies of things like _Infallible?
_
The basic thrust of the counter-argument from Catholics is that "It wasn't really taught to the whole Church" or "The Pope wasn't speaking _ex-cathedra_". Now the problem here is, as highlighted, nobody can actually ascertain when a Pope (if he does have supernatural Charisma) is speaking Infalliably, they can only ascertain afterwards from contradiction where he wasn't.

This does open some fairly interesting possibilities, as while John Paul II did say "We declare and define" in regard to female clergy, a later pontiff can quite easily decide otherwise. It will be harder to backtrack in the modern era where thanks to the internet it's much easier to check archives of times the Chuch has u-turned (before it could just lie because 99% of the time it had all the evidence in its possession) but I personally suspect that's why he was advised to say "The Church does not have the authority". Doesn't that strike you as an odd thing for a Pope to say? The direct voice of God on Earth to whom was given the keys to bind on earth as it will be in heaven saying he doesn't have the authority when his glorious predecessors like Innocent III have proclaimed themselves Lord of the Temporal Realm (i.e: The Universe)? I think given another century or so people will decide John Paul II wasn't speaking ex-cathedra as they've since decided previous condemnation of Natural Family Planning (i.e: The rhythm method for normies, just with more vaginal mucus sniffing) in _Castii Connubi_ wasn't.

While I'm usually loathed to quote other religious studies, the Watchtower association comissioned a study of the beliefs of European Catholics back in 1989 in Awake (they wanted to work out the best way to convert them) and discovered....



> This doctrine has divided people. In 1982, in the city of Rome, the home of the Vatican, 57 percent of Catholics considered papal infallibility one of the most questionable of dogmas. In Portugal, only 54.6 percent of Catholics believe in it, and in Spain, only 37 percent.



Groups like WomenPriests, Catholics for Choice, the University of Tubingen (where Fr.Kung lectured) have been openly poo-pooing infalliability for years  (in cases like the "Old Catholic Church" they've been doing it since Vatican I) and still consider themselves Catholic with no internal turmoil or spiritual crises. People who describe themselves as "Catholics" without infalliability mostly function as a more centralised Eastern Orthodox. 



Meat Poultry Veg said:


> Serious reply.
> 
> Visit Ann Barnhardt at www.barnhardt.biz and on the header is a link to a +2 hour video explaining that Heresiarch Jorge the Humble is not the real pople (and B16 is... while he's still alive, that is).



Don't get him started on this. Sedevacantism is a hell of a drug.

I still get letters to my old official email every two or three days from this one fruitcake who believes the last Pope was Pius XII who's still alive in cryosleep awaiting the day he rises to have a fucking battle with the giant whore and dragon in revelation in some _Shadow of the Collosus_ tier shit. Mel Gibson is *considered a moderate* if that's any clue to what some of them are like.


----------



## The Cunting Death (Feb 7, 2019)

why are you still here


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 7, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> I'll have a look and see if there's something like that available free online, it is expensive getting hard copies of things like _Infallible?
> _
> The basic thrust of the counter-argument from Catholics is that "It wasn't really taught to the whole Church" or "The Pope wasn't speaking _ex-cathedra_". Now the problem here is, as highlighted, nobody can actually ascertain when a Pope (if he does have supernatural Charisma) is speaking Infalliably, they can only ascertain afterwards from contradiction where he wasn't.
> 
> ...


The First Vatican Council declared a sentence of excommunication of anyone who questions the doctrine of Papal infallibility. It could be that most of the people who were polled in Europe don't really know about their religion's doctrine probably because most of them were baptized in the Catholic Church but don't take their religion seriously.  

I am having a spiritual crisis, because I did take my Catholic faith seriously, more seriously than my peers at church. I go to mass every Sunday while many people my age only go to mass at Christmas and Easter. Of course I will keep my spiritual crisis a secret from my family so that they won't worry about me going to hell. Oh well, at least Catholicism is true in the parallel universe that I write and make animations about.


----------



## PorcupineTree (Feb 7, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I am having a spiritual crisis, because I did take my Catholic faith seriously, more seriously than my peers at church. I go to mass every Sunday while many people my age only go to mass at Christmas and Easter. Of course I will keep my spiritual crisis a secret from my family so that they won't worry about me going to hell. Oh well, at least Catholicism is true in the parallel universe that I write and make animations about.



Well, now I feel bad about making fun of you.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 7, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> The First Vatican Council declared a sentence of excommunication of anyone who questions the doctrine of Papal infallibility. It could be that most of the people who were polled in Europe don't really know about their religion's doctrine probably because most of them were baptized in the Catholic Church but don't take their religion seriously.
> 
> I am having a spiritual crisis, because I did take my Catholic faith seriously, more seriously than my peers at church. I go to mass every Sunday while many people my age only go to mass at Christmas and Easter. Of course I will keep my spiritual crisis a secret from my family so that they won't worry about me going to hell. Oh well, at least Catholicism is true in the parallel universe that I write and make animations about.


The true value of religion, on the individual level, is whether or not it improves your spirit and character.  I would suggest you legitimately do some soul-searching: study various religions and their principles, with your mind open to their ideas.  Follow the one that speaks the most to you, not the first one to terrify you with threats of hellfire.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 7, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> The First Vatican Council declared a sentence of excommunication of anyone who questions the doctrine of Papal infallibility. It could be that most of the people who were polled in Europe don't really know about their religion's doctrine probably because most of them were baptized in the Catholic Church but don't take their religion seriously.



The same way the SSPX handwaves Vatican II as "not a real council", so too do many others handwave the Vatican I as "not a real council". There's a much stronger case for the Vatican I actually being invalid than II. The council itself, one of the smallest ever with few of the world's bishops in attendance, was never concluded and ended by war. The council was plagued by some of the worst weather Italy had ever seen (in one especially dramatic moment when Infallibility was being spoken about in St Peters Basilica, a gust of wind smashed though the very largest windows and many in attendance took this as a sign of divine displeasure). On the omens and portents side, Vatican I has very little in support of it.

A thing I know might sound odd, but isn't so strange in Europe is that religion historically post-Westphalia becomes more of a cultural than a political entity bit by bi.t. American Catholicism is far more aggressive and intolerant than European and South American incarnations. Even the Italians, who are known for cowing to the Catholic Church more than anyone else aren't quite as intense as you guys. Many religions claim to be universal but in truth all of them vary somewhat depending on where they're found. Drinking alcohol will get you beheaded in Saudi Arabia, but in Turkey short of being an Imam nobody would really care.



Jacob Harrison said:


> I am having a spiritual crisis, because I did take my Catholic faith seriously, more seriously than my peers at church. I go to mass every Sunday while many people my age only go to mass at Christmas and Easter. Of course I will keep my spiritual crisis a secret from my family so that they won't worry about me going to hell. Oh well, at least Catholicism is true in the parallel universe that I write and make animations about.



Talking to your mother might be a good idea. If she's a Catholic teacher like you say, you won't be the first child to come to her with doubts about their faith. There are many Catholics who take a "pick and mix" approach to religion knowingly or unknowingly and live otherwise fulfilled lives of faith. I personally couldn't, but that's your call.

I will tell you this; the sorts of things you delve into studying, things social institutions designed to have an air of mystery, magic and mystique to inspire awe and reverence in individuals and societies? The deeper you go, the less sense they will make. For some people, this confirms that their faith is beyond human comprehension, for others Nietzche's words come to mind. _And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.
_
Lots of people say truth is a good thing, but as anyone who has ever been asked how another person looks in new clothes knows; very few actually like getting told it.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 7, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> The same way the SSPX handwaves Vatican II as "not a real council", so too do many others handwave the Vatican I as "not a real council". There's a much stronger case for the Vatican I actually being invalid than II. The council itself, one of the smallest ever with few of the world's bishops in attendance, was never concluded and ended by war. The council was plagued by some of the worst weather Italy had ever seen (in one especially dramatic moment when Infallibility was being spoken about in St Peters Basilica, a gust of wind smashed though the very largest windows and many in attendance took this as a sign of divine displeasure). On the omens and portents side, Vatican I has very little in support of it.
> 
> A thing I know might sound odd, but isn't so strange in Europe is that religion historically post-Westphalia becomes more of a cultural than a political entity bit by bi.t. American Catholicism is far more aggressive and intolerant than European and South American incarnations. Even the Italians, who are known for cowing to the Catholic Church more than anyone else aren't quite as intense as you guys. Many religions claim to be universal but in truth all of them vary somewhat depending on where they're found. Drinking alcohol will get you beheaded in Saudi Arabia, but in Turkey short of being an Imam nobody would really care.
> 
> ...


I never said that my mom is a school teacher, not a Catholic teacher. She teaches at a state school(this might confuse you but in the US, state schools are called public schools). I am not sure how she or my dad would react to my doubts but they would definitely have fears about me going to Hell so I think that it is best for them that I don’t tell them so that they don’t have to live with that kind of fear.

I am now agnostic but I wish that Catholicism was true because it is part of the heritage of England and Western Civilization.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Feb 7, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I am now agnostic but I wish that Catholicism was true because it is part of England’s and Western Europe’s heritage.



Oh no.... Kiwi Farms broke this poor Catholic boy. He came here to prove he was right and now he's having a crisis of faith...

Seriously dude, if you're still a kid and living with your parents, you have to pick your battles. Generally religion just isn't a worthwhile battle.  I don't know much about you and your dad obviously, but don't feel like you need to get buy in from your parents for your own beliefs.

I mean, yeah, it'd be cool if magic were real and space dad could do miracles so people who do the right thing get rewarded for it, but you gotta live in the world that you live in, not the one you want.  Wishful thinking is powerful, but it doesn't generally result in successful predictions.  

It's not as if you need to have all the answers, in fact, you can't.


----------



## PorcupineTree (Feb 7, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I never said that my mom is a school teacher, not a Catholic teacher. She teaches at a state school(this might confuse you but in the US, state schools are called public schools). I am not sure how she or my dad would react to my doubts but they would definitely have fears about me going to Hell so I think that it is best for them that I don’t tell them so that they don’t have to live with that kind of fear.
> 
> I am now agnostic but I wish that Catholicism was true because it is part of the heritage of England and Western Civilization.



If you don’t mind sharing, roughly how old are you? I had my crisis of faith as a teenager and it really sucked.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 7, 2019)

PorcupineTree said:


> If you don’t mind sharing, roughly how old are you? I had my crisis of faith as a teenager and it really sucked.


I am 19 and I will be turning 20 on March 3.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 7, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I never said that my mom is a school teacher, not a Catholic teacher. She teaches at a state school(this might confuse you but in the US, state schools are called public schools). I am not sure how she or my dad would react to my doubts but they would definitely have fears about me going to Hell so I think that it is best for them that I don’t tell them so that they don’t have to live with that kind of fear.
> 
> I am now agnostic but I wish that Catholicism was true because it is part of the heritage of England and Western Civilization.



My apologies. Then as a Catholic and as a teacher, she will be long used to children bringing her their doubts and concerns. She's your mother, she'd likely want to help as would other family members who are perhaps less....Intense as your father sound.



Corbin Dallas Multipass said:


> Oh no.... Kiwi Farms broke this poor Catholic boy. He came here to prove he was right and now he's having a crisis of faith...


I always have mixed feelings about this. Obviously, I don't have anything nice to say about supernatural belief, but having been there....A crisis of faith isn't fun.

@Jacob Harrison, I don't know if it would be any use to you, but several years ago I did find a video series on youtube from a very strict Christian who lost his faith, his reasons/evidence for it and how he handled it. He came from a fundamentalist background, but I did find it helpful if you want a link to it.


----------



## PorcupineTree (Feb 7, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I am 19 and I will be turning 20 on March 3.



You’re younger than I assumed at the beginning of this thread. 

What you’re going through isn’t uncommon and I think you would find solace in reading from or communicating with former Christians who can empathize, rather than anti church groups who are more inclined to tease you. (Or a cyber bullying forum.) 

For a lot of religious people, their beliefs provide a foundation on which to make sense of the world. It’s scary to have that taken away if it’s the only worldview that you know. However, it does get better if you continue to be honest with yourself.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 7, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> My apologies. Then as a Catholic and as a teacher, she will be long used to children bringing her their doubts and concerns. She's your mother, she'd likely want to help as would other family members who are perhaps less....Intense as your father sound.


But this is bigger than children's doubts and concerns, because it is about the Catholic faith. How does  my post make my father sound more intense? I am saying that revealing my new agnosticism to my family will make them very worried because they love me. Since they believe that hell is real, the idea of me going there will give them the worst kind of dread. Back when you were Catholic, did yo u ever have worries about someone you care about going to hell? Since I love my parents, I want them to be happy and not have dread about my afterlife.

And yes I would like a link to the youtube channel.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Feb 7, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> But this is bigger than children's doubts and concerns, because it is about the Catholic faith. How does  my post make my father sound more intense? I am saying that revealing my new agnosticism to my family will make them very worried because they love me. Since they believe that hell is real, the idea of me going there will give them the worst kind of dread. Back when you were Catholic, did yo u ever have worries about someone you care about going to hell? Since I love my parents, I want them to be happy and not have dread about my afterlife.
> 
> And yes I would like a link to the youtube channel.


That is part of the unfortunate negative side to religion. There's a kind of blackmail built in, infinite punishment.  It's a concept the human mind obviously can't properly comprehend, but it works really well to get people to do what you want.

I know people who were raised very religious and they describe something very similar, where they were terrified their friends would go to hell because they weren't true believers.  It's a fucked up thing to do to a kid, but it's done out of the same fear.  All I can really say is... they are OK now, and so are the people in their lives who are still very religious.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 7, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> But this is bigger than children's doubts and concerns, because it is about the Catholic faith. How does  my post make my father sound more intense? I am saying that revealing my new agnosticism to my family will make them very worried because they love me. Since they believe that hell is real, the idea of me going there will give them the worst kind of dread. Back when you were Catholic, did yo u ever have worries about someone you care about going to hell? Since I love my parents, I want them to be happy and not have dread about my afterlife.



It wasn't a post in this thread that made your father sound intense, but one on the FSTDT forum about when you were caught doing something. To describe a father who would force his son to confess masturbation to a girl he was thinking about and pay her financial compensation as conservative would be a gross understatement on my part and unless he's mellowed out with age, not the first person I'd go to about that.

The Catholicism I knew growing up, and the school I subscribed to while training were a bit more liberal than the one you did. Even in the SSPX, a greater emphasis was placed on the mercy of God. Rather than "You're all going to hell for using contraception", I would have argued for invincible ignorance or mitigating factors. American Catholicism is far more legalistic and letter-of-the-law than the form I knew.

I think I didn't fear hell for non-Catholics or sinners I knew when I was younger because I felt that God was good, and I trusted that he would do what is right and understand their mistakes. When I was older and studied deeper into what people historically had felt God was and had did, that was how I started to doubt. I came to believe first before beginning to leave the faith that God was lawful, but he wasn't good by any empirical measure of consequence or effect; and things unravelled from there, including for a time fearing for others who offended this angry 13 year old sims player in the sky.

Not everyone questions or fears the same things so it's hard to really say. I've known others start to doubt when they realised prayer was ultimatley futile (if God has a plan you can't change in motion, your input is pointless) or perhaps balked with a moral problem (my gay sister is going to hell but serial killers who believed in God are playing a harp with Jesus?)


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 7, 2019)

@Jacob Harrison Took me a little bit to remember the fellows name






I think I began at 1.1 and carried on until video 22. His graphic model of supporting points of belief (and despite the fall of one the others can still hold up a faith) in the God Concept and throughout his deconversion experience videos isn't anything I've seen in a Religious Studies or Theology text but I have to say it's bloody marvellous. I've used it myself when giving talks before.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 7, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> @Jacob Harrison Took me a little bit to remember the fellows name
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you. I will now begin watching. Was his deconversion experience similar to ours in that he found evidence against his beliefs? Parts of his religious experience may be different because he was raised in a very different sect of Christianity.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 7, 2019)

Corbin Dallas Multipass said:


> Oh no.... Kiwi Farms broke this poor Catholic boy. He came here to prove he was right and now he's having a crisis of faith...
> 
> Seriously dude, if you're still a kid and living with your parents, you have to pick your battles. Generally religion just isn't a worthwhile battle.  I don't know much about you and your dad obviously, but don't feel like you need to get buy in from your parents for your own beliefs.
> 
> ...


