New VATICAN travesty !!! [Archive] - Armageddon Online Forums

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 16th, 2005, 8:33 AM

I agree, homosexuals have no real place in Catholic clergy or the Catholic faith...but for a different reason that the one you're thinking of. Catholics and most terminally religious people openly despise gays, so any gay person that hangs around the Catholic church is setting themselves up to be the target of discrimination, abuse, and death threats (whatever happened to "Thou shalt not kill"?). So, any gay person who stays with the faith is either REALLY committed to the faith and deserves a spot in the clergy, or they're a masochist. Meanwhile, the rest of the world and I continue to watch in disbelief as a church that openly denounces such "sins" as homosexuality still can't seem to keep a tight rein on those rampant acts of pedophilia. I'm sure that choirboys everywhere are relieved by the fact that they won't have to deal with gay clergy members (no pun intended). Kudos to the Catholic church for your great humanitarian efforts. Just think, in another thousand years you might almost make it to the Dark Ages (sarcasm INTENDED).

A certian part of a mans anatomy does not belong in the lower G/I tract of another man, no matter how much the two enjoy it! And that is simply a matter of immutable truth. So no amount of sarcasm, or bigotry against catholics can intimidate those who KNOW what is true and what is a lie! It is a lie that homosodomy is normal no matter who enjoys it or why. Its a lie that Christians are haters because they refuse to deny clear undeniable natural law. It is a lie that the Catholic Church is any more susceptible to this viscous sexual disorder then the general population. It is a lie that the priests are by in large pedophiles when the fact of the matter is they are actually "simple" homosodomites seducing very young men. One cannot condemn pedophilia (another viscous sexual disorder) while at the same time defending another...it is the politically motivated homosodomite storm troopers who are at this instant aggitating for loosening laws against pedophilia.
As to your "dark ages comment" next time your sick don't go to a public hospital, next time you want to donate to an orphanage..don't...never attend a university...never defend womans rights...or international laws against war...as ALL OF THESE ARE GIFTS HARD WON BY CATHOLICS OF THE MIDDLE AGES TO THE PRESENT!

dcookcan

Feb 16th, 2005, 9:37 AM

the Catholic Faith is any less valid now then it was when Jesus established it 2000 years ago
:lol: :rolling: :Llol:

voxpopulisuxx - How do you expect anyone to take you seriously, when you spew lies like this. I realize your 'catholic education' has indoctrinated you to this so called truth, but that's no excuse for ignorance. Maybe you should try looking at church history from a different perspective (i.e. something other than a catholic source).

autryn2

Feb 16th, 2005, 10:15 AM

voxpopulisuxx... you're allegence should be to God thru Christ our savior... not an organization made up of flawed, imperfect men.

Matthew 23: Jesus said....

8“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Don't Catholics call the Pope "Holy Father" and isn't this in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the commandment of Christ in the above verse (And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.).

I want no man (or woman), however blessed, to stand between me and my savior.

Catholics are said to worship the 'saints', but look what an angel said to John in Revelation 19:...

9Then the angel said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’ ” And he added, “These are the true words of God.” 10At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

Don't let this organization of men pull the wool over your eyes....

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 16th, 2005, 10:20 AM

:lol: :rolling: :Llol:

voxpopulisuxx - How do you expect anyone to take you seriously, when you spew lies like this. I realize your 'catholic education' has indoctrinated you to this so called truth, but that's no excuse for ignorance. Maybe you should try looking at church history from a different perspective (i.e. something other than a catholic source).
BALLS IN YOUR COURT...
SHOW ME YOUR NON CATHOLIC SOURCES THAT DENY THE EXISTANCE OF THE CATHOLIC (UNIVERSAL) FAITH AT THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES UP TO THR YEAR 100 AD SINCE YOU HAVE EXPRESSED YOURSELF AN EXPERT ON RELIGIOUS HISTORY
VIVO CHRISTU REX

