Jacob Stuart Harrison Storytelling Thread - FSTDT Forums Ex-Pet Lolcow

  • Thread starter Thread starter MW 590
  • Start date Start date
See the funny thing is I remember growing up with a lot of Catholic relatives explaining that the Pope is infallible, can't question him or anything about him, God chose him... And the all of a sudden, when the Pope stars going "Y'know, I'm not as worried about the gays as my predecessor, I'd rather focus on the 'helping and forgiving people' bit", it's "well the Pope CAN be wrong and God didn't necessarily choose him and"


But of course, all this is coming from a guy who, when the least of his brothers are hungry, would give them nothing to eat, were strangers, would not invite them in (How else would you describe being willing to turn away Latinos, who are >80% Roman Catholic fleeing the terrible conditions of their home countries?), and is so consumed by hubris he believes it is his right to overthrow governments, even though "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
 
Last edited:
MarineTrainedTard said:
See the funny thing is I remember growing up with a lot of Catholic relatives explaining that the Pope is infallible, can't question him or anything about him, God chose him... And the all of a sudden, when the Pope stars going "Y'know, I'm not as worried about the gays as my predecessor, I'd rather focus on the 'helping and forgiving people' bit", it's "well the Pope CAN be wrong and God didn't necessarily choose him and"


But of course, all this is coming from a guy who, when the least of his brothers are hungry, would give them nothing to eat, were strangers, would not invite them in (How else would you describe being willing to turn away Latinos, who are >80% Roman Catholic fleeing the terrible conditions of their home countries?), and is so consumed by hubris he believes it is his right to overthrow governments, even though "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
Click to expand...
They will be invited in if they come legally, since the Bible commands the obedience to laws. And charity organizations can help them in their own countries. America’s working class must be protected and be able to keep their jobs.

Romans 13 is saying that there is no true power from God, but that is referring to legitimate authority because there is such a thing as false power. If rebels disobey Romans 13 and overthrow a legitimate authority, then they cannot be considered a legitimate authority because otherwise it would be a paradox.
 
Jacob Harrison said:
If rebels disobey Romans 13 and overthrow a legitimate authority, then they cannot be considered a legitimate authority because otherwise it would be a paradox.
Click to expand...

So we're back to might makes right. The overthrow of the Catholic monarchy in France was ordained by God.


Regardless, I don't think I can take seriously the religious statements of a man who is so arrogant as to believe he and his group can conquer four(!) rather prominent and important countries ("Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the LORD; be assured, he will not go unpunished") and would turn away his brothers in a time of need just because it's against man's law to let them in. Jesus didn't say "...for how you treated the least of my brothers (except for those who broke the law)".

Again, these are Christians so desperate to escape the horrible conditions they live in, living under the threat of death by corrupt governments and drug cartels, that they'll cross thousands of miles of land on foot to beg for help. Sure sounds like "the least of these" to me.
 
Last edited:
MarineTrainedTard said:
So we're back to might makes right. The overthrow of the Catholic monarchy in France was ordained by God.


Regardless, I don't think I can take seriously the religious statements of a man who is so arrogant as to believe he and his group can conquer four(!) rather prominent and important countries ("Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the LORD; be assured, he will not go unpunished") and would turn away his brothers in a time of need just because it's against man's law to let them in. Jesus didn't say "...for how you treated the least of my brothers (except for those who broke the law)".

Again, these are Christians so desperate to escape the horrible conditions they live in, living under the threat of death by corrupt governments and drug cartels, that they'll cross thousands of miles of land on foot to beg for help. Sure sounds like "the least of these" to me.
Click to expand...
But if people are supposed to submit to legitimate rulers in authority, then it means it was wrong for them to overthrow the monarchy. The Bible does not say that might makes right.

And I do not have arrogance, I have hope that restoring the true monarch will be successful. When I earn more money, and find a charity I will gladly donate money to help the people in poor countries such as the Latin American countries, but since the US is a legitimate authority, it’s laws should be obeyed according to Romans 13. Also, the least of the brothers also include America’s poor who will struggle to find a job if illegal immigrants take them.

Feline Darkmage said:
Are you a two-spirit genderfluid tranny?
Click to expand...
I was from November 30 until Alice was banned.
 
I did research English history, and using common sense, since there is no proof that Edward the Confessor did not promise William the succession to the throne, or that Harold Godwinson was not shipwrecked in Normandy, the burden of proof is on those who try to argue against established history. The fact that William conquered England makes it likely that he believed he had a valid claim to the throne, and he got the Pope on his side.
 