Shitting on him for having a crisis of faith is a good way to make sure he will be distinctly uninterested in taking "your" side in the great religion war.



Corbin Dallas Multipass said:


> That is part of the unfortunate negative side to religion. There's a kind of blackmail built in, infinite punishment.  It's a concept the human mind obviously can't properly comprehend, but it works really well to get people to do what you want.
> 
> I know people who were raised very religious and they describe something very similar, where they were terrified their friends would go to hell because they weren't true believers.  It's a fucked up thing to do to a kid, but it's done out of the same fear.  All I can really say is... they are OK now, and so are the people in their lives who are still very religious.


I'm going to point out that only the Abrahamic faiths really have an idea of Hell as a place of infinite punishment.  Reincarnation is the prevailing belief in the East, with Hell existing as a place that cleanses the very worst souls so they can return to the cycle of reincarnation.
EDIT: In addition, most pagan faiths believed that, with the possible exception of a select handful who earned a place with the gods due to their heroic actions in life, everyone goes to a neutral after-place, regardless of deeds or faith in life (a few cultures, like the Greeks, believed that exceptionally evil conduct in life would lead to eternal punishment by the gods, but these were universally based on acts, not thoughts.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 7, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Thank you. I will now begin watching. Was his deconversion experience similar to ours in that he found evidence against his beliefs? Parts of his religious experience may be different because he was raised in a very different sect of Christianity.



His is very similar in this regard; the same way you've suddenly hit a wall with Papal Infalliability he hit one with contradictions within the bible which holds a similar infalliable role for him (and later the authorship of it). He doesn't talk much about Sacred Tradition and precedent, since these are meaningless for the most part in Pentecostalism but if you grew up in a very religious community like I did you might feel a lot of affinity with his discussions on prayer, theological arguments, socialising with other believers and how alien the world felt as he grew in doubt.

I think living amongst and talking to believers is what I still find the hardest. Most of my family is very devout, and I simply can't get on the same wavelength as them when subjects come up that have the potential to be influenced by religious faith. Where they see orange I see blue. I remember what it was like seeing orange but I can't fathom for the life of me now how I did knowing what I do now.  It feels a bit like living in the twilight zone.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Feb 7, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Shitting on him for having a crisis of faith is a good way to make sure he will be distinctly uninterested in taking "your" side in the great religion war.



Luckily that's not what happened, as you obviously saw in the rest of my post you quoted. Get off my dick.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 7, 2019)

@Fagatron My question is, was it Kung’s book on Papal Infallibility that made you hit a wall and lose your faith, or was it something else?


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Feb 7, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> @Fagatron My question is, was it Kung’s book on Papal Infallibility that made you hit a wall and lose your faith, or was it something else?



I didn't give much thought to Papal Infallibility at the start honestly, though it did creep in later. I'd already come to the conclusion Infalliability was nonsense before getting the book, but I'd heard Kung had other reasons for dismissing it (I'd based most of mine on Vatican I and the widespread rejection of it among the laity, clergy and bishops once the idea became public).

I started to question when I was presented with moral problems in some of my pastoral training, they weren't serious doubts at first but my instinctive gut reaction despite being told that it was "The Lords will" was that it was wrong. (I trained within SSPX seminaries, who are far stricter and adhere to older practices the mainstrem Church has abandoned since Vatican II. However, the content of the training itself is mostly identical)

Pastoral care and being able to provide spiritual and moral counsel is fairly important for a cleric, and quite frequently we would be confronted with real examples our teachers had seen in their time in ministry, and we were tested to see if we gave the "right" answer in all instances. To furnish you with some examples of the "right" answer, none of these are SSPX exclusive fanaticism, they remain true in mainstream Catholicism too....

>A woman who's husband cheated on her and caught AIDS sins when she denies her cheating husband sex, and she also sins if she uses contraception to prevent herself catching it.
>A 15 year old with testicular cancer comitts mass murder if he gets his semen frozen before undergoing a life-saving operation that will render him sterile.
>A teenager who is being sexually abused as a child sins if he shares his story with his family, because he could risk leading them away from the Catholic Church.

I couldn't swallow this stuff from day one, and my instructors got increasingly frustrated with me over it until I just mindlessly parroted off what I predicted they wanted to hear. I mean, surely if it was good a good action would result in people being happy and suffering less, not actually being worse off than they were before when it could have been prevented? It is insane, but when you're locked in a seminary with a bunch of dudes all repeating the same thing it's a bit like living in a madhouse, except it feels like you're the only one who's insane for not agreeing and not understanding that masturbation is worse than rape and that women are innately evil temptresses. Perhaps there is truth in the "avoiding the wordly", because somewhere along the line I'd adopted humanistic views on morality; that good is what brings about human flourishing, whereas good to a Catholic is what brings about Gods will which can very often involve a good deal of human suffering.

My doubts started from there. I'm not a weak minded person, and even in a hot house like that designed to break you down and rebuilt you into what the seminary believes to be the ideal man I retained my own opinons. I did try and learn more about their line of reasoning...And the deeper I went, the more and more ridiculous it all seemed. I hit a point I believed God was amoral or evil before actually reaching "it's all bullshit".


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 11, 2019)

heres an interesting thing to think about, everyone who is in some position of power worships some kind of demonic god. HRC is making sacrifices to Moloch as confirmed by her wikileaks emails, podesta is fucking children, gloria vanderbilt (anderson coopers mother) had a artifact of jesus being eaten by moloch in her bed chamber. why? why is it that all the super elite worships this demonic figure? if you believe in karma youre a dumb fucking faggot. these people rape children and have unrivaled power. and if we posit an evil being exists then the opposite must exist as well especially since the demons they worship are from the christian canon.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 11, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> heres an interesting thing to think about, everyone who is in some position of power worships some kind of demonic god. HRC is making sacrifices to Moloch as confirmed by her wikileaks emails, podesta is fucking children, gloria vanderbilt (anderson coopers mother) had a artifact of jesus being eaten by moloch in her bed chamber. why? why is it that all the super elite worships this demonic figure? if you believe in karma youre a dumb fucking faggot. these people rape children and have unrivaled power. and if we posit an evil being exists then the opposite must exist as well especially since the demons they worship are from the christian canon.


Moloch isn't a Christian demon, you absolute legend: he's a Caananite god, likely the same one as "Baal" and Baalzebub" ("Molech" means "shameful king", "Baal" "lord", and "Baalzebub" "The lord of vermin": the last name was exclusively used as an insult by Israelites to worshipers of Baal, and the first name was used by the Canaanites in the uncorrupted form _Melech_, which just means "king"); mostly likely the Caananite equivalent of the Babylonian war-god Nergal or Marduk, chief of the gods.  You might as well argue that, because all of these people are powerful and they make sacrifices to Baal that the Canaanites were right all along and the Mesopotamian pantheon is true.

I'd love citations for your absurd claims, especially that "all the elite" worship one specific deity.
>inb4 paranoid ravings about how the bull outside the NYSE is actually a Brass Bull and evidence Wall Street worships Moloch


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 12, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Moloch isn't a Christian demon, you absolute legend: he's a Caananite god, likely the same one as "Baal" and Baalzebub" ("Molech" means "shameful king", "Baal" "lord", and "Baalzebub" "The lord of vermin": the last name was exclusively used as an insult by Israelites to worshipers of Baal, and the first name was used by the Canaanites in the uncorrupted form _Melech_, which just means "king"); mostly likely the Caananite equivalent of the Babylonian war-god Nergal or Marduk, chief of the gods.  You might as well argue that, because all of these people are powerful and they make sacrifices to Baal that the Canaanites were right all along and the Mesopotamian pantheon is true.
> 
> I'd love citations for your absurd claims, especially that "all the elite" worship one specific deity.
> >inb4 paranoid ravings about how the bull outside the NYSE is actually a Brass Bull and evidence Wall Street worships Moloch


hey youve already established yourself as severely retarded with the "derp african population wont grow lol/ women have sam braine as men" let it be.  Adults are talking here.

Belezebub is a demon in the old testament, aside from worshiping at the bohemian grove these people also worship baphomet and beezelebub. They engage in child sacrifice and blood ritual which is something Jews have always done after the death of christ. for whatever reason the elites are worshipping literal demons. .Celion dion's new product line has direct references to baphomet with a picture of a kid wearing a ram's head, and the symbol of the damned. these people worship demons.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 12, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> hey youve already established yourself as severely exceptional with the "derp african population wont grow lol/ women have sam braine as men" let it be.  Adults are talking here.
> 
> Belezebub is a demon in the old testament, aside from worshiping at the bohemian grove these people also worship baphomet and beezelebub. They engage in child sacrifice and blood ritual which is something Jews have always done after the death of christ. for whatever reason the elites are worshipping literal demons. .Celion dion's new product line has direct references to baphomet with a picture of a kid wearing a ram's head, and the symbol of the damned. these people worship demons.


Okay, so you're just going to regurgitate /pol/ memes without any context, cognition, or attempt at support, per usual.  How does it feel to be so emotionally and intellectually stunted that only pathetic cunts like Atomwaffen Division (who worship Satan, BTW) take your ideas seriously?


----------



## Milk Mage (Feb 12, 2019)

Jesus is cool and good


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 12, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Okay, so you're just going to regurgitate /pol/ memes without any context, cognition, or attempt at support, per usual.  How does it feel to be so emotionally and intellectually stunted that only pathetic cunts like Atomwaffen Division (who worship Satan, BTW) take your ideas seriously?


good one retard. this is why you are so retarded. thats like saying you had a sheet of 100 answers and one was right and then you would say as a retard look 99 people thought it was wrong


----------



## DatBepisTho (Feb 12, 2019)

Bruh. We're all going to hell for petty shit that the pope hates anyway, you can't save us.
Certainly not with kiddie diddling priests and bans on condoms.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 12, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> hey youve already established yourself as severely exceptional with the "derp african population wont grow lol/ women have sam braine as men" let it be.  Adults are talking here.
> 
> Belezebub is a demon in the old testament, aside from worshiping at the bohemian grove these people also worship baphomet and beezelebub. They engage in child sacrifice and blood ritual which is something Jews have always done after the death of christ. for whatever reason the elites are worshipping literal demons. .Celion dion's new product line has direct references to baphomet with a picture of a kid wearing a ram's head, and the symbol of the damned. these people worship demons.



Or, and I’m just spitballing here, lots of people don’t believe in demons at all and just reference them either to be edgy or because if you view them as fictional characters Baphomet and friends are pretty fucking badass



MilkMage said:


> Jesus is cool and good


Jesus is just alright with me, tbh


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 12, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> Or, and I’m just spitballing here, lots of people don’t believe in demons at all and just reference them either to be edgy or because if you view them as fictional characters Baphomet and friends are pretty fucking badass
> 
> 
> Jesus is just alright with me, tbh


good one brainlet. yes these hollywood elites worship the same god because its just edgy fun!
no it definetly has nothing to do with the fact they all worship the same demons, 

BTW Jesus is super cool and I love Jesus and you wont change that!!


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 12, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> good one brainlet. yes these hollywood elites worship the same god because its just edgy fun!
> no it definetly has nothing to do with the fact they all worship the same demons,
> 
> BTW Jesus is super cool and I love Jesus and you wont change that!!


If Jesus is so cool why hasn’t he gotten you laid?


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Feb 12, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> If Jesus is so cool why hasn’t he gotten you laid?


nice faggot check the thread where one of you niggers called me out.  I have over 600 tinder matches. dont ever insult jesus again you fucking massive faggot


----------



## Black Waltz (Feb 12, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> nice faggot check the thread where one of you niggers called me out.  I have over 600 tinder matches. dont ever insult jesus again you fucking massive faggot


ok dude


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 12, 2019)

Bleachedanoos said:


> nice faggot check the thread where one of you niggers called me out.  I have over 600 tinder matches. dont ever insult jesus again you fucking massive faggot


Jesus died nailed to a cross with a crown of thorns on his head and a spear in his side. I don’t think he’d be too bothered by insults on a shitposting forum.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 22, 2019)

Now I wish that Catholicism is true even more. Two days ago my grandmother died. She grew up Mennonite but converted to Catholicism when she met my Polish grandfather. She was a very devout Catholic who lived a saintly life. She was very kind and loving.

One time, a dying Jewish man at the nursing home said that she was sent by God, and converted to Christianity before his death.

Today, I was at the vigil/wake and the Priest did a prayer of intercession for her soul. If I was still Catholic, I would have a lot of comfort that she is a saint in heaven, or at least in purgatory to be cleansed of venial sins before going to heaven.

Now that I am agnostic, I do not know what happened to her when she died.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Feb 22, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Now I wish that Catholicism is true even more. Two days ago my grandmother died. She grew up Mennonite but converted to Catholicism when she met my Polish grandfather. She was a very devout Catholic who lived a saintly life. She was very kind and loving.
> 
> One time, a dying Jewish man at the nursing home said that she was sent by God, and converted to Christianity before his death.
> 
> ...


You're still coming back to this thread for actual human conversation? Kinda seems like it turned into a shitshow.

Well, look man, if you're having those feelings now, is it really true that you would have had comfort had you not acknowledged your own doubts?  You didn't know what happened to her before, either.  

It seems like you have a curious mind, you're willing to look into things even when they go against what you believe.  So could you ever be satisfied some group already had all the answers?  Wouldn't you just be in the same state as you are now, except also worried about being damned for your own doubt? Although I suspect you probably have some worry of that in the back of your mind, it's the part that hangs on the longest.  It's kinda like George said on Seinfeld.  He's not religious, except for the bad stuff.  You can be intellectually irreligious while still having irrational religious fears.

I also think you're making a classic assumption lots of people make.  That is that all these other people who appear confident in their own beliefs truly are.  Nobody knows, everyone suffers from impostor syndrome. It's a scary thought, but you are just as well suited as any other person to find the right answers.  It's downright terrifying how often the best possible answer is "I don't know, and the people saying they know don't know either".

You sound like you're fairly young, so you will learn over time.  Keep that sense of independent thought, wherever it takes you.


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 22, 2019)

Corbin Dallas Multipass said:


> You're still coming back to this thread for actual human conversation? Kinda seems like it turned into a shitshow.
> 
> Well, look man, if you're having those feelings now, is it really true that you would have had comfort had you not acknowledged your own doubts?  You didn't know what happened to her before, either.
> 
> ...


Well I had far less doubt when I was a believer, because I wasn't yet exposed to the information that completely shattered my faith. In the comments section on this thread when I was a believer, I estimated that I was 99 percent confident in my faith. I would have therefore been satisfied the same way that evolutionary biologists are satisfied that they are 99 percent sure that the Theory of Evolution explains the origins and diversity of life.

And yes, I do still have some slight worry of damnation on the back of my mind due to me thinking of the slight possibility that there is somehow an explanation on the Popes contradictions on fetuses.


----------



## The Cunting Death (Feb 22, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Now I wish that Catholicism is true even more. Two days ago my grandmother died. She grew up Mennonite but converted to Catholicism when she met my Polish grandfather. She was a very devout Catholic who lived a saintly life. She was very kind and loving.
> 
> One time, a dying Jewish man at the nursing home said that she was sent by God, and converted to Christianity before his death.
> 
> ...


>now that I'm agnostic
you just said you were christian like 3 days ago

make up your mind


----------



## MW 590 (Feb 22, 2019)

FatFuckFrank said:


> >now that I'm agnostic
> you just said you were christian like 3 days ago
> 
> make up your mind


I lost my faith on February 7 as shown by the earlier comments here. If you check my profile, you will see that I mentioned that fact in February 13. However when I posted on Reddit, I hid that information in an attempt to get devout Catholics to join my cause to restore the true heir to the throne of England.