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 16th, 2005, 10:26 AM

AUTRYN, if you really want to discuss this with respect I will, your post seems to be submitted with sincerity so I will make my case sincerely too. However if ever it degrades to simple bigotted insults to My Faith then the discussion will become simply ANATHAMA SIT and also you refrence so many different topics it would take a message string 6 months long to debate each of them so I will limit the debate to the root issue and this issue is expressed in the question below
VIVO CHRISTU REX!
now
Question to you:
Which came first the Book you and I call the Bible OT/NT or the Church?

autryn2

Feb 16th, 2005, 10:57 AM

Paul wrote to the converted jews in the Church of Jerusalem the following:

Hebrews 4: 14Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens,[e] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin. 16Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No mention of needing any other priest than the One Savior. the throne of grace we approach is that of our savior, Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There will be no name calling from me. You are as welcome to your view as I am to mine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will say that the bride of Christ (the church), which is a collection of belivers (people of many denominations today), existed before the texts were written. I, however, quoted Christ, who spoke the words before the 'church' was established. It is not a matter of timing (which came first) but of what it is you are worshipping.
Is it man or God????? God's commandment to Moses of 'thou shalt have no other gods before me' is the same today as it was then and that commandment is still in effect. Just like the angel said 'worship God'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you wrote:"insults to My Faith..."

If your faith is Christianity (instead of catholicism), then we are brothers. If not, I still would much rather discuss than insult so maybe one or both of us could learn something. My hope is that you learn that God is the focus, not the pope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you wrote:"I will limit the debate to the root issue and this issue is expressed in the question below
VIVO CHRISTU REX!"

Sorry, I don't speak latin. But my guess is that the above phrase means something like "Long live Christ the King" ??? Thats a short answer with no explanation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, I'm not saying the catholic church doesn't belong. I'm saying don't worship the pope, or the virgin mary, or the saints. Just worship God thru our Savior Jesus Christ.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 16th, 2005, 12:45 PM

Ok well to stick to the question which was not VIVO CHRIST REX (which you were correct in defining as you did) Yes The Church existed before and was responsable for compiling the Gosples, Acts, and Letters into the Bible in 398. Th reason this is relevent is that in that Year the Catholic Church belived everything it does now. If the Catholic faith is in error now it was in error when it Compiled the Book you are useing to say it is error...see the circular logic....If the Church had the authority to say which books were valid and which werent (the so called gospel of thomas or peter) at that time then it also has authority to establish other things. But for future info it would be helpfull not to debate against things the catholic Church does not do or teach which would be the following:
THE CHURCH DOES NOT WORSHIP THE POPE
THE CHURCH DOES NOT WORSHIP MARY
THE CHURCH DOES NOT FORBID THE READING OR STUDY OF THE BIBLE,,NOR DID IT EVER
since dear friend you do not actually know what the church actually teaches about these things and can only make inferences from what you think you see or what you have been told by others I respectfully request you do a little research and find out what the Church actually says about these things... http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/responses.html
now that is not to say that you still may not take issue with them...but I am not going to waste time debateing things that we simply do not teach. I am well aware of all the scripture you use as condemning the Catholic faith...but I can just as well cite scripture in its defense...which then comes down to the problem of contradiction...Can the Holy Infallable word of God "contradict" itself...Catholics say emphatically NO! for instance any scripture I would put forward you would say I was simply mistranslating or twisting or misunderstanding the context etc...but then what makes YOUR definitions on the matter authoratative? for instance how do you explain the following:

Mark 11:9-10
And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest
uh oh they called someone father!

Corinthians 4:14-17
I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church. [NIV: "Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."] [NASB: "For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." -- He not only talks about spiritual fatherhood in these verses, he differentiates the spiritual fatherhood of the presbytery from common teachers about Christ.]
so either the bible is contadictory and a book of confusion or YOU BEING FALLABLE HAVE too strictly applied Matthew 23:1-12

now as to the church how do you explain 1 Timothy 3:15? Where we are told clearly that the CHURCH is the pillar and ground of Truth?