Feline Darkmage said:
Ok now I'm learning towards Jacob being a troll, this is still funny to me though.
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean, take the especially autistic stuff he's said like his dad liking British cars, asking if any women here want to marry him, the paying off the girl he jacked off to, etc.... There's no way he's legit. Fucking God help us if he is.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Black Waltz, Francis E. Dec Esc., Marco Fucko and 1 other person
This thread is awesome. By the way, if the Richard III society gains power, what will they do with the British overseas territories? Will they give them to their claimaints or will the imperial ambitions and geopolitics rule the decision? (gott straff if it is the latter)
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Feline Darkmage
With some of these deep-cover trolls, I find myself conflicted on whether I should feel sorrow and pity to look upon an existence that is... perhaps wasteful, or admiration for the dedication it must take to develop such round characters. Perhaps there is a sense of art, there, that drives these people on.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Feline Darkmage, Marco Fucko, Cinderblock and 1 other person
Cinderblock said:
This thread is awesome. By the way, if the Richard III society gains power, what will they do with the British overseas territories? Will they give them to their claimaints or will the imperial ambitions and geopolitics rule the decision? (gott straff if it is the latter)
Click to expand...
What other claimants are there to British Overseas Territories? The Falkland Islands are claimed by Argentina, but the British claimed the islands first in 1690 so they have a superior claim.

By the way Cinderblock, will you marry me so that we can have children that can help me with my master plan?
 
Jacob Harrison said:
What other claimants are there to British Overseas Territories? The Falkland Islands are claimed by Argentina, but the British claimed the islands first in 1690 so they have a superior claim.
Click to expand...

Northern Ireland comes to mind even though it's not technically a territory, considering the Republic still hands out citizenship to NI natives when asked. It remains silent because of the Good Friday agreement, but still holds claim to them.

Gibraltar is claimed by Spain. Anguilla shares half an island with the French St. Martins of whom will probably lay a claim after Brexit since they are the stronger party there.

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are claimed by Argentina as well as the Falklands.

Strovillia in Northern Cyprus and the Irish/NI border have also been in dispute for decades.

Most of British Territory in Antartica is disputed by Argentina and Chile too.



Jacob Harrison said:
By the way Cinderblock, will you marry me so that we can have children that can help me with my master plan?
Click to expand...

I-I thought we had something special sniffle
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Dolce & Gabbana and Cinderblock
Jacob Harrison said:
What other claimants are there to British Overseas Territories? The Falkland Islands are claimed by Argentina, but the British claimed the islands first in 1690 so they have a superior claim.

By the way Cinderblock, will you marry me so that we can have children that can help me with my master plan?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I also had in mind Gibraltar and NI.

Sorry Jacob, I can't marry a man with imperialistic ambitions.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Marco Fucko and Dildo
Fagatron said:
Northern Ireland comes to mind even though it's not technically a territory, considering the Republic still hands out citizenship to NI natives when asked. It remains silent because of the Good Friday agreement, but still holds claim to them.

Gibraltar is claimed by Spain. Anguilla shares half an island with the French St. Martins of whom will probably lay a claim after Brexit since they are the stronger party there.

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are claimed by Argentina as well as the Falklands.

Strovillia in Northern Cyprus and the Irish/NI border have also been in dispute for decades.

Most of British Territory in Antartica is disputed by Argentina and Chile too.





I-I thought we had something special sniffle
Click to expand...
Well, as I said before, all of Ireland used to be a Papal fief called the Lordship of Ireland with the Kings of England as the Lords of Ireland. Since that was the case after the Battle of Bosworth Fields, that means that the Yorkist heirs to the thrones are the rightful heirs to Ireland too(I am still doing research on the Norman Conquest but as I said, my research indicates that it is likely that William had a valid claim). As for the other territories, there will be investigations on who has the rightful claim to those territories.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Cinderblock
Jacob Harrison said:
Well, as I said before, all of Ireland used to be a Papal fief called the Lordship of Ireland with the Kings of England as the Lords of Ireland. Since that was the case after the Battle of Bosworth Fields, that means that the Yorkist heirs to the thrones are the rightful heirs to Ireland too(I am still doing research on the Norman Conquest but as I said, my research indicates that it is likely that William had a valid claim). As for the other territories, there will be investigations on who has the rightful claim to those territories.
Click to expand...

The Pope's claim to temporal authority that enabled him to award Ireland to England comes from the Donation of Constantine which was a forgery and is illegitimate though. Doubly so, since Ireland was never part of the Roman Empire at any point and yet the Pope just decided it was his. More of that lovley right of conquest practiced there.

There's also the problem of how England would be able to hold Ireland. The English were defeated by the Irish Volunteers in the south back in the 1910-20's. Even when Ireland was ruled by a Catholic English King the Irish still fought non-stop against them for eight hundered years, how do you propose to control them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back