----------



## The Cunting Death (Feb 23, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I lost my faith on February 7 as shown by the earlier comments here. If you check my profile, you will see that I mentioned that fact in February 13. However when I posted on Reddit, I hid that information in an attempt to get devout Catholics to join my cause to restore the true heir to the throne of England.


Work on your faith you hethen.


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 4, 2019)

FatFuckFrank said:


> Work on your faith you hethen.


I wish that I could get it back. I am writing a Catholic end times story where my society successfully infiltrates England, restores the rightful rulers, and there is a great king on the throne. He is given Excalibur, restores the Knights of the Round Table, and successfully liberates Constantinople and Jerusalem. If I was still Catholic, the story could inspire Catholics to join my cause. I will attempt to reconvert by doing research on whether Pope Gregory XIV's bull _Sedes Apostolicae_ is real or a forgery.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jun 4, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I wish that I could get it back. I am writing a Catholic end times story where my society successfully infiltrates England, restores the rightful rulers, and there is a great king on the throne. He is given Excalibur, restores the Knights of the Round Table, and successfully liberates Constantinople and Jerusalem. If I was still Catholic, the story could inspire Catholics to join my cause. I will attempt to reconvert by doing research on whether Pope Gregory XIV's bull _Sedes Apostolicae_ is real or a forgery.


Your monomania is adorable.


----------



## Splendid (Jun 5, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I wish that I could get it back. I am writing a Catholic end times story where my society successfully infiltrates England, restores the rightful rulers, and there is a great king on the throne. He is given Excalibur, restores the Knights of the Round Table, and successfully liberates Constantinople and Jerusalem. If I was still Catholic, the story could inspire Catholics to join my cause. I will attempt to reconvert by doing research on whether Pope Gregory XIV's bull _Sedes Apostolicae_ is real or a forgery.


This story makes you look like a lunatic, and fixating on it will only prolong your suffering.


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 5, 2019)

Splendid Meat Sticks said:


> This story makes you look like a lunatic, and fixating on it will only prolong your suffering.


Well I recently converted back to Catholicism so now I have confidence that Catholics will want to join my cause after reading my end times story knowing that I am Catholic. It will become as popular among Catholics as the Left Behind series is among Protestants.

On Catholic Answers, I asked about the issue of the Pope's contradicting each other on fetuses and someone gave an excellent answer that caused me to convert back to Catholicism.


> These bulls prescribed different ecclesiastical penalties for abortion–they weren’t definitive judgments about a point of morals. Gregory XIV provided lesser penalties for the abortion of an “unanimated” fetus than for an “animated” one, but neither acts were considered morally upright at any time by the Church.
> 
> The Church in principle has always taught that both contraception and murder are contrary to the divine and natural law. However, there is no infallibility when it comes to scientific facts. In this case, whether a particular concrete act is one or the other is a question of factual circumstances, not a question of moral principles. Before there is a new life, it would be an act of contraception; after a new life has been created, it would be an act of murder. The mechanics of conception, however, is a scientific fact. The principles are fixed, even if our knowledge of scientific facts to which we apply the principles can be improved.


So now that I am Catholic again, I now think that my plans for England are going to fulfill end times prophecy. Here is my current plan for England.


Jacob Harrison said:


> I now did further research of the Kings of England and discovered something.
> 
> When Edward III issued Letters Patent, restricting the crown to those in the male line, it made no provision for females inheriting upon extinction of the male line.
> 
> ...


In order to coerce the monarch of the UK into giving royal assent to such a bill, the other European governments will need to be infiltrated by my society as well to make him or her do it under threat of invasion by the other European countries. As a side effect, my society will restore other fallen European monarchies such as France. The European kingdoms can elect a Holy Roman Emperor over them who will be the Great Monarch of Catholic prophecy who will liberate Constantinople and the Holy Land.


----------



## Info Neutral Agency (Jun 5, 2019)

Uncanny Valley said:


> Explain the little boy fucking now


Like someone or some group who joined a community and fucked it up, a person or group who joins a religion and changes it from its original concept. The homosexual mafia and Pagans messed with it to their liking.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jun 5, 2019)

|I.nfo_N.eutral_A.gency| said:


> Like someone or some group who joined a community and fucked it up, a person or group who joins a religion and changes it from its original concept. The homosexual mafia and Pagans messed with it to their liking.


It can’t always be someone else’s fault. This is like @Bleachedanoos blaming it on the Jews (wonder what happened to him, anyway?)


----------



## Info Neutral Agency (Jun 5, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> It can’t always be someone else’s fault. This is like @Bleachedanoos blaming it on the Jews (wonder what happened to him, anyway?)


How some people recognized a group of people are by the individuals who join it. The reason why Atheists always say that all religions are actually for "muh pedophiles" because of the history of leaders and followers of these religions.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jun 6, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Well I recently converted back to Catholicism so now I have confidence that Catholics will want to join my cause after reading my end times story knowing that I am Catholic. It will become as popular among Catholics as the Left Behind series is among Protestants.
> 
> On Catholic Answers, I asked about the issue of the Pope's contradicting each other on fetuses and someone gave an excellent answer that caused me to convert back to Catholicism.
> 
> ...


1. I'm Catholic, and what you're endorsing is entirely unCatholic, and the fact of this would be obvious to you if you were serious about theology.  All mortal rulers are transient and meaningless; there is no "God-appointed line".
2. You blaspheme against Christ's own words: "Amen, I say unto you: none shall know the day nor the hour that the Son of Man shall come down from Heaven".  So whose words are right: your's, or those of the Christ?
3. You also blaspheme in attempting to enact the eschaton: it shall be enacted when God decrees, not man.
4. Again, you blaspheme: how would your acts bring about Armageddon?  Unless you believe your reinstated monarchical system shall be the Beast With Seven Heads, or the Beast in the Guise of the Lamb.  _Or_ unless you believe _you_ are the Son of Man come down from Heaven to unite all the Christian people into one nation, in which case you are a blasphemer unto the utmost degree.


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 6, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. I'm Catholic, and what you're endorsing is entirely unCatholic, and the fact of this would be obvious to you if you were serious about theology.  All mortal rulers are transient and meaningless; there is no "God-appointed line".
> 2. You blaspheme against Christ's own words: "Amen, I say unto you: none shall know the day nor the hour that the Son of Man shall come down from Heaven".  So whose words are right: your's, or those of the Christ?
> 3. You also blaspheme in attempting to enact the eschaton: it shall be enacted when God decrees, not man.
> 4. Again, you blaspheme: how would your acts bring about Armageddon?  Unless you believe your reinstated monarchical system shall be the Beast With Seven Heads, or the Beast in the Guise of the Lamb.  _Or_ unless you believe _you_ are the Son of Man come down from Heaven to unite all the Christian people into one nation, in which case you are a blasphemer unto the utmost degree.


1. In the Middle Ages, it was believed that monarchs ruled by the grace of God. That is supported by 1 Peter 2:13-17.
2. I never said that I know the exact day Christ will return. It will happen sometime after the Antichrist is slain by St. Michael the Archangel and according to Catholic prophecy, the Antichrist will come after the death of the Great Monarch. I never assigned a definite date when those events will occur.
3. And I believe that God is decreeing right now that it should be enacted and that I should help enact it just like he decreed that Joan of Arc enact the prophecy of the virgin that would save France.
4. It is Catholic prophecy that before the Antichrist, there will be a Great Monarch who will bring an era of peace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Roman_Emperor


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Jun 6, 2019)

I actually do know the exact day when Christ will return. I win at Catholic.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jun 6, 2019)

Tragi-Chan said:


> I actually do know the exact day when Christ will return. I win at Catholic.


4/20/69?


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jun 6, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> 1. In the Middle Ages, it was believed that monarchs ruled by the grace of God. That is supported by 1 Peter 2:13-17.
> 2. I never said that I know the exact day Christ will return. It will happen sometime after the Antichrist is slain by St. Michael the Archangel and according to Catholic prophecy, the Antichrist will come after the death of the Great Monarch. I never assigned a definite date when those events will occur.
> 3. And I believe that God is decreeing right now that it should be enacted and that I should help enact it just like he decreed that Joan of Arc enact the prophecy of the virgin that would save France.
> 4. It is Catholic prophecy that before the Antichrist, there will be a Great Monarch who will bring an era of peace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Roman_Emperor


So you are claiming direct revelation from God?  That God has spoken unto you directly, or through the intercession of the angels and saints, and charged you with this?  Every one prophesied was given their charge by God or an intercessory, save the Christ for obvious reasons.


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 6, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> So you are claiming direct revelation from God?  That God has spoken unto you directly, or through the intercession of the angels and saints, and charged you with this?  Every one prophesied was given their charge by God or an intercessory, save the Christ for obvious reasons.


The fact that I will fulfill prophecy was put into my mind by either God or my guardian angel.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jun 6, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> The fact that I will fulfill prophecy was put into my mind by either God or my guardian angel.


All prophets and those prophesied had their status announced to them.  The idea wasn't "put into their head": the Saints came before them, or an angel manifested themselves before them, shod with flames and crowned by the sun.  What would make you different?
EDIT: And furthermore, if you believe your installed monarch would be the Last Good Emperor, why would you refuse to live under his reign, and instead live in this Godless land?


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 7, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> All prophets and those prophesied had their status announced to them.  The idea wasn't "put into their head": the Saints came before them, or an angel manifested themselves before them, shod with flames and crowned by the sun.  What would make you different?
> EDIT: And furthermore, if you believe your installed monarch would be the Last Good Emperor, why would you refuse to live under his reign, and instead live in this Godless land?


Nostradamus didn't claim to have a direct visitation by angels or saints when he made his predictions that later came true so he too had it put in his head. And I probably will move to England when the Great Monarch is put on the throne.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jun 7, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Nostradamus didn't claim to have a direct visitation by angels or saints when he made his predictions that later came true so he too had it put in his head. And I probably will move to England when the Great Monarch is put on the throne.


1.Nostradamus didn't consider himself a prophet: his works were mostly compilations of alleged revelations from God by the saints and the more ambitious claims of necromancers.  You are ignorant of Nostradamus.
2. The methods by which he made his personal predictions were heretical: astrology is a kind of divination, and therefore is witchcraft and an abomination.  Necromancy is even worse.  To say Nostradamus was a prophet and cite him for your own motive is to endorse the use of the Devil's tools and to proclaim your allegiance as belonging to Satan.  If you have any true dedication to the Church, you will recant your blasphemies in this manner.
3. Many of his prophecies are so steeped in vague symbolism that they can be interpreted to mean anything: this is a common tool of charlatans and Satan both, to delude.  True prophecy, as charged by God, is clear.  Joan of Arc was told by the saints that she would liberate France, and so she did.
4. With this established, I again ask you: did the angels or saints come before you with a vision?


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 7, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1.Nostradamus didn't consider himself a prophet: his works were mostly compilations of alleged revelations from God by the saints and the more ambitious claims of necromancers.  You are ignorant of Nostradamus.
> 2. The methods by which he made his personal predictions were heretical: astrology is a kind of divination, and therefore is witchcraft and an abomination.  Necromancy is even worse.  To say Nostradamus was a prophet and cite him for your own motive is to endorse the use of the Devil's tools and to proclaim your allegiance as belonging to Satan.  If you have any true dedication to the Church, you will recant your blasphemies in this manner.
> 3. Many of his prophecies are so steeped in vague symbolism that they can be interpreted to mean anything: this is a common tool of charlatans and Satan both, to delude.  True prophecy, as charged by God, is clear.  Joan of Arc was told by the saints that she would liberate France, and so she did.
> 4. With this established, I again ask you: did the angels or saints come before you with a vision?


1. I'll do more research on Nostradamus but it seems like the accusations of witchcraft come from Protestants.
2. A Christian practice that can be used for divine revelation is mysticism which ranges from ecstatic vision to simple religious contemplation which was what I was doing when I realized that I am going to fulfill end times prophecy.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jun 7, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> 1. I'll do more research on Nostradamus but it seems like the accusations of witchcraft come from Protestants.
> 2. A Christian practice that can be used for divine revelation is mysticism which ranges from ecstatic vision to simple religious contemplation which was what I was doing when I realized that I am going to fulfill end times prophecy.


1. The man engaged in astrology, self-professed.  Read his own letters.  Reading omens in the sky is one of the specific biblical definitions of witchcraft.  Just because a Protestant accuses someone of sin doesn't mean they are blameless.  Use the brain God gave you for once.
2. Not all things you think in contemplation are true: indeed, in contemplation myself I have often faced my inner demons masquerading as angels.  Revelation is always, in every record of saint and prophet, vouchsafed in ecstatic vision, or accompanied by a miracle.  I defy you to find a record that contradicts this.
3. With this, once more I say unto you: testify to the mark that shows this is divine revelation, and not the echo of your ego off the back of your skull, or a seductive vision from the Prince of Lies.


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 7, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. The man engaged in astrology, self-professed.  Read his own letters.  Reading omens in the sky is one of the specific biblical definitions of witchcraft.  Just because a Protestant accuses someone of sin doesn't mean they are blameless.  Use the brain God gave you for once.
> 2. Not all things you think in contemplation are true: indeed, in contemplation myself I have often faced my inner demons masquerading as angels.  Revelation is always, in every record of saint and prophet, vouchsafed in ecstatic vision, or accompanied by a miracle.  I defy you to find a record that contradicts this.
> 3. With this, once more I say unto you: testify to the mark that shows this is divine revelation, and not the echo of your ego off the back of your skull, or a seductive vision from the Prince of Lies.


1. You made a good point about Nostradamus.
2. I will ask if revelation is always given in ecstatic vision or accompanied by a miracle on Catholic Answers in order to see if I had divine revelation. What is true according to revelation experienced by many mystics is that regardless of whether my plans work or not, eventually there will be an era of prosperity for the Church where rightful Catholic monarchy in England and Europe will be restored since there will be a Last Roman Emperor ruling over the monarchs of Europe.


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 8, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. The man engaged in astrology, self-professed.  Read his own letters.  Reading omens in the sky is one of the specific biblical definitions of witchcraft.  Just because a Protestant accuses someone of sin doesn't mean they are blameless.  Use the brain God gave you for once.
> 2. Not all things you think in contemplation are true: indeed, in contemplation myself I have often faced my inner demons masquerading as angels.  Revelation is always, in every record of saint and prophet, vouchsafed in ecstatic vision, or accompanied by a miracle.  I defy you to find a record that contradicts this.
> 3. With this, once more I say unto you: testify to the mark that shows this is divine revelation, and not the echo of your ego off the back of your skull, or a seductive vision from the Prince of Lies.


I made a post on Catholic Answers and according to the users there, divine revelation can come in many forms at any time.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jun 9, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> 1. You made a good point about Nostradamus.
> 2. I will ask if revelation is always given in ecstatic vision or accompanied by a miracle on Catholic Answers in order to see if I had divine revelation. What is true according to revelation experienced by many mystics is that regardless of whether my plans work or not, eventually there will be an era of prosperity for the Church where rightful Catholic monarchy in England and Europe will be restored since there will be a Last Roman Emperor ruling over the monarchs of Europe.





Jacob Harrison said:


> I made a post on Catholic Answers and according to the users there, divine revelation can come in many forms at any time.


You are turning to an _online answer board_ regarding this?  When I have theological questions, I speak to my pastor.  If he is stumped, he recommends I talk to a friend of his who holds a doctorate in Catholic Theology and is a member of the Order of Preachers (aka the Dominican monks).  The _last_ place I would turn for advise is an online site.
I suppose there is no saving one who runs gleefully into Satan's arms because he would rather hear honeyed lies over bitter truths.


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 10, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> You are turning to an _online answer board_ regarding this?  When I have theological questions, I speak to my pastor.  If he is stumped, he recommends I talk to a friend of his who holds a doctorate in Catholic Theology and is a member of the Order of Preachers (aka the Dominican monks).  The _last_ place I would turn for advise is an online site.
> I suppose there is no saving one who runs gleefully into Satan's arms because he would rather hear honeyed lies over bitter truths.