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican

1 Corinthians 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church
What if I applied this verse as rigidly as you applied Matt 23?

get my point you really cant use scripture against the Catholic faith without also casting doubt about the Bible itself for it is a secular historical fact that it was a CATHOLIC COUNCIL that Canonised or established as Inspired of God the NT.
Dont belive me ask Martin Luther:
"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all." Martin Luther
SLava Isusu Christu! (Glory to Jesus Christ!)

dcookcan

Feb 16th, 2005, 1:57 PM

SHOW ME YOUR NON CATHOLIC SOURCES THAT DENY THE EXISTANCE OF THE CATHOLIC (UNIVERSAL) FAITH AT THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES UP TO THR YEAR 100 AD
Are you saying that nothing else exists, or are you too lazy to do the research for yourself?

YOU HAVE EXPRESSED YOURSELF AN EXPERT ON RELIGIOUS HISTORY
I have not made that claim, nor do I claim that now.

btw - I have not called you any names at this point. I did insult the practice of cannabalizing Jesus - called transubstantiation.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 16th, 2005, 3:04 PM

Are you saying that nothing else exists, or are you too lazy to do the research for yourself?

I have not made that claim, nor do I claim that now.

btw - I have not called you any names at this point. I did insult the practice of cannabalizing Jesus - called transubstantiation.

No sir I am saying according to general rules of debate loosely applied the onus is on you to prove your assertion not me....I am however asserting in the affIrmative that the source I used ARE THE SAME SOURCES USED BY SECULAR HISTORIANS IN REFERENCE TO THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH...Origen,Erasemus,Clement of Rome, Augustine,Aquinas etc...you should not debate issues beyond your depth...

as to your admission of insulting one of the central practices of My faith....Transubstantiation...why insult? I am more then adult enough to debate the rationality of this difficult doctrine with anyone....why insult and mock unless your intent is to intimidate and pollute the well of reasonable discourse?

"With reasonable men, I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost" William Lloyd Garrison

derangel

Feb 16th, 2005, 3:11 PM

A certian part of a mans anatomy does not belong in the lower G/I tract of another man, no matter how much the two enjoy it! And that is simply a matter of immutable truth. It is a lie that homosodomy is normal no matter who enjoys it or why. Its a lie that Christians are haters because they refuse to deny clear undeniable natural law.

I know that God doesn't need trifling things like "evidence" in order to be content with his own existence, but THIS I can handle. There is a growing body of research that examines the homosexual activity of many species of animals, from fleas all the way up to the higher ape families. There is irrefutable evidence that male monkeys engage in homosexual behavior with other male monkeys. You can look up the studies yourself. You cannot deny this. It's not exactly a natural law if it shows up elsewhere, is it? I also find it surprising that you would hold up things like "natural law" to back your argument while in the same breath make it plainly obvious that you're not the kind of guy who would believe in things like "evolution," meaning you think humans are above nature (as God intended) rather than part of it. Side note, to follow your line of reasoning, I'd say that God never intended a male's genitalia to be placed in a woman's mouth, but would you like to take a poll and see how many Catholics get head from their wives?

So no amount of sarcasm, or bigotry against catholics can intimidate those who KNOW what is true and what is a lie!

Hahahahaha! That's all I have to say to that. And probably more than it deserves. I half expected you to claim the Catholic church invented bigots too!

One cannot condemn pedophilia (another viscous sexual disorder) while at the same time defending another...i

Yes I can. First of all, it's been a number of years since the psychological community as a whole has considered homosexuality to be a disorder of any kind. The only people who think of it in disease terms is YOU and your fellows. Believe it or not, most of us still don't answer to the pope. As for the rest, I can condemn pedophilia while defending homosexuality, because a healthy homosexual relationship is a partnership based on love, affection, and respect. Furthermore, it is a relationship between two consenting adults. It doesn't matter what else they do, because the Catholic church can't breach privacy laws and stand by the bed shaking a disapproving finger. You don't belong there. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is essentially the act of raping a child, using either direct physical force or psychological manipulation. Between homosexuality and pedophilia, only one of these causes harm to another human being and is therefore wrong.

As to your "dark ages comment" next time your sick don't go to a public hospital, next time you want to donate to an orphanage..don't...never attend a university...never defend womans rights...or international laws against war...as ALL OF THESE ARE GIFTS HARD WON BY CATHOLICS OF THE MIDDLE AGES TO THE PRESENT!

For the record, the Catholic church did not invent hospitals, universities, ophanages, or women's rights, and does not have a monopoly on treatises of international peace. The Chinese were managing quite nicely with most of those thousands of years before the Catholic church was conceived. Civilization would have developed in America without the intervention of the Catholic church, even if the Chinese had to do it. Personally, I'd rather be reading about our gay president and his husband in Chinese than have to listen to Christian fundamentalists shouting "REPENT!! REPENT!!" in English.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 16th, 2005, 3:18 PM

Fine next time I see a Monkey eating a bannana with his nose Ill know that an all Intelligent creator wanted it that way.....riiiight...sodomy is sodomy...getting head is objectivly evil as well no matter who does it..or how good it feels...evolution requires generation of the species..homosodomy in monkeys or humans is sterile (evolution has no recognition of "loving relationships) I also find it interesting that you had to stoop to the level of primates to defend homosodomy.

DarkAce

Feb 16th, 2005, 3:26 PM

are you Catholic?
If you are ...do you Know that the Catholic church's doctrines or Dogmas are only those taught by the apostles themselves? The Church's job is to protect the faith as it was given to them by the apostles...simple logic and secular history PROVES THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is the only faith with direct apostolic succession to Christ... and if you say no...that the church is not the same church..then instead of flailing ad hominem attacks at me support your position by answering the simple question: WHEN DID THE CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST GO WRONG...IN WHAT YEAR? I await your reply so that we may further reduce you IGNORANCE about the Catholic faith and its history.

I was Catholic for a great many years, yes. I also used that time to educate myself about the faith and history of it and not just blindly pick up on tidbits spewed out from whoever, etc. which have no proven merit or authenticity.

For starters Catholic church doctrine and dogma isn't what was preached by the apostles. The Catholic church get's it's inspiration from the gospels (which were for the sake of discussion, written by the apostles) than use that to determine and interpret their own beliefs and rules from that. What the hell are you talking about secular history proving "with direct apostolic succession to Christ" do you even know what that means? The apostles died out long before the Catholic church even begun. Before the Catholic church you had a whole bunch of smaller christian sects with different beliefs about Jesus and his teachings. The Catholic Church was started to unite all these faiths into one dominant faith to get rid of misconceptions and what not and have one valid set of beliefs. This was done by the romans, hence why it's called The Roman Catholic Church. In no way did Jesus establish the Catholic religion, or any religion for that matter. If you had an ounce of intelligence within you, you could point the basis of Christianity on Paul and his letters, but that'd instantly be too much too ask of you.

The Catholic religion has been corrupt throughout history. There's a great wealth of information out there on what the Pope's and the church had done. www.google.ca or pick up an encyclopedia and do some research so you can further educate yourself to reduce the ignorance you have of the Catholic faith and it's history.

certian part of a mans anatomy does not belong in the lower G/I tract of another man, no matter how much the two enjoy it! And that is simply a matter of immutable truth.

Truth based upon what? There's also homosexuality in women and it's been also observed in animals out in the wild.

Which came first the Book you and I call the Bible OT/NT or the Church?

The oral passing and writtings existed before the Roman Catholic Church came into existance. They simply collected them and compiled them into what is called the Bible. Of course without first editing them, etc.

Th reason this is relevent is that in that Year the Catholic Church belived everything it does now. If the Catholic faith is in error now it was in error when it Compiled the Book you are useing to say it is error...see the circular logic....