What confuses me is that earlier in this thread you were an atheist who criticized the morals of Christianity. Did you convert recently?


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jun 10, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> What confuses me is that earlier in this thread you were an atheist who criticized the morals of Christianity. Did you convert recently?


Cite where I said I was an atheist, please.


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 10, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Cite where I said I was an atheist, please.


I assumed you were because of your Anti Christian comments. Here is one of them.


Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Incorrect, animals do not have spiritual souls and lack spiritual existence.  They do not go to heaven or hell because they cease to be upon death.  This is basic Catholic doctrine, and you are wholly ignorant of it.
> 
> Miracles can be explained as coincidence, delusion, or the work of evil spirits.  A religion should be judged on the strength of its logical arguments, and in that case, the teachings of the Buddha are the most worthy faith, as they are based on reason and observation about the world.
> The principles of reason also show that your conception of God is unworthy of worship.  Let us say there are two men: the first lives a life without harming another living soul.  His every breath in life is devoted to benevolence, peace, and the ending of suffering.  He does not eat meat, gives all he makes that he does not need to live to the poor, does not drink or swear or do any other thing to abuse his body or others, and has not even had an evil thought pass into his mind.  However, he lived in a circumstance where he could have become Catholic and did not, because his one exposure to the faith was an evil and lecherous priest.
> ...


So what caused you to convert?


----------



## Yaito-Chan (Jun 10, 2019)

It's a shame Catholic music went from this:






to this:






EDIT: Then again, most music composed after the Renaissance is trash. Thanks, Mozart.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jun 10, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I assumed you were because of your Anti Christian comments. Here is one of them.
> 
> So what caused you to convert?


These are only anti-Christian comments if you believe your own narrow conception of Catholic doctrine is the only possible expression of the faith.
I will admit to being hyperbolic when it comes to Buddhism: Catholicism, obviously, has strong arguments as well.  I would argue that based purely on logic, Buddhism is the most appealing faith to me, but the community of the Church that I was raised in, I feel, is a better fit for me.

Jesuit writings say that if one is Catholic in their heart, they do not need to convert to enter into a covenant with God.  Likewise, if someone confesses their evil in life, but does not mean it in their heart, then they will not be spared Hell.  Your interpretation of what I wrote is like your understanding of your supposed faith entire: facile.  It takes so little to move your heart, by your own admission, from the Church to apostasy and back again.  But even then, it seems to me that your faith doesn't actually matter to you: serving your delusion of installing the "true" King of England is the only good in your heart.  Even when you forsook your faith, you believed that you should force people into obeying the Church because reconverting England by force is part of whatever disease is in you.
You _do _realize that your plan will require you to piss on almost every single one of the Ten Commandments and the doctrine of the Church for the past 500 years, right?  Oh, wait, since you believe _God_ chose you for this, you think you have _carte blanche_ to disobey the laws of God.
I wonder: if, by some insane chance, your plan manages to get anywhere near completion, and the pope condemns your actions, will you obey his writ?  Or will you proclaim yourself antipope?


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 10, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> These are only anti-Christian comments if you believe your own narrow conception of Catholic doctrine is the only possible expression of the faith.
> I will admit to being hyperbolic when it comes to Buddhism: Catholicism, obviously, has strong arguments as well.  I would argue that based purely on logic, Buddhism is the most appealing faith to me, but the community of the Church that I was raised in, I feel, is a better fit for me.
> 
> Jesuit writings say that if one is Catholic in their heart, they do not need to convert to enter into a covenant with God.  Likewise, if someone confesses their evil in life, but does not mean it in their heart, then they will not be spared Hell.  Your interpretation of what I wrote is like your understanding of your supposed faith entire: facile.  It takes so little to move your heart, by your own admission, from the Church to apostasy and back again.  But even then, it seems to me that your faith doesn't actually matter to you: serving your delusion of installing the "true" King of England is the only good in your heart.  Even when you forsook your faith, you believed that you should force people into obeying the Church because reconverting England by force is part of whatever disease is in you.
> ...


Oh I get it, your culturally Catholic but you are not sure whether Buddhism or Catholicism is the true religion. Catholicism has a greater number of miracles, visitations by angels and saints, and visions of the afterlife so there is more evidence of Catholicism than Buddhism. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly teaches that baptism, faith, good deeds, and penance are necessary for salvation. I agree that someone must mean it in their heart when confessing their sins in order to be forgiven. I was saying earlier in this thread that it is Catholic belief that even the worst of sinners can be forgiven if they truly confess their sins. 

What caused me to apostatize and then reconvert because I have my faith because of the evidence for Catholicism. I apostatized when Fagatron showed me evidence against Catholicism and reconverted when I found answers. 

And does my plan to restore traditional Catholic monarchy go against the 10 Commandments and Catholic doctrine? The Church condemned the revolutions that overthrew the monarchies and their ideology. A great example is the Syllabus of Errors. My society will also infiltrate the Church so that an agent is elected Pope so that the Church will restore its pre-Vatican II traditions and support my actions. A good result will be that the Church will defrock clergy involved in the sex abuse scandals. So if you care about the children, you should support my cause.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jun 10, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Oh I get it, your culturally Catholic but you are not sure whether Buddhism or Catholicism is the true religion. Catholicism has a greater number of miracles, visitations by angels and saints, and visions of the afterlife so there is more evidence of Catholicism than Buddhism.
> 
> The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly teaches that baptism, faith, good deeds, and penance are necessary for salvation. I agree that someone must mean it in their heart when confessing their sins in order to be forgiven. I was saying earlier in this thread that it is Catholic belief that even the worst of sinners can be forgiven if they truly confess their sins.
> 
> ...


I am Catholic; I'm confirmed Catholic.  Your facile understanding of Catholic tradition, your self-righteous sedevacantist rot that would move the Church away from being a more pure reflection of God's will on Earth, and the fact that you would desecrate the Holy See in the name of your crusade all indicate that not only are you not Catholic: you would likely never be Catholic.
If I didn't have other things to tend to, I would make you your own thread: you so self-evidently deserve one.


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 11, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> I am Catholic; I'm confirmed Catholic.  Your facile understanding of Catholic tradition, your self-righteous sedevacantist rot that would move the Church away from being a more pure reflection of God's will on Earth, and the fact that you would desecrate the Holy See in the name of your crusade all indicate that not only are you not Catholic: you would likely never be Catholic.
> If I didn't have other things to tend to, I would make you your own thread: you so self-evidently deserve one.


First of all, I am NOT sedevacantist. I accept all post Vatican II Popes as legitimate Popes and I am in fact a big fan of former Pope Benedict XVI because he was the most conservative of the post Vatican II Popes. The Church right now is not a pure reflection of God’s will on Earth because many priests have violated basic morality by molesting and raping children and the wicked Pope Francis has not been taking action to stop it. He has also  promoted heresy. https://thehill.com/policy/internat...-pope-francis-is-a-heretic-causing-one-of-the

Causing the election of a holy traditionalist Pope who will fix the Church’s problems is not desecrating the Holy See.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jun 11, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> First of all, I am NOT sedevacantist. I accept all post Vatican II Popes as legitimate Popes and I am in fact a big fan of former Pope Benedict XVI because he was the most conservative of the post Vatican II Popes. The Church right now is not a pure reflection of God’s will on Earth because many priests have violated basic morality by molesting and raping children and the wicked Pope Francis has not been taking action to stop it. He has also  promoted heresy. https://thehill.com/policy/internat...-pope-francis-is-a-heretic-causing-one-of-the
> 
> Causing the election of a holy traditionalist Pope who will fix the Church’s problems is not desecrating the Holy See.


Directly infiltrating the Church and restructuring it in a way you see fit is taking God's house and redesigning it to please Man; you, in particular.  No matter how holy you are, you are not wiser than God.  
Cue you getting another convenient intuition that justifies this.  You make Martin Luther look like Thomas Aquinas.


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 12, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Directly infiltrating the Church and restructuring it in a way you see fit is taking God's house and redesigning it to please Man; you, in particular.  No matter how holy you are, you are not wiser than God.
> Cue you getting another convenient intuition that justifies this.  You make Martin Luther look like Thomas Aquinas.


But I believe that fixing the Church’s problems will please God. I am sure God is outraged with the corruption and sex abuse just like he was outraged with the Pharisees for their corruption, hypocrisy, and pride. 

It was the Freemasons who infiltrated the church and redesigned it to please man. I will undo the damage they caused.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jun 12, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> But I believe that fixing the Church’s problems will please God. I am sure God is outraged with the corruption and sex abuse just like he was outraged with the Pharisees for their corruption, hypocrisy, and pride.
> 
> It was the Freemasons who infiltrated the church and redesigned it to please man. I will undo the damage they caused.


You're demented and I deeply regret engaging you seriously in any way, shape, or form.  Seek help, or, failing that, walk into the nearest Catholic Church and declare that they're all heretics and you're God's new prophet.


----------



## drtoboggan (Jun 12, 2019)

Dude really sucks at getting people on his side. I don't know how he will be able to recruit secret agents to fix the Catholic church and British monarchy.


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 12, 2019)

drtoboggan said:


> Dude really sucks at getting people on his side. I don't know how he will be able to recruit secret agents to fix the Catholic church and British monarchy.


It is inevitable. I will raise my children to support my cause, they will teach their friends to support my cause, and the process will continue for generations until my society is big enough for my plan to be implemented even if it happens after I'm deceased.


----------



## Maltninja (Jun 12, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> It is inevitable. I will raise my children to support my cause, they will teach their friends to support my cause, and the process will continue for generations until my society is big enough for my plan to be implemented even if it happens after I'm deceased.



Are you married?


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 12, 2019)

Maltninja said:


> Are you married?


No but I am engaged.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jun 12, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> No but I am engaged.


To someone on this site, correct?


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 12, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> To someone on this site, correct?


Yes. My bio on my profile shows who I am engaged to and when the engagement happened.


----------



## Tetra (Jun 12, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> How do you explain the fact that the population of Silvuna converted back to Catholicism. This proves that the apparition is real and that Catholicism is true. I pray that this information will cause you to join the true church.



That story is impressive and all, but really a few sheeps and a mere city converting back?
my nigga Martin Luther shitposted on a couple of walls and converted the entirety of northern europe to his cause

the Catholics really gotta step up their games


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 12, 2019)

Tetraphobia said:


> That story is impressive and all, but really a few sheeps and a mere city converting back?
> my nigga Martin Luther shitposted on a couple of walls and converted the entirety of northern europe to his cause
> 
> the Catholics really gotta step up their games


But Martin Luther did not convert northern Europe by performing miracles, he was successful because the northern European rulers supported him for political reasons. Catholicism has far more documented miracles than Protestantism.


----------



## Tetra (Jun 12, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> But Martin Luther did not convert northern Europe by performing miracles, he was successful because the northern European rulers supported him for political reasons. Catholicism has far more documented miracles than Protestantism.



shitposting > miracles

maybe the pope should try shitposting to impress more northern european rulers

edit: if the pope did things like this, I'd support him.







He should also claim he have some gold plates and look into a hat while telling someone to write down what those gold plates say
I'm sure that'd convince a lot of people


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 14, 2019)

@Senior Lexmechanic I am going through one of the worst times in my life. The Boston Bruins lost the Stanley Cup despite doing so well in the playoffs.

What is worse, is that after doing research I have a dreadful feeling that it is my fault. I found out that the Age of Peace will begin in 2038, meaning that 2038 will be when the Great Monarch finishes his conquests.






						How Do We Know the Dates | After The Warning To 2038 | Catholic Prophecies Book
					

Catholic prophecies and the sequence of events that are about to unfold... Learn more about Blood Moons.




					afterthewarningto2038.com
				




Since 2038 is too soon for my planned society to grow, this means that it is God not me who will restore rightful Catholic monarchy. I now have the feeling that God had the Bruins lose the Stanley Cup to punish me for my pride of thinking that I'm a prophet who will enact the end times. 

So, now I am going to write an end times story where me and Pomme's first born son Jacob Harrison Jr. is a knight serving the Great Monarch.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jun 14, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> @Senior Lexmechanic I am going through one of the worst times in my life. The Boston Bruins lost the Stanley Cup despite doing so well in the playoffs.
> 
> What is worse, is that after doing research I have a dreadful feeling that it is my fault. I found out that the Age of Peace will begin in 2038, meaning that 2038 will be when the Great Monarch finishes his conquests.
> 
> ...


You have learned exactly the wrong lessons from all of this, chief of which is the idea that God would fuck with the Stanley Cup to punish you personally.
If this is one of the worst times of your life, you are very very fortunate.


----------



## Stoneheart (Jun 14, 2019)

Yaito-Chan said:


> to this:


there are less gay versions of their heretic music....


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jun 15, 2019)

I've always liked the idea that the one true faith was one held by some random group of nomads who got wiped out like 3,000 years ago and aren't even in the history books, personally.


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 16, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> I've always liked the idea that the one true faith was one held by some random group of nomads who got wiped out like 3,000 years ago and aren't even in the history books, personally.


What is amazing is that there is archaeological evidence of the supernatural events in the Old Testament and the Exodus.

This shows an extra biblical source that mentions the 10 plagues in Egypt. 

https://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-ten-plagues.html

Scientists also conclude that the plagues happened. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...l-plagues-really-happened-say-scientists.html

And here is evidence of the Exodus from Egypt. 

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction/


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 17, 2019)

I have a very important question for non Catholics here. What evidence for Catholicism do you need in order to convert? I can help find that evidence for you.


----------



## Bleachedanoos (Jun 29, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> It can’t always be someone else’s fault. This is like @Bleachedanoos blaming it on the Jews (wonder what happened to him, anyway?)


>Dude it rained everyday this week
>Derp are u gonna say it rained daily you can't say it rained all week u antirainist

Kill yourself faggot

This is an edgier Reddit stop pretending you're cool


----------



## IAmNotAlpharius (Jun 29, 2019)

I support the dark gods of Chaos.


----------



## Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost (Jun 29, 2019)

Catholicism is just a false church, the true way to God is through the oldest church. 
The Coptic Church. The True Church.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jun 29, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I have a very important question for non Catholics here. What evidence for Catholicism do you need in order to convert? I can help find that evidence for you.


Honestly? I don’t think a human can convince me that any religion is correct, Catholicism included. It would pretty much take an actual spiritual experience at this point for me to convert to a religion.

I know this sounds kinda fedora-y and I don’t mean to belittle anyone’s religion with it, but I don’t think humans quoting books or stats at me will do anything.


Bleachedanoos said:


> >Dude it rained everyday this week
> >Derp are u gonna say it rained daily you can't say it rained all week u antirainist


The fuck does this even mean?


> Kill yourself faggot


No u


> This is an edgier Reddit stop pretending you're cool


And yet we trigger your shut-in hateful ass pretty damn easy


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 29, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> Honestly? I don’t think a human can convince me that any religion is correct, Catholicism included. It would pretty much take an actual spiritual experience at this point for me to convert to a religion.
> 
> I know this sounds kinda fedora-y and I don’t mean to belittle anyone’s religion with it, but I don’t think humans quoting books or stats at me will do anything.
> 
> The fuck does this even mean?


Ok then here is how you can have a spiritual experience that can convert you to Catholicism.

While I would never advise a Catholic to do this as it is a mortal sin, since you are already a grave sinner, I am advising you to do this as a means of converting. Get an ouija board, summon demons multiple times which will prove Christianity since demons are a Christian belief, then get Christians to drive out demons. Measure the effectiveness of Christians of different denominations and you will see that the Catholic priests do the best job at driving out the demons.


----------



## Basil II (Jun 29, 2019)

Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost said:


> Catholicism is just a false church, the true way to God is through the oldest church.
> The Coptic Church. The True Church.