That's not logic at all. The Catholics have been changing what they believe throughout history. Council of Nicea, Trent, etc? Of course those words have no meaning on you since from what you've displayed you know jack shit about your own religion. The concept of the Trinity....

for future info it would be helpfull not to debate against things the catholic Church does not do or teach which would be the following:
THE CHURCH DOES NOT WORSHIP THE POPE
THE CHURCH DOES NOT WORSHIP MARY
THE CHURCH DOES NOT FORBID THE READING OR STUDY OF THE BIBLE,,NOR DID IT EVER

For a great while it did, and even to some extent still does. The Pope back in the day was thought of as god incarnate on earth, his word was to go unchallenged and undefied. Mary/the saints were worshipped and prayed too, and in most cases still are today in many parts of the world by those of the Catholic faith. Also for a while only clergy were allowed to read the bible, because in most cases they were the only ones who could read and also that they were the only ones granted with the authority to interpret what the words had meant.

I also don't understand your posting of scripture. It doesn't help your defense and makes for a extremly poor case in which people find the Bible contradictory.

get my point you really cant use scripture against the Catholic faith without also casting doubt about the Bible itself for it is a secular historical fact that it was a CATHOLIC COUNCIL that Canonised or established as Inspired of God the NT.

And? What does the merit of the Catholic faith have to do with the cannonization of the books of the bible. You keep stating that it's a historical fact, apparently it's the only one you know.

Dont belive me ask Martin Luther:
"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all." Martin Luther

Do you even know what the context of that was in, who Martin Luther was, and what he later did because of the corruption he and many others found in the Catholic Religion?

I'd suggest you do a lot of RESEARCH, than come back. Perhaps start here:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ This way you could educate yourself properly on the matter and stop disgracing the Catholic religion with your ignorance. Also I'd try not to type in constant captials.

Good Day.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 16th, 2005, 3:58 PM

Ah where to begin...first remove every personal attack on me and my person.

Then remove every scattalogical ignorant, uncharitable comment,
then remove every illogical assertion (the church got its belifes from the bible when the church beleved every thing it belives now at least a full 2 centurys before the bible was canonized) circular and illogical
Then remove the dodge and distraction arguments such as the Catholics edited the bible (show you dont know jack about bible history the kjv coming a full1200years after the Bible all of Christondom used was canonised in 398)
Then remove the simple calumnys against the Church and me
Then remove the psudo science (homosexuality is normal)
Then remove the "im an ex catholic" bitterness

Whats left? not much,,,just your signature quote which I concur and condemn you yourself with
Vivo Christu Rex!

derangel

Feb 16th, 2005, 4:03 PM

...sodomy is sodomy...getting head is objectivly evil as well no matter who does it..or how good it feels

I'm not Catholic. Perhaps you could explain to me why certain harmless sex acts between consenting adults is "objectively evil" as opposed to "subjectively evil," i.e. "God says it's bad"?

...evolution requires generation of the species..

That it does, but evolution and simple genetics also take into account the appearance of organisms with minor variations that may even include homosexuality. If you're going to try to use evolution as an argument, then consider these two possibilities: 1) evolution backs up natural homosexuality because it exists in nature as an offshoot of the evolutionary system, regardless of whether or not it's useful; 2) if you dislike homosexuals that much then let them have their fun, by your account natural selection will take its course, since homosexuals can't reproduce amongst themselves they will die out and viola, no more gays. From an evolutionary standpoint, maybe the church's problem is that you keep wanting to force homosexuals into heterosexual relationships trying to "cure" them, which result in children, thus allowing a theoretical "gay gene" to continually reappear in the population. You can't disprove a natural occurance by using natural selection when you keep forcing them to breed.

...homosodomy in monkeys or humans is sterile (evolution has no recognition of "loving relationships) I also find it interesting that you had to stoop to the level of primates to defend homosodomy.

As far as you're concerned we may be children of God, but as far as I'm concerned you and I are both highly evolved monkeys. Evolutionary theory isn't bulletproof, but to my mind it's a lot more credible than faith-based answers that don't concern themselves with appearing logical or reasonable. From the evolutionary standpoint, "loving relationships" are the result of evolution because they show up in humans which (also from an evolutionary standpoint) are essentially primates themselves. I'd rather have a monkey for an uncle than a "loving" god that wants me to treat my fellow humans like dogs.

rapture

Feb 16th, 2005, 4:44 PM

I am a Roman Catholic, born-again Christian. I was just notified that the Vatican is holding a secret meeting to overturn the 1961, still-in-effect Papal Ban on ordination of homosexuals to the priesthood. They plan to unleash their "revised" draft to the world in the Fall of 2005. Another situation of corrupt clergy gone wild again. To protest this new "revised draft", please write to the Pope and voice your outrage or concerns to him. Write to: www.accreditamenti@pressva.va Thank you and God bless you for it! ps. This is not only for Roman Catholics...but anyone who believes that open homosexuality and its practice have no place in the Catholic priesthood!