>coptic
>oldest church




Jacob Harrison said:


> Ok then here is how you can have a spiritual experience that can convert you to Catholicism.
> 
> While I would never advise a Catholic to do this as it is a mortal sin, since you are already a grave sinner, I am advising you to do this as a means of converting. Get an ouija board, summon demons multiple times which will prove Christianity since demons are a Christian belief, then get Christians to drive out demons. Measure the effectiveness of Christians of different denominations and you will see that the Catholic priests do the best job at driving out the demons.


>lmao go murder someone, I would never tell a catholic to commit a sin, but ur already going to hell lmao.
Jesus Christ how could someone misunderstand Christianity this badly.


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 29, 2019)

Basil II said:


> >coptic
> >oldest church
> View attachment 821145
> 
> ...


You made a good point. Anyway, the Catholic Church is the oldest church because the so called Orthodox Church broke away from the Catholic Church in the 11th century despite the fact that the authority of the Pope has been recognized by the Church fathers. https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i


----------



## Basil II (Jun 29, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> You made a good point. Anyway, the Catholic Church is the oldest church because the so called Orthodox Church broke away from the Catholic Church in the 11th century despite the fact that the authority of the Pope has been recognized by the Church fathers. https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i


All of the Apostles were equal before Christ, therefore all the Patriarchs as well, the former Patriarch of Rome is Primus Inter Pares which means he commands a little more respect, and takes preference over the others, but is not superior or hold authority over the other Patriarchs, the schism was caused by the Bishop of Rome's greed and lust for power.

Furthermore


----------



## MW 590 (Jun 29, 2019)

Basil II said:


> All of the Apostles were equal before Christ, therefore all the Patriarchs as well, the former Patriarch of Rome is Primus Inter Pares which means he commands a little more respect, and takes preference over the others, but is not superior or hold authority over the other Patriarchs, the schism was caused by the Bishop of Rome's greed and lust for power.
> 
> Furthermore


If the Pope did not have authority over the other patriarchs then how do you explain cases where Pope Victor excommunicated the Bishops of Asia Minor and while many Bishops criticized this action, none of them claimed that he didn’t have the authority to excommunicate. 

This quote from Saint Cyprian of Carthage says that the Church has a single chair given to the apostle Peter. If the Apostles were equal, then there would be multiple chairs. 


> On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [_cathedra_], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.


----------



## Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost (Jun 30, 2019)

@Basil II Is it just me or is the trolling on the website becoming more sophisticated?


----------



## Basil II (Jun 30, 2019)

Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost said:


> @Basil II Is it just me or is the trolling on the website becoming more sophisticated?


I don't think this is a troll tbh, a troll would be someone like @Ron /pol/, OP is an actual lolcow. You can tell by his posting style and obsession, how this could be called trolling is beyond me. No one is really angry and he's just making himself look like a fool.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 1, 2019)

Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost said:


> @Basil II Is it just me or is the trolling on the website becoming more sophisticated?


If Jacob is a troll, he's up there with Jace when it comes to long-cons.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 1, 2019)

Here is logical reasoning that leads one to conclude that Christianity is true.

Jesus is uniquely the only messiah claimant to claim to be the son of God. If Jesus was not the son of God, why would he say something so controversial that would cause many Jews to reject him? If he was a fraud trying to gain followers, he would also try to rebel against the Roman Empire to get Jews to believe he is the messiah. However he did not. 

If Jesus was not the messiah who established a new covenant, why would the early Christian Jews want to include Gentiles into their religion if they were raised thinking that they were the chosen people?


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jul 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Here is logical reasoning that leads one to conclude that Christianity is true.
> 
> Jesus is uniquely the only messiah claimant to claim to be the son of God. If Jesus was not the son of God, why would he say something so controversial that would cause many Jews to reject him? If he was a fraud trying to gain followers, he would also try to rebel against the Roman Empire to get Jews to believe he is the messiah. However he did not.
> 
> If Jesus was not the messiah who established a new covenant, why would the early Christian Jews want to include Gentiles into their religion if they were raised thinking that they were the chosen people?


Pretty sure if you go to any reputable loony bin you'll find quite the collection of folks claiming to be the son of God

To quote the great Mark Knopfler, "two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong"


----------



## DidYouJustSayThat (Jul 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> If Jesus was not the messiah who established a new covenant, why would the early Christian Jews want to include Gentiles into their religion if they were raised thinking that they were the chosen people?



To ban usury for the goyim and have banking monopoly. The Christianity is the oldest gay op. Open your eyes sheeple.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 2, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> Pretty sure if you go to any reputable loony bin you'll find quite the collection of folks claiming to be the son of God
> 
> To quote the great Mark Knopfler, "two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong"


While many people in ancient times claimed to be demigods, Jesus was the first man to claim to be the son of God and a part of the trinity of God at the same time. The later claimants are copycats.



DidYouJustSayThat said:


> To ban usury for the goyim and have banking monopoly. The Christianity is the oldest gay op. Open your eyes sheeple.


History shows your conspiracy theory is wrong. Christian nations banned usury for everybody including the Jews and in nations like England, when many Jews violated the usury laws, they were banished. I’m not antisemitic because I am not blaming all Jews and I know that there are many goyim bankers too.


----------



## DidYouJustSayThat (Jul 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> History shows your conspiracy theory is wrong. Christian nations banned usury for everybody including the Jews and in nations like England, when many Jews violated the usury laws, they were banished. I’m not antisemitic because I am not blaming all Jews and I know that there are many goyim bankers too.


The eternal anglo strikes again. This was obviously a long con.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 2, 2019)

horsemeat69 said:


> Genuine question to OP. I say this as an ex Catholic. If you could answer this in a way which resonates with me, then you will not have wasted your time responding to this post. As of now I believe "reading the Bible" and following it/ a Pastor Anderson type interpretation is most correct
> The dilemma is why do Catholics outright choose to break so Biblical laws?


And I will explain that Catholics are not breaking biblical laws.


> - The Bible says bishops SHOULD marry, with the logic being if a man cant rule his own household, how can he rule the house of God? The Catholic church insists they shouldnt and should remain celibate.


First of all, clerical celibacy is not dogma but a disciplinary rule in the Latin Rite. The Eastern Rite Catholics which are in communion with the Pope allow for married men to become clergy.

Second Titus 1:6 is saying that married priests should be married to only 1 wife. It does not forbid celibacy, as the Apostle Paul never married.


> - The Bible says "call no man your father apart from your Father in heaven", and you guys insist on calling priests "father"


You have taken Matthew 23:9 out of context. Here is a Catholic refutation to your claim. https://www.catholic.com/tract/call-no-man-father


> - The Bible explicitly says not to bow to statues nor pray to them, yet you fill your churches with statues and pray to them


Another verse taken out of context. https://www.catholic.com/tract/do-catholics-worship-statues

- The Bible says not to engage in repetitive prayer, yet all prayer in Catholic churches is just regurgitation and repetition
[/QUOTE]








						Do Catholics Pray “Vain Repetitions?”
					

When Jesus condemned praying




					www.catholic.com
				




I pray that my response will help you come to your senses and repent of your heresy. Remember that the Bible says that Jesus told Peter that he is the rock upon which the church will be built and gave him the keys of heaven.

As Fagatron said, the Catholic Church is much more ancient and closer to the original source than Protestants. Many Protestants believe in unbiblical nonsense such as a pre-tribulation rapture which was taught in the 1800s.

The pastor you mentioned Steven Anderson is a wicked false teacher who foolishly believes that a bible translation from 1611 is the true bible and he preaches hatred against homosexuals violating Christ’s command to love the sinner but hate the sin.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 2, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> As Fagatron said, the Catholic Church is much more ancient and closer to the original source than Protestants. Many Protestants believe in unbiblical nonsense such as a pre-tribulation rapture which was taught in the 1800s.


I love this site.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 5, 2019)

Here is more proof that Catholicism is true. 


> In 1868, St. John Bosco claimed to have had a dream about hell. His full narration is fairly long, so here is just a short excerpt:
> 
> “As soon as I crossed its threshold, I felt an indescribable terror and dared not take another step. Ahead of me I could see something like an immense cave which gradually disappeared into recesses sunk far into the bowels of the mountains. They were all ablaze, but theirs was not an earthly fire with leaping tongues of flames. The entire cave – walls, ceiling, floor, iron, stones, wood, and coal – everything was a glowing white at temperatures of thousands of degrees. Yet the fire did not incinerate, did not consume. I simply can’t find words to describe the cavern’s horror. […]
> 
> ...


It can’t just be a dream because dreams don’t cause people to wake up with a stinging swollen hand that causes skin to peal off. And if you accuse him of lying, here is proof from Wikipedia that he was to noble a person to lie.


> While working in Turin, where the population suffered many of the effects of industrialization and urbanization, he dedicated his life to the betterment and education of street children, juvenile delinquents, and other disadvantaged youth. He developed teaching methods based on love rather than punishment, a method that became known as the Salesian Preventive System.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jul 5, 2019)

Yeah, people that do stuff to help children never lie about anyth....


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 5, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> Yeah, people that do stuff to help children never lie about anyth....
> View attachment 828664


Why do you accuse St. John Bosco of molesting children without having any evidence to back it up? Since there is no evidence he did that, we have to conclude that he helped children out of the kindness of his heart.


----------



## Caesare (Jul 5, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> Yeah, people that do stuff to help children never lie about anyth....
> View attachment 828664



It's honorable and virtuous to help children, which is what makes pedophiles like Sandusky particularly vile, using charity as bait to victimize the vulnerable and innocent. 

You're comparing everyone who genuinely wants to help the young to the predators who deliberately put themselves in positions where they can abuse them, which is morbid and reetarded. 



horsemeat69 said:


> - The Bible explicitly says not to bow to statues nor pray to them, yet you fill your churches with statues and pray to them



Nobody does this. Are you sure you aren't a Protestant pretending to be a Roman Catholic? I never understood how Protestants equated having statues around in a church or in your home to people bowing and worshipping an inanimate statue. I know Protestants aren't that dense. I always figured that they were being willfully ignorant in this particular situation.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 5, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Here is more proof that Catholicism is true.
> 
> It can’t just be a dream because dreams don’t cause people to wake up with a stinging swollen hand that causes skin to peal off. And if you accuse him of lying, here is proof from Wikipedia that he was to noble a person to lie.


Noble people still have the capacity to do terrible things.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 5, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Noble people still have the capacity to do terrible things.


But what would be his motive to lie about a dream about hell?

Also since your Catholic, you should be helping me convert people here instead of trying to refute my arguments.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 5, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> But what would be his motive to lie about a dream about hell?
> 
> Also since your Catholic, you should be helping me convert people here instead of trying to refute my arguments.


1. The same reason that a parent might invent some kind of absurd story to illustrate a moral to children, and then claim it to be true; the infamous "noble lie".
2. You are not a Catholic.  I've pointed out your doctrinal errors and heresy time and again, and you ignore it every time.
3. If a man comes to the Church through flawed arguments and empty sophistry, it pollutes his understanding of God's love and serves as an obstacle in their salvation.  I would rather have one man come to truly believe through sound argument and a change of heart, rather than one hundred men pay lip service to the Church through empty polemic and demented reasoning.  The fact that you cannot differentiate between the two is almost as pathetic as the fact that you think the sacred laws of God come second to your desire to overthrow the governments of Europe and cause calumny across the world to satisfy your autism.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 5, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. The same reason that a parent might invent some kind of absurd story to illustrate a moral to children, and then claim it to be true; the infamous "noble lie".
> 2. You are not a Catholic.  I've pointed out your doctrinal errors and heresy time and again, and you ignore it every time.
> 3. If a man comes to the Church through flawed arguments and empty sophistry, it pollutes his understanding of God's love and serves as an obstacle in their salvation.  I would rather have one man come to truly believe through sound argument and a change of heart, rather than one hundred men pay lip service to the Church through empty polemic and demented reasoning.  The fact that you cannot differentiate between the two is almost as pathetic as the fact that you think the sacred laws of God come second to your desire to overthrow the governments of Europe and cause calumny across the world to satisfy your autism.


1. But it is Catholic doctrine that lying is a sin so St. John Bosco would have known that his attempt 
2. Remember that I said I repented for my errors after the Bruins lost the Stanley Cup. I now understand that the Great Monarch of prophecy and end times will come when God decrees. 
3. But warning people about hell is a crucial step in saving people from going there. Jesus warned about hell and died to save us from it.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 5, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> 1. But it is Catholic doctrine that lying is a sin so St. John Bosco would have known that his attempt
> 2. Remember that I said I repented for my errors after the Bruins lost the Stanley Cup. I now understand that the Great Monarch of prophecy and end times will come when God decrees.
> 3. But warning people about hell is a crucial step in saving people from going there. Jesus warned about hell and died to save us from it.


1. Saints were not infallible in life; often quite the opposite.  Remember St. Dismas, who repented on the right hand of Christ, and St. Thomas, who did not believe until he saw.  Even St. Peter, the father of the Church, denied Christ in his time.
2. I forgot about that.  
3. Following the commandments because you fear damnation is not having faith, just as living in the confines of the law alone does not make you a good person.  Saying "Obey the Church or face damnation" is the rhetoric you use to convert a recalcitrant child, not an adult with the full power of reason.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 5, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Following the commandments because you fear damnation is not having faith, just as living in the confines of the law alone does not make you a good person.  Saying "Obey the Church or face damnation" is the rhetoric you use to convert a recalcitrant child, not an adult with the full power of reason.


It is true that God cares about what is in our heart. However there are commandment that even the most good hearted would not follow if they did not fear punishment for it. Good examples are the many sexual sins. The Bible commands us to fear God. In Our Lady of Fatima which is officially recognized by the Church, the Virgin Mary gave a vision of hell to warn not only the visionaries, but the world of God’s wrath.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 5, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> It is true that God cares about what is in our heart. However there are commandment that even the most good hearted would not follow if they did not fear punishment for it. Good examples are the many sexual sins. The Bible commands us to fear God. In Our Lady of Fatima which is officially recognized by the Church, the Virgin Mary gave a vision of hell to warn not only the visionaries, but the world of God’s wrath.


The root word in Hebrew means "respect", not "be scared of".  
And the only commandments that matter are "Love the Lord with all your heart" and "Love your neighbor as yourself".  These statements are highest of all moral commands.  It shows no love for your neighbor to constantly harangue him with threats of damnation, any more than a parent constantly threatening their child with beatings would be said to love them; even if the threats had noble motivation.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 6, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> The root word in Hebrew means "respect", not "be scared of".
> And the only commandments that matter are "Love the Lord with all your heart" and "Love your neighbor as yourself".  These statements are highest of all moral commands.  It shows no love for your neighbor to constantly harangue him with threats of damnation, any more than a parent constantly threatening their child with beatings would be said to love them; even if the threats had noble motivation.


It is a great act of love for a neighbor to warn them of a real danger such as if they are at risk of a heart attack. Hell is the greatest danger of all.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 6, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> It is a great act of love for a neighbor to warn them of a real danger such as if they are at risk of a heart attack. Hell is the greatest danger of all.


Spoken like a true e-theologian.  Please, continue with your mission.  See how many converts you win by quoting CatholicAnswers.com boilerplate.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 9, 2019)

I mentioned this on my first thread, but it is also appropriate to mention it here since it is proof of Christianity. Here is a video that shows 10 different ouija board incidents caught on tape that show evidence of demons and damned souls being summoned. The last one at 14:56 is the scariest. How do you explain what happened to those schoolchildren in Peru? 

The fact that Catholic priests do the best job at driving out demons proves that Catholicism is the correct Christian denomination.









						10 Ouija Board Possessions Caught on Tape
					

TWITTER: https://twitter.com/YT_Chills INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/dylan_is_chillin_yt Subscribe Here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN64HIrZNqFQ...




					m.youtube.com


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 9, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I mentioned this on my first thread, but it is also appropriate to mention it here since it is proof of Christianity. Here is a video that shows 10 different ouija board incidents caught on tape that show evidence of demons and damned souls being summoned. The last one at 14:56 is the scariest. How do you explain what happened to those schoolchildren in Peru?
> 
> The fact that Catholic priests do the best job at driving out demons proves that Catholicism is the correct Christian denomination.
> 
> ...


Holy shit dude.  You are literally as gullible as an 8-year old.
For reference, Chills is a shitty YouTuber whose content is mostly clickbait along the lines of "12 most HORRIFYING 3AM Facetimes that LITERALLY MADE YOUTUBERS SHIT THEIR PANTS!"  He is also a "rapper":


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 9, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Holy shit dude.  You are literally as gullible as an 8-year old.
> For reference, Chills is a shitty YouTuber whose content is mostly clickbait along the lines of "12 most HORRIFYING 3AM Facetimes that LITERALLY MADE YOUTUBERS SHIT THEIR PANTS!"  He is also a "rapper":


Just because the YouTuber is shitty, doesn’t mean that all the footage he shows is. How do you explain the footage of the schoolchildren in Peru? Here is another source about the incident. https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/09/ouija-board-closes-peruvian-school-for-a-week/


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 9, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Just because the YouTuber is shitty, doesn’t mean that all the footage he shows is. How do you explain the footage of the schoolchildren in Peru? Here is another source about the incident. https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/09/ouija-board-closes-peruvian-school-for-a-week/


Other articles from the same site.
*New HD Video Of The Famous Bigfoot Sighting In 1967 Provides Even More Details*
*Woman Faints At Haunted Museum After Being Touched By Mysterious Orb*
*The “Fake” Roswell Alien Autopsy Video May Have Been Real*

But sure, just because the source has a reputation for posting wild conspiracy theories and outright hoaxes doesn't mean it's not reliable or anything.
As for the Peruvian schoolchildren: mass hysteria.  The very article the site links to characterizes it as exactly that.  By this logic, the Mad Gasser of Mattoon was real as well.
Thirdly: plenty of other faiths besides Christianity believe that spirit boards can contact dark forces: Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Shinto all have similar beliefs.  So even _if_ we accepted your premise that a commercial product made to replicate a primitive form of divination and cash in on the spiritualism craze had dark powers, it would still be a very weak argument for Christianity being the truth, much less Catholic Christianity.  Once again, your evangelism is on about the level of a heavily concussed Pat Robertson.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 10, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Other articles from the same site.
> *New HD Video Of The Famous Bigfoot Sighting In 1967 Provides Even More Details*
> *Woman Faints At Haunted Museum After Being Touched By Mysterious Orb*
> *The “Fake” Roswell Alien Autopsy Video May Have Been Real*
> ...


The article speculates that it could be mass hysteria but it does not make any conclusions. And it is theorized that the symptoms caused in Mattoon was caused by toxic waste from industrial plants. 

The fact that demons fear holy water and priests can drive out demons in the name of Christ indicates that Catholicism is the true religion. Anyway, you said that your Catholic because you believe it is supported by evidence. If you don't believe that my evidence is sufficient, perhaps you can share the evidence that makes you believe, so that people can see the evidence and convert.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 10, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> The article speculates that it could be mass hysteria but it does not make any conclusions. And it is theorized that the symptoms caused in Mattoon was caused by toxic waste from industrial plants.
> 
> The fact that demons fear holy water and priests can drive out demons in the name of Christ indicates that Catholicism is the true religion. Anyway, you said that your Catholic because you believe it is supported by evidence. If you don't believe that my evidence is sufficient, perhaps you can share the evidence that makes you believe, so that people can see the evidence and convert.


1. Alternative theories state that demons just fear sincere faith in _anything.  _If you apply the kind of rigor you're using, sage and chanting sutras also drive out demons.  Once again, this doesn't prove anything.
2. I never said that; I said that, going by reason, _Buddhism _is the "true" faith, because Buddhist metaphysics claim that extraordinary physical abilities are unlock on the path to enlightenment, and said extraordinary physical abilities (such as the ability to regulate one's heart rate, body temperature, and autonomic reactions consciously) have been scientifically documented in Buddhist monks.  My reasons for being Catholic are because of family tradition, and because of reasons which are very personal to me and which I am not going to share on an internet forum.  
In addition, I don't believe in the kind of tawdry side-show evangelism you practice; it cheapens the faith.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 14, 2019)

Here is the end times story I wrote. 






						Jacob Harrison’s version of Parallel Hero
					

Jacob Harrison’s version of Parallel Hero




					forums.fstdt.net


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 14, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Here is the end times story I wrote.



Chapter 1

How the fucking hell did you manage to overdose on religion while watching The Dead Zone?

Fuck this thread, I'm Let's Reading this whole thing. Strap yourselves in assholes.

Chapter 1 World War III

Ugh, why did I decide to do this? Formatting this is going to be a massive bitch.



Jacob Harrison said:


> “On the night before November 22, 2019, the 56th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Donald Trump had a dream where he saw Kennedy who said,
> 
> “It is the will of God that you became President to protect Christian’s rights in America and to stop the murder of infants.”



Yeah, sure. The missiles are flying. Hallelujah.



Jacob Harrison said:


> Everyone during their life sins. Like you, I committed adultery. I repented. So God sent me to tell you to repent as well and come into the true faith.



Did your literal fiancée post this article for you or was that some kind of deranged flowery language for your alt account?



Jacob Harrison said:


> This caused Trump to have an epiphany that Catholicism is the true faith. He therefore realized that divorce is a sin. So when he converted, a church tribunal did a ruling of his marriages. They ruled first marriage to Ivana to be null because she previously divorced. They ruled that his second marriage to Marla Maples was the valid marriage so his third marriage to Melania was therefore null. Donald and Melania were therefore given the option to separate or live as brother and sister. They choose the later so that Melania could continue being the First Lady.



As dumb as this is, this is completely in character with the highly arbitrary nature of the church’s annulment rulings. By the way, Iran is at war with us.



Jacob Harrison said:


> Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Arab nations immediately joined the US in the war against Iran. Israel which was in conflict with the Iranian supported terrorist organization Hezbollah was pulled into the war.



I’m pretty sure it would mostly be Saudi Arabia and Israel who would be the first to leap to war, but even then I’m sure Saudi Arabia just sit on their hands and let us operate as the attack dog. Also, why is the hell would Oman, the UAE, Qatar or Bahrain possibly want to join this war? Kuwait at least borders Iran and Iraq is our melted puppet state but I’m pretty sure the little guys would want to stay out of an apocalyptic conflict like this.



Jacob Harrison said:


> Iran’s allies Russia and China intervened to defend Iran. Ukraine took advantage of Russia being in war and invaded the Crimean Peninsula. Ukraine’s ally Poland joined the war on Ukraine’s side. This caused other NATO countries to join the war. It was World War III.



Oh Lord. Last I checked neither of these countries are explicitly allied with Iran, and I will absolutely eat my hat if Russia and China ever cooperate on a damn thing. I’d put more money on one or the other throwing in against Iran to destroy it as much as possible and deny it to the enemy. Also, is Ukraine even in enough of one piece to actually start a war at this point? I rather doubt Poland has the clout to drag NATO unilaterally into the war, and on top of that I’m sure NATO would honeycomb with various countries that want to sit this one out for one reason or another. Freedom Fries would be back on the menu for sure.



Jacob Harrison said:


> Meanwhile, as many European cities including Rome were hit with air raids, Pope Pius XIII fled Rome and died soon afterward, fulfilling prophecy.



I severely doubt the United States and especially Russia have anything resembling the full nuclear capabilities they had at the height of the Cold War. Any general nuclear exchange would cause a lot of death and destruction but I don’t really see Russia wasting their functional stockpile on parts of Europe when we don’t live in a Fuldapocalypse world anymore.



Jacob Harrison said:


> This led to nuclear weapons to be used on all sides. Washington DC, many European countries, Russia, China, North and South Korea, India, and Pakistan ended up getting nuked. Turkey which had nuclear weapons from NATO, was able to blackmail non Muslim countries into submitting to their authority, and the Ottoman Empire was reestablished with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan declaring himself to be the Ottoman Caliph. Christians and other non Muslims became second class citizens under Sharia Law.



Kim Jong Un would be grinning like an idiot if this conflict happened since he would get to hold on to his nukes and just invade South Korea the old-fashioned way. North Korea has a tremendous stockpile of conventional weaponry and would want to save any atomic weapons they have for as long as possible.

I’m impressed at your knowledge of obscure conspiracy theories here. I’m aware of this idea that the Turks want to re-establish the Ottoman Empire, but the Middle East would resist them to the death and more likely we would see an abject disillusion of all of the Sykes-Picot Agreement borders. It would be every nation-state for itself and complete chaos. Turkey would tear some chunks off for sure, but they would never be able to establish dominance of the entire region. Also, dumbass, the Ottoman were ruled by Sultans and never had a Caliph. Otherwise they would have been the Ottoman Caliphate.

Also, any nuclear sites existing in Turkey (these were removed in the Cuban Missile Crisis mostly because they were expensive and obsolete Atlas short-range devices) would be designated for attack by Russia considering they are poised right on top of Russia’s vital oil and natural gas infrastructure next to the Caspian sea in the Caucasus region. Even if Turkey sent Russia some kind of message claiming they were going to break off from NATO and keep the nukes for themselves; Russia would never believe them and would obliterate those sites as well as potentially moving in to provide aid to Syria.



Jacob Harrison said:


> Jacob Harrison knew that one day the Turks will be defeated and Christianity would triumph. In the meantime, he had to postpone his college degree in order to get a job as a janitor to provide for his family. His wife was pregnant.



I’m pretty sure a general state of emergency would have been declared and martial law would be in effect for years if not decades even with a limited amount nuclear exchange. Additionally, if the Turks were to be defeated by Christianity, the still largely Orthodox Russia would have even further incentive to stomp the shit out of this upstart empire.



Jacob Harrison said:


> On January 1 2021, the feast day of the Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother if God when Jacob and Pomme’s child was almost due, there was a knock at the door. Jacob opened it. There was a young man who looked around Jacob’s age. Jacob had no idea who he was.



I sure hope that child isn’t suffering any residual effects from fallout or heavy metal exposure. Not to mention the possibility what things like malnutrition (rationing from a breakdown of transported goods) could inflict.



Jacob Harrison said:


> “Jacob Harrison. The Virgin Mary and Saint Joan of Arc has led me here. There are important matters for us to discuss,” said the man. He had a British accent.



I’m gonna lay down a bet here and presume it’s never explained how this guy got a flight out of Europe before the bombs dropped. I can think of the reasonable explanation that he was studying at a university or working abroad, but I’m still betting that the story will never mention it.

Also, your literal foreign Doppleganger has now appeared in the story to address your main character. This is self-insertception. As much as I want this to be a troll, I've skimmed ahead a little and there is some exceptional stuff in here.

Attaching a raw cut and paste of the text because Archive is fucking up on me. (Can you post shit without an account on Pastebin?)


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Jul 14, 2019)

Imagine feeling you have to justify your religion on Kiwi Farms of all fucking places.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 14, 2019)

Chapter 2 The Great Visitors

I wonder if I'll make it through all 12 chapters before I get completely shitfaced.



Jacob Harrison said:


> “I am Henry of South Cadbury England. I am descended from Louis XVII of France, the son of the Holy Martyrs Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. I am the prophesied King Henry of France that God revealed to Marie-Julie Jahenny.”



I had to look this one up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Julie_Jahenny This is a conspiracy theory based on the ranting of a crazy old lady in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Her predictions are mostly ridiculous or just stating the obvious (Gee, civil war in France? Just after the Franco-Prussian War and the Fall of France? You don’t say.)



Jacob Harrison said:


> I am the prophesied Great Monarch who will liberate Europe and restore fallen monarchies. As you know, after England’s last rightful king Richard II was overthrown, there was no legitimate male line Plantagenet heir who wasn’t excluded from the throne for being a traitor, so when I invade England and restore the rightful heirs to titles of nobility in England, the House of Commons and the House of Lords will elect me king. I will fulfill the prophecy of the one who will unite the lion with the white flower and will be given the sword Excalibur by the Lady of the Lake.
> 
> The other European kingdoms will elect me Holy Roman Emperor and I will be crowned by the Pope Peter II who was elected in exile after Pius XIII fled Rome.”



Uh, right then. This is like a shit Paradox mod given life. Those of you looking to collect evidence that this is an elaborate troll, you can chalk a point up on your side.



Jacob Harrison said:


> “I believe that. However how exactly will you win against the nation that has all the world’s nukes?” asked Jacob.



Good question. I presume God will supernaturally intervene. Surprisingly, we don't get the (direct) answer in this chapter. Our Catholicism sperg is capable of at least some suspense. 



Jacob Harrison said:


> “The Virgin Mary told me that you will start the chain of events that will fulfill the prophecy. First your wife must be taken to safety in my secret hideout. Your son that she will soon give birth to will one day become one of my Knights. You will preach about me.”
> 
> “That will get my husband arrested or even killed! You are a fraud trying to get that to happen to him so that you can take me as your wife!” shouted Pomme.
> 
> ...



This is just fucking stupid. Usually apparitions like this appear privately to certain chosen individuals, or they’ll appear at a desperate moment to intervene, or they’ll appear after the character being told the prophecy has expressed continuous doubts over a very long period of time and needs the ultimate proof. For the future Holy Roman Emperor, this tard must have zero charisma if he can’t even convince an already faithful man on his own and needs divine intervention at the first reasonable doubt expressed.

I’m aware he mentions that Joan of Arc (the apparition in question) led him there, but if she took the time to do that why didn’t she just do this all her damn self?



Jacob Harrison said:


> “Edward III made a peace treaty with France in 1360 when he renounced his claim to the French throne in exchange for getting the territory of Aquitaine. Then France violated the treaty in 1369 forcing Edward III to resume his claims.
> 
> In 1396, Richard II of England made a truce with France and was working towards a permanent peace. That would have happened, had Richard not been overthrown by his cousin who became the false king Henry IV.
> 
> Henry V of England violated the truce and resumed war and he committed atrocities in Rouen. So God chose me to help save France.”



This is all technically true but glosses over a very long and complicated conflict known as the FUCKING HUNDRED YEARS WAR. The very conflict that laid bare all of the massive flaws with the feudalistic way of running society. England experienced numerous rebellions and coup attempts during this period precisely because their generals and other nobles would take to the battlefield to settle personal disputes. This general chaos also often encouraged leaders to be opportunistic and seize power quite a bit like Henry IV did. These are flaws inherent in this system.

Henry V did rather opportunistically supercede the treaty and the fighting during this final phase of the war was some of the bloodiest Europe had ever seen. That much is correct, though it’s not like Edward III’s peace treaty at Brétigny was going to last. There were numerous border skirmishes and in general the Guyennese possessions of England were at a disadvantage compared to the far more populated and resource-rich realms of northern France. The French were going to try and retake those territories sooner or later and I’m sure Henry V took to war at least partly to pacify what he saw as a dangerous foe.



Jacob Harrison said:


> The apparition caused Pomme to immediately convert to Catholicism.
> 
> “I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior,” she said.



Those in favor of the trolling theory may want to take this one as evidence, but I dunno. I've met some real religious lunatics in my time. Anyway, in addition to this being stupid it leaves me confused. Why did our intrepid Catholic hero marry an infidel without first convincing her to convert?

So ends Chapter 2. I regret all the descisions I made to get me here. @Jacob Harrison your shit is so awful it makes me want to repent but simultaneously proves to me that there is no God.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 14, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> Chapter 2 The Great Visitors
> 
> I wonder if I'll make it through all 12 chapters before I get completely shitfaced.
> 
> ...


You may like the later chapters when my grandson Jacob III goes on a great adventure and the Battle of Armageddon happens.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 14, 2019)

Chapter 3 Prophecy Fulfilled



Jacob Harrison said:


> And so, Jacob made a YouTube video about the Great Monarch titled, The Great Monarch is coming.
> 
> “I was visited by the Great Monarch of Catholic prophecy and Saint Joan of Arc. He told me to make this video to start a chain of events that will fulfill the prophecy. Turkey is a nuclear superpower, but this YouTube video will miraculously lead to its fall. The Great Monarch will liberate America, Europe and the Holy Land and rebuild the Church of Hagia Sophia. All hail King Henry and Pope Peter II!”
> 
> The video became viral. Jacob was arrested and brought to the nearest base where he was interrogated. They attempted to get him to reveal the location of the secret hideout through torture. He did not give in, so he was executed. This will be important later in the story.



This, again, is where I demur on whether or not this is an elaborate troll. There are some real nutters out there who assume making a religious Youtube video go viral is somehow an easy feat. I’m pretty sure the algorithm is a tool of the devil. Flat-out breaking the narration and telling the audience “This will be important later in the story” would be an impressive touch for a troll though. That's much more a sign of inexperienced writing. 



Jacob Harrison said:


> Pomme gave birth to Jacob Harrison Jr. on January 20, 2021. The childbirth caused her to fall ill and since World War III caused a major loss in doctors and medical technology, she joined her husband in purgatory. Jacob Harrison Jr. was therefore adopted by the Great Monarch Henry.



This is the most exceptional soap opera I’ve ever read. Props to acknowledging that a fucking nuclear war would lead to an increased rate of death in childbirth. Meanwhile, Jacob Jr. is probably a tard baby due to the radiation. You're a Britfag or Britfag lover OP, you ever seen the movie Threads?




Jacob Harrison said:


> In 2034, General Zekai Aksakallı, a secret convert to Catholicism who was ordained into the clergy had his forces launch attacks destroying all of Turkey’s nuclear weapons which finally allowed the conquered Americans and Europeans to rebel.
> 
> Henry began the rebellion in America. He restored the United States and then his army crossed over into Europe. It was World War IV.



Wait, what the fuck? Yeah, in addition to conquering all of the Middle East, the Ottoman Not A Caliphate apparently instituted Eurabia and seized control of the USA. Even if this is a troll fic, step up your game man, you didn’t even mention the Fall of the USA other than “ww3 dun gone happened”. I wonder where largely Catholic South America is in all of this, you’d think Brazil would be having a field day Deus Vulting the Middle East.

Also worth noting that Zekai fellow is a real Turkish military commander who has been involved in recent conflicts. I feel like there’s an internet meme or conspiracy theory here that I’m not aware of, since I have no idea why he was picked to be the turncoat in particular.



Jacob Harrison said:


> He restored rightful monarchy in Europe and the rightful nobility in England and became King of France, England, and Holy Roman Emperor and was given Excalibur by the Lady of the Lake.



Really tedious repetitions like this are one of the things that makes me inclined to believe this is a sincere piece written by a person with dissociative problems. I see inexperienced writers unironically pull this shit all the time.



Jacob Harrison said:


> When Jacob Jr. turned 16, he began fighting in the battles, with the mystic sword Arondight given to him by the Lady of the Lake.



This is the sword of Lancelot according to legend, for the uninitiated. Before anyone gives this fic credit for that, be aware the sword shows up in everything from the Witcher universe to (surprise) Sonic the Hedgehog.

https://sonic.fandom.com/wiki/Arondight It has several spellings so I guess its telling that this one matches up. I’m starting to lean more towards this being a troll fic that I was too drunk to notice. Whatever, I’m still awake so let’s keep this up.



Jacob Harrison said:


> By 2038, Constantinople and the Holy Land were liberated. The Pope held the Third Vatican Council which repealed all the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and restored the Tridentine Mass. Jacob Harrison was also canonized as a Saint.
> 
> On April 22, 2038, Peter II died.
> 
> ...



Wow, as if everyone didn’t already have enough to worry about. You know, as an aspiring fantasy writer myself, this really makes me wish this pile of crap was a more serious take on the Jesus-empowered reincarnation of Fighting Jack Churchill hacking up demons, mutants and bandits with an enchanted medieval sword in a post-apocalyptic Europe. We get something like this later on. Its not as cool as it looked in my head.



Jacob Harrison said:


> On the morning after Easter, the sun finally rose again. It was the Age of Mary, an era of peace for the world. Saints Peter and Paul came down from heaven and chose Zekai Aksakallı as Pope Peter III. Then came the Fourth Vatican Council, the greatest ecumenical Council ever which defined every doctrine such as Limbo for unbaptized infants and gave the correct interpretations of scripture.



I presume he changed his name during his baptism. You’d think a Catholic would want to make more obvious note of that.



Jacob Harrison said:


> Jacob Harrison Jr. married in 2039 and had a daughter called Anne born on October 1 2039 and then a son called Jacob Harrison III born on July 13 2040.
> 
> Anne later became a nun and Jacob III became a knight.



I’m not really sure why we needed that timeskip but whatever. I want to cave and call this a well-done troll fic but there’s more of this tardedness to come.


----------



## KittyGremlin (Jul 14, 2019)

Always thought this guy was exceptional, but not THIS goddamn exceptional. And if this is a troll, thanks for the entertainment.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 14, 2019)

Chapter 4 Jeopardy of a Fellow

Ugh God what the fuck am I doing with my life. We have a change of pace here though. One would think OP would have rather wanted to write a fantasy setting than whatever that abomination above was.

I’m going to be really tone-deaf to troll fic elements here if there are any since I was not a Final Fantasy or Kingdom Hearts kid at all. If there are a bunch of JRPG memes I’m going to miss like, almost all of then.



Jacob Harrison said:


> It was morning on April 26, 2063, the 25th anniversary of the beginning of the Age of Peace. The 22 year old Knight Jacob Harrison III, the holder of the mystic sword Arondight was in the gardens of the Great Monarch’s palace in Constantinople picking vegetables as there was barely any wars in this age.
> 
> There he saw a small humanoid with wings flying about the garden.
> 
> Jacob III had never seen a fairy before, but he knew well enough to know this was one of them. "Little fairy, what are you doing out here?"



I liked the idea of a post-apocalyptic movie filled with demons and fantasy creatures more when it was called Wizards.



Jacob Harrison said:


> Jacob III had never seen a fairy before, but he knew well enough to know this was one of them. "Little fairy, what are you doing out here?"
> 
> The fairy flew over to him. "It's terrible Mr. Knight! The Fairies have been attacked in our forest by the old god Pales, who wants to harvest our energy to return him to prominence!"
> 
> “Old God? There is no god but Yahweh,” replied Jacob III.



Right dipshit, and fairies are mentioned all the time in the Bible. Then again, this is a Catholic wank setting. Jacob III probably isn’t allowed to read the Bible himself. Also, aren’t those things extremely bad news to dick around with in traditional folklore? If I had to accept the light for any reason it’d probably be so some monster doesn’t turn my kid into a goblin when they’re out playing in the woods.

Pales is an obscure Roman deity relating to shepherding.



Jacob Harrison said:


> I will clarify,” said the fairy. “The old gods are not real gods. They are powerful shape-shifting aliens who got ancient peoples in your world to worship them which gives them psychic energy. They lost their prominence in your world when monotheism spread.”
> 
> "Can you bring me to this forest of yours? I'd like to help you fight off Pales!" Jacob III said with a smile.
> 
> The fairy took great heart of this, and motioned in front of him, creating a larger than normal gateway, "A long time ago, we brought our sacred forest into another dimension, for safe keeping! Please don't tell anyone here about it..."



Don’t do it bro, I know how these stories end. Also, aliens? Really? I was under the impression traditional religion and theories of alien life weren’t supposed to mix. I’m aware there was that offhand comment by some Pope or other than if the human race discovered alien life they’d be happy to go forth and blesserize them but I figured that was just made out of politeness.



Jacob Harrison said:


> Jacob III replied, "You have my word, my lips are sealed."
> 
> The fairy danced about in the air, and said, "Ohh thank you so much Mr. Knight! Tamerin is going to be sooo happy!"
> 
> ...



We get a break here. Truthfully the story could probably use more of them, it’s an unfocused mess. Also, missed opportunity to swap out an obviously sci-fi term for a more fantastic one like Fairy Ring.



Jacob Harrison said:


> In the Fairy Forest, Jacob III was immediately assaulted by the smell of burning wood. Numerous large humanoid creatures were carrying around torches, the trees here burning, but never quite ending up totally destroyed or damaged beyond repair.
> 
> Jacob III did not even listen to the cries of the fairy to be careful, splitting one of these vile marauders in two in one swing of Arondight.
> 
> ...



Dude, your Dad lived through an era where demons smote 3/4ths of the population. Jacob III should have shouted out something like “Begone Satan!” before hacking away, that would have been a much less idiotic way to trigger this exposition. Besides, the fairy already told him Pales was from a race of aliens (assuming Jacob III even understands the idea of life on other worlds. Or heliocentrism).

I’m pretty sure the story is really beneath a twist like this, but if I were writing something like this I’d absolutely have the fairies be deserving of getting their shit set on fire and the friendly one is just using our human chump here as muscle. I’ll give a round of applause if this occurs later.



Jacob Harrison said:


> The fairy answered, "Pales brought those things with him. He called them Lesser Titans - he ordered them to burn the forest...I've...I've never seen anyone handle them as well as you did."
> 
> There was a sound of blades clashing, and Jacob III immediately ran off to the sounds of fighting, seeing a young boy fending off easily five of the Lesser Titans, these ones wielding blades instead of mere torches.
> 
> ...



This is what I mean about the JRPG shit. I have zero idea if this is an obvious lift from some weeb shit. It sounds like weeb shit to me. The vague term “Lesser Titans” also sounds like weeb shit, since these minions are already quite different from the Greek depiction. They also sound like they suck at fighting if this weeb kid can hold off five of them with a random drop from Monster Hunter with very mild wounds.



Jacob Harrison said:


> When one of the Lesser Titans slipped through, Jacob III acted, quick as lightning - sending a bolt straight from his sword at the Lesser Titan, frying the monster on contact. Moving through the new opening, the boy and Jacob III put their backs up against one another, and asked, "Mind telling me how you do that trick with the spear?"



Look, either have the dude act as quick as lightning and pounce in, or have him just use the lightning bolt attack. Taken literally, saying he acted as quick as lightning using his lightning bolt is like a bad pun. Score another one for the troll counter. Also, come on, I don’t remember an enchanted blade in Christian mythology being able to fire lightning bolts. Hell, our hero has God on his side. How about he can use the sword to say, call down lightning from the sky instead. A lot more dramatic and Biblical that way.



Jacob Harrison said:


> The boy ruminated aloud, "...don't think you're one of the fairies, guess Miru brought a Knight in. How about I tell you after we fight off these clunkers?"
> 
> Jacob III simply nodded and fended off a swing from one of the Titans, followed by the sword spear flying in and slicing through the Lesser Titan.
> 
> ...



This is a mildly competent attempt at a fight scene I suppose. It’s very showy though, and says less about the skill of the character and more about the abilities of the weapon. Pretty common stumbling point. The idea of a weapon having a healing component may sound overpowered, but I don’t immediately hate it. Kind of reminds me of survival knives that have a compartment in the handle where you can store a pinch of extra supplies. Its again very showy though.

Also, did anyone catch that? Clunkers. So are these things mechanical or what?

Jacob is taking this in rather well for a guy who is supposed to believe there’s no God but Yahweh and that magic isn’t real. Yes, I’m fully aware of decades of rumination from the likes of people like Tolkien, CS Lewis and even GK Chesterton on the idea of Christianity and fantasy elements being compatible, but here it’s so blatant that you’d expect Jacob III to be at least a little standoffish about the origin of this stranger’s powers.



Jacob Harrison said:


> The boy promptly brought his weapon over to him, and stated, "Well, fighting those things off proves you're not one of Pales' goons. Little Miru probably mentioned me - I'm Tamerin, the current Fairy King."
> 
> Jacob III looked the younger man up and down - he barely looked fourteen, and a small bemused look came to his face, "...Pretty short for a King..."



Wow, what a dick. Given the average size of a fairy, I’m impressed their King isn’t small enough to fit in a breadbox. I checked up on those two names briefly. Didn’t find anything right away. Again, I smell weeb shit, but I guess I’m gonna have to stop harping on that. Clearly the author has a vision here



Jacob Harrison said:


> Tamerin glowered at him, "I could still hit my growth spurt! Don't laugh!...haah...dammit." He then sighed, and looked around, "...much as I'd like to settle that matter, we have to focus on defeating Pales."
> 
> Jacob III nodded - for a little guy, he could definitely respect Tamerin's tenacity and dedication to his people. "...then let's continue, Tam. Speaking of names, my name's Jacob Harrison III the grandson of Saint Jacob Harrison."
> 
> ...



Could have had a scene of them walking through the woods. Show us the devastation maybe? Give us some exposition on how things got so bad if Tamerin is such a dangerous opponent? No? Fine then, how about a little recon? This is the base camp of a set of alien minions. What kind of weird defenses do they have? Do they have any symbols? Is the camp laid out and organized perfectly because they have no will of their own? Is this just an outpost or something a lot bigger? If this even worth attacking? A little more detail perhaps?



Jacob Harrison said:


> The two then charged in as the Lesser Titans rushed at them.



Guess not.



Jacob Harrison said:


> Jacob III accentuated his movement with lightning, slashing and crashing through the numerous Lesser Titans, his sword at every impact setting loose the crash of thunder. He let loose a tremendous hammer of lightning down on a whole group of the Lesser Titans, constantly moving out of their reach just moments before an attack would connect.
> 
> Tam had a few more problems with them - he needed to keep them off of him, owing to the fact he did not have such armor or abilities. He cursed under his breath and sliced through two of the Lesser Titans, followed by skewering one coming for him from behind right through the spinal column.
> 
> Turning his spear into its eighty darts form let him form what amounted to a flying swarm of blades, cutting down more of the Lesser Titans, but this had its obvious downsides. He needed to call it back together to defend him from another sword swing from a Lesser Titan.



It seems Jacob can indeed call down lightning with his sword. Admittedly the idea of there being a thunderclap every time the sword connects a blow is a lot more entertaining than it just being another sword that can shoot beams like its bloody Zelda or something.

Is there a particular reason why a lethal field of flechettes around you isn’t infinitely more useful than just a sword, Tam? The scene makes a big deal about Tamerin being poorly armored and ill-equipped, but you’d think he wouldn’t need much else if his enemies can’t close in on him anyway. Could have solved this by inserting a line about how the flechettes aren’t strong enough to kill the Titans, but it clearly says he cuts a few down as they try to gang up on him. Why can’t he just keep the field up the whole time during battle? Does he need a mana potion? Does the thing need batteries?



Jacob Harrison said:


> Finally though, he cut through the last few on his end, and noted it seemed Jacob III got done a bit faster.
> 
> All that remained now, it seemed...was Pales, in one of the clearings just past that little encampment.



So evidently this encampment was everything the enemy had. The battle could have been a little more exciting if the camp had some geography our heroes had to maneuver around, unless it’s literally just a bunch of enemies sitting around a camp fire roasting a pig or something. We’ll never know, because we never had an idea of what the camp looked like in the first place.

This bit was written completely differently from the rest. Either this is what OP wanted to write in the first place, or this is lifted from some bad fan-fiction site somewhere. Pretty dick move if it’s the latter. But at the same time, I have no better explanation for why a story about the End Times suddenly decides to cut to weeb fanfiction out of nowhere. @Jacob Harrison might want to interject here otherwise I'm probably gonna admit that I got trolled and slink off.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 14, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> Chapter 4 Jeopardy of a Fellow
> 
> Ugh God what the fuck am I doing with my life. We have a change of pace here though. One would think OP would have rather wanted to write a fantasy setting than whatever that abomination above was.
> 
> ...


I admit that this chapter is written differently because it was borrowed from another person's story where I only changed the name of the knight to Jacob III. This is because my story is a revision of his story because I discovered that his version is offensive to God because his version is based off of the blasphemous video game SMT IV Apocalypse.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 14, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I admit that this chapter is written differently because it was borrowed from another person's story where I only changed the name of the knight to Jacob III. This is because my story is a revision of his story because I discovered that his version is offensive to God because his version is based off of the blasphemous video game SMT IV Apocalypse.



Well played, I concede to your trolling. RIP to the poor unsuspecting bastard who's story I was unwittingly critiquing. I'm done here Kiwis, i know it was just getting good, but I'm not gonna be a dick and shit on what is obviously some ten year old's unrelated weeb fiction.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 14, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> Well played, I concede to your trolling. RIP to the poor unsuspecting bastard who's story I was unwittingly critiquing. I'm done here Kiwis, i know it was just getting good, but I'm not gonna be a dick and shit on what is obviously some ten year old's unrelated weeb fiction.


The thing is, the person who wrote the original story on Fstdt Forums wrote it for the purpose of pissing on me. He didn't finish his story but he was planning to have me as a character and have bad things happen to me. You don't have to worry about shitting on him because he is a 28 year old guy who brags about being a macho sexy chad who has sex with many women including cheating wives. Besides, only chapters 4, 5, and 6 are completely copied from his version.


----------



## FitBitch (Jul 14, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> Well played, I concede to your trolling. RIP to the poor unsuspecting bastard who's story I was unwittingly critiquing. I'm done here Kiwis, i know it was just getting good, but I'm not gonna be a dick and shit on what is obviously some ten year old's unrelated weeb fiction.


You tried, that's all we could ask for.


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 14, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> The thing is, the person who wrote the original story on Fstdt Forums wrote it for the purpose of pissing on me. He didn't finish his story but he was planning to have me as a character and have bad things happen to me. You don't have to worry about shitting on him because he is a 28 year old guy who brags about being a macho sexy chad who has sex with many women including cheating wives. Besides, only chapters 4, 5, and 6 are completely copied from his version.



Is he the one currently also attempting a Lets Read on the FSTDT forums?


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 14, 2019)

Locomotive Derangement said:


> Is he the one currently also attempting a Lets Read on the FSTDT forums?


No, his username is Niam2023 and you will see the chapters of his version on the bottom of this page. https://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?board=9.0


----------



## Slap47 (Jul 14, 2019)

DidYouJustSayThat said:


> To ban usury for the goyim and have banking monopoly. The Christianity is the oldest gay op. Open your eyes sheeple.



Usury was frowned upon by the Romans and tat belief was inherited by modern Christianity.


----------



## FitBitch (Jul 14, 2019)

@Jacob Harrison I stumbled upon this thread today and I couldn't help but notice most of your "proof" that Catholicism is the true faith comes from large groups of people beginning to behave differently than expected because of an event. I have to wonder if you've cross-examined your evidence with other instences of hysteria religious or not, and seen that they were similar? (I.e. the Salem Witch Trials or the Dancing Plague of 1518 ). You can believe whatever you want I generally stay out of people's business about that but if you want to convert a group of people, using evidence that has examples outside of Catholicism is a really poor way to be convincing.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 14, 2019)

FitBitch said:


> @Jacob Harrison I stumbled upon this thread today and I couldn't help but notice most of your "proof" that Catholicism is the true faith comes from large groups of people beginning to behave differently than expected because of an event. I have to wonder if you've cross-examined your evidence with other instences of hysteria religious or not, and seen that they were similar? (I.e. the Salem Witch Trials or the Dancing Plague of 1518 ). You can believe whatever you want I generally stay out of people's business about that but if you want to convert a group of people, using evidence that has examples outside of Catholicism is a really poor way to be convincing.


That is a good point, but cases of mass hysteria did not cause people in a region to change religions like in the incident in Silvuna Lithuania when the Virgin Mary converted a Protestant town to Catholicism.


----------



## FitBitch (Jul 14, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> That is a good point, but cases of mass hysteria did not cause people in a region to change religions like in the incident in Silvuna Lithuania when the Virgin Mary converted a Protestant town to Catholicism.


Oh you're one of those...


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 14, 2019)

FitBitch said:


> Oh you're one of those...


those what?


----------



## UQ 770 (Jul 14, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> those what?



He's at it again.


----------



## FitBitch (Jul 14, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> those what?


Look if we don't have evidence of the event besides the written word of those that were there (pics or it didn't happen kind of thing) and it caused a large amount of people to change their behavior (such as their belief system) what can we conclude but that it was hysteria? The Virgin Mary told a couple peasant kids in Spain that the sky was going to do something crazy on a certain date and that day several reports said the sun bounced erratically around the sky and changed color. Everyone claims they saw this but none of their reports agree with each other on the actual behavior of the sun. This is an example of a Catholic related hysteria not unlike your other examples. If you can't differentiate this instance from your other examples in your next post I'm bound for hell because you're no good at critical thought. If you can, you'll make a convert out of me.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 14, 2019)

@Jacob Harrison 
Your atrocious, plagaristic fan-fiction is like a perfect compression of everything wrong with your evangelism.  If you aren't a troll, you are genuinely so stupid that there's no effective difference.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 14, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> @Jacob Harrison
> Your atrocious, plagaristic fan-fiction is like a perfect compression of everything wrong with your evangelism.  If you aren't a troll, you are genuinely so stupid that there's no effective difference.


I have an ultimate confession. While I believe that Catholicism is the true religion, I converted in 2017 and haven’t yet joined the Church. My parents and I since my childhood go to a Protestant Congregationalist Church. My father was actually christened in an Orthodox Church, and my maternal grandfather was raised Catholic but converted to Protestantism and raised his children Protestant. 

I converted because Catholicism was the religion in Medieval England. I plan on joining the Church after I graduate college. So if I have any errors in theology, it is because I haven’t been fully educated on Catholic doctrine.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Jul 14, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I converted because Catholicism was the religion in Medieval England. I plan on joining the Church after I graduate college. So if I have any errors in theology, it is because I haven’t been fully educated on Catholic doctrine.


Okay so not only are you a Bible-thumping weirdo, you're also a fucking poseur 20-something who glommed onto papism because it's the based and redpilled religion all those badass knights followed in medieval times.  No wonder your fan-fiction is such shit.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Jul 14, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I have an ultimate confession. While I believe that Catholicism is the true religion, I converted in 2017 and haven’t yet joined the Church. My parents and I since my childhood go to a Protestant Congregationalist Church. My father was actually christened in an Orthodox Church, and my maternal grandfather was raised Catholic but converted to Protestantism and raised his children Protestant.
> 
> I converted because Catholicism was the religion in Medieval England. I plan on joining the Church after I graduate college. So if I have any errors in theology, it is because I haven’t been fully educated on Catholic doctrine.


Firstly, if you are converting solely because of an aesthetic fascination with the Church, you are converting for a reason that will contaminate your communion with the Almighty.  Attend the adult faith study group at your local Catholic Church.  Confess you are not baptized in the Church, but want to learn more of Catholicism with the goal of conversion.  A few weeks studying the faith with the laity and a priest is worth far more than CatholicAnswers.
Secondly, if you are not even a member of the Church, you should not be trying to evangelize, because, as your example supremely illustrates, your ignorance and foolishness will corrupt the doctrine and reduce it into something that will push others away from the Church, rather than draw them towards it.


----------



## FitBitch (Jul 14, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I converted because Catholicism was the religion in Medieval England. I plan on joining the Church after I graduate college. So if I have any errors in theology, it is because I haven’t been fully educated on Catholic doctrine.





Senior Lexmechanic said:


> Secondly, if you are not even a member of the Church, you should not be trying to evangelize, because, as your example supremely illustrates, your ignorance and foolishness will corrupt the doctrine and reduce it into something that will push others away from the Church, rather than draw them towards it.


For example, as promised, you lost me. M8 if anyone ever manages to get me to join the faith now it certainly won't be you. You come in here with not even half the knowledge or credentials you should have, to a shit posting gossip forum, basically make your own lolcow thread, in the hopes of achieving what? 

I'm not a Catholic but I'm no biblical laymen either. The disciples who tried to cast out demons in the name of Jesus without prayer and fasting beforehand were unprepared, weak in their faith, and failed, this caused the Pharisees to not only question the divinity of the disciples but Jesus himself. You've wasted a lot of time and ultimately done more harm to your cause then you're ever going to be able to repair.

Thanks for posting you shite fanfic. Gave me a chuckle.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Jul 15, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I have an ultimate confession. While I believe that Catholicism is the true religion, I converted in 2017 and haven’t yet joined the Church. My parents and I since my childhood go to a Protestant Congregationalist Church. My father was actually christened in an Orthodox Church, and my maternal grandfather was raised Catholic but converted to Protestantism and raised his children Protestant.
> 
> I converted because Catholicism was the religion in Medieval England. I plan on joining the Church after I graduate college. So if I have any errors in theology, it is because I haven’t been fully educated on Catholic doctrine.



I'm not surprised, religious fanaticism amongst the modern laity is about as distinctly un-Catholic as is possible to get; the curse of the convert, always with more fire than those who were raised to see it from the start. I'm not saying this to critique you, I'm guilty of it as an atheist, I feel far more hostility towards theism than those who've grown up knowing from day one the faults of it.

However, I would appreciate some insight, Jacob. I remember you telling me both of your parents, especially your father, were very devout and your mother was a Catholic teacher. What denominations do they follow, and if they are Catholic when did they convert?

As an aside, the residents of England throughout the ages (even during Roman times onwards) have been historically notorious for at the very best being indifferent to religion. If you look at the back and forth between Protestants and Catholics over the years, it's nearly always the top portions of society scrapping over it rather than the grassroots who post the Tudor era (and even then, not as much as you'd expect since most people just wanted a quiet life) generally didn't give a shit.

There are Europeans like the Italians and Irish to whom faith and culture were one and the same for a time, but if you want to be English; being religious is about as far away from the most common English traits and culture both historically and today as you can get.

If you'd like proof, take a look at how many of your beloved British Monarchs are saints, blessed or official servants of God (Catholic or Anglican, take your pick) against a nation with a good deal more such as France.  Edward the Confessor was the freak exception, not the norm.


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 15, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> I'm not surprised, religious fanaticism amongst the modern laity is about as distinctly un-Catholic as is possible to get; the curse of the convert, always with more fire than those who were raised to see it from the start. I'm not saying this to critique you, I'm guilty of it as an atheist, I feel far more hostility towards theism than those who've grown up knowing from day one the faults of it.
> 
> However, I would appreciate some insight, Jacob. I remember you telling me both of your parents, especially your father, were very devout and your mother was a Catholic teacher. What denominations do they follow, and if they are Catholic when did they convert?
> 
> ...


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jul 15, 2019)

Hey OP, how do you feel knowing that Catholicism isn't even the real Church, and is just a breakaway from Eastern Orthodoxy?


----------



## MW 590 (Jul 15, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Hey OP, how do you feel knowing that Catholicism isn't even the real Church, and is just a breakaway from Eastern Orthodoxy?


As I said in an earlier comment, the quotes from the Church fathers show that the opposite is the case.


Jacob Harrison said:


> You made a good point. Anyway, the Catholic Church is the oldest church because the so called Orthodox Church broke away from the Catholic Church in the 11th century despite the fact that the authority of the Pope has been recognized by the Church fathers. https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Jul 15, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> My maternal grandfather was raised Catholic but he converted to Protestantism which was psychologically because he had an abusive father. He and my Protestant maternal grandmother raised their children Protestant. My mom became irreligious when she was in college but she regained her faith when she had my older brother and I.
> 
> My parents and I go to a Congregational Church which is a type of Protestant Church in the United States that is independently run by the Congregation. There is a board of Elders and there was a senior pastor but he resigned due to a scandal involving adultery, so the Church is still looking for a new pastor. In the meantime, the sermons are given by associate pastors and guest speakers.
> 
> There is a general order to service with a call to worship, a hymn, a scripture reading, another hymn, a prayer, an offering where we give money to the church, a sermon, a final prayer, a final hymn, and then a benediction. At the first Sunday of every month, the church takes "communion" where we are given crackers and grape juice. I have the word communion in quotes because I know that an Eucharist is only valid when administered by a priest.



Very informative, thank you for sharing Jacob. I mean it sincerely. It helps me to understand.



Jacob Harrison said:


> Most of the hymns are played on an organ and the whole congregation sings them. They are generally Protestant songs from the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s.



This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Cardinal Wiseman, a leading figure in bringing Catholicism back to Britain, strongly encouraged the use of Protestant hymns because there was a significant lack of suitable material to be translated into English. For the most part historically, there wasn't anything too objectionable and many are still in regular use in the Catholic hymnals in the English speaking world today as they were before Vatican II.

It's far less pronounced, but it is still a "problem" in the Catholic system today. There are very high ranking Clerics and Catholic writers with a strong grasp of English, but the vast overwhelming majority of Catholic literature remains in Spanish and Italian and relatively little of this trove of material is ultimately translated outside of it.

It's not a restriction, it's just the Catholic Church has for several centuries held relatively little influence in the Anglosphere and there still isn't really a demand for the products.

Learning Italian is an essential skill for a cleric or theologian of ambition.




Jacob Harrison said:


> Despite their Protestantism, my parents are ok with me becoming Catholic because they are glad I'm still Christian. I got baptized by the Congregational Church in October 2018 so that in case I die, I have a chance of being saved. However, I later realized that since I was baptized, I now need to confess every mortal sin committed since my baptism when I join the Catholic Church which stresses me out because *I feel embarrassed to tell the priest details of my masturbation fantasies involving women in jeans. *



I just wanted to focus on this last bit here.

You don't have to do this. Something like "I have had frequent impure thoughts father and have acted upon them" may sound vague but is perfectly acceptable. Your confession is to Jesus in the person of the priest, a deity who allegedly sees, knows all and understands what you're talking about. The priest himself, on the other hand, just needs to know the nature of your sin and doesn't need a blow by blow of what arouses you.

There are priests who overstep this, but that is exactly what they are doing and the vast majority do not. Going into embarrassing minute details of your sex life would come under "Spiritual Counselling"; this is a service any ordained priest can offer (but is not obliged to, not all of them feel comfortable doing, want or can spend the time this deeply invested in a single person).

You're not obliged to tell your priest your fetishes or how exactly you have committed sins of the flesh; some choose to nonetheless to clarify in case the priest thinks they're sleeping around instead of just jerking off but there's no requirement to achieve absolution.

The only time a priest will have cause to probe deeper and ask for specifics in a confessional is if he thinks you've somehow obtained or facilitated an abortion which can only be absolved by the Pope or select Bishops he has delegated that authority to. They won't even pry into murder, because they're forbidden on pain of eternal damnation to report whatever they learn about in confessional. They try purposefully to be as ignorant as practiceable so they can't be held responsible by the authorities.


----------



## Mrs Paul (Jul 21, 2019)

Every time I read this dude's posts, I just hear Mr. Mackey doing his, "Drugs are bad, mmmkay" line.


----------



## Tsurubami Senri (Sep 27, 2021)

As an catholic myself , it is entirely useless to try and convert people on Kiwifarms into Catholicism. 
And this goes for every religion too and any branch of religions too.


----------



## CAPTAIN MATI (Sep 27, 2021)

You're all crazy. The real Church is the Western Branch of American Reformed Presto Lutheranism.


----------



## Slap47 (Sep 27, 2021)

Tsurubami Senri said:


> As an catholic myself , it is entirely useless to try and convert people on Kiwifarms into Catholicism.
> And this goes for every religion too and any branch of religions too.


It's interesting how there's a near consensus amongst most Christians that any sect is fine. People barely bat an eye when somebody changes their sect. It's especially strange considering that some sects have completely different views on what even counts as a sin. 

I guess it's not surprising that more conservative sects are on the rise


----------



## murdered meat bag (Sep 28, 2021)

Slap47 said:


> It's interesting how there's a near consensus amongst most Christians that any sect is fine. People barely bat an eye when somebody changes their sect. It's especially strange considering that some sects have completely different views on what even counts as a sin.
> 
> I guess it's not surprising that more conservative sects are on the rise


thats the hank hannegraf thing, "agreement on the major things, dont care on the small things". 

most people dont know if they believe in a trinity or monad.


----------



## CreamyHerman’s (Sep 28, 2021)

Catholicism is cringe and gay​


----------