The Roman Catholic Church is The seat of Satan, protest will have NO effect, one will either live by the truth or perish in a lie. When the shepard is twisting and hissing the word, it is time to run

The tares will separate from the wheat.

autryn2

Feb 16th, 2005, 5:25 PM

derangal wrote:"a healthy homosexual relationship is a partnership based on love, affection, and respect. Furthermore, it is a relationship between two consenting adults. It doesn't matter what else they do, because the Catholic church can't breach privacy laws and stand by the bed shaking a disapproving finger. You don't belong there."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

voxpopulisuxx and I may not agree on everything, but without question he is correct with respect to homosexuality... it is wrong and a sin.....it is condemned in the Bible....

Read from Romans chapter 1:

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, Godhaters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 16th, 2005, 5:55 PM

The insanity in your last post is impossible to respond to...good luck to you. I see such a divergence that all further give and take with you is useless as you recognize No absolutes even though you are sure I am absolutly wrong.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 16th, 2005, 6:41 PM

The Roman Catholic Church is The seat of Satan, protest will have NO effect, one will either live by the truth or perish in a lie. When the shepard is twisting and hissing the word, it is time to run

The tares will separate from the wheat.

I notice rapture that you focus your feverish anti catholic screeds for those who can least defend against them....(you have yet to respond in the conspiricy room to my challenge against your hatefull bigotted poll)"One Question"

You have no repeat NO biblical proofs that the Church established By Jesus Christ is the seat of satan. You have No biblical proof that the Catholic Church was not established By Jesus Christ. You have your traditions of men like Tim LaHaye and his cash cow series as support for your assertions...I suggest you you have forgot that Christianity is a religion of History not hystrionics.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 16th, 2005, 6:54 PM

Autryn,
fact is that simply describing the sodomitic act should be enough for rational mind to reject it with or without the bible. Natural Law clearly condemns the practice, the lower G/I tract has a function that has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with excreating bile.He who is unaware of his ignorance will be only misled by his knowledge.
"sodomy is to be condemned because the rational ground of all morality is nature, and sodomy is against nature." To regard "the generative distinction between male and female" as arbitrary is to regard all the distinctions upon which all morality rests—e. g., those which condemn slavery and genocide—as arbitrary. It implies that we are free to choose whether there are objective limitations upon human action, objective standards of right and wrong. Professor Harry Jaffa

"Let us be clear that "gay" is a neologism, a euphemism of recent origin, and refers to sodomy or, to be precise, anal sexual intercourse. There is nothing gay about it, in the proper meaning of the word. From ancient—and biblical—times, this practice has been regarded by the greatest legislators and moralists as a vicious sexual perversion. It is condemned equally by the Old and the New Testaments, and by Plato in his Laws. Thomas Jefferson, in a criminal code written during the American Revolution, made it a felony in the same class as rape. In this he only followed the common law." IBID

"What of incest? Homosexuality and incest have ever been condemned by civilized mankind, not only as sexually perverse, but as striking directly at the dignity and the integrity of the family. As such, they strike not only at sexual morality, but at all morality, because the family is the most fundamental of all human institutions in the moral instruction of mankind. It is common, moreover, for defenders of sodomy and lesbianism—who are without exception moral relativists—to insist that there is no rational ground upon which anyone can criticize anything that is done by consenting persons. But suppose the persons are father and daughter, or mother and son. Can the Trustees—can any responsible human being—accept this kind of reasoning?"IBID
“why do you suppose it is an outrage to say that homosexuality, like rape and incest, strikes at the integrity of the human family? Do you not think that a real family, a family "according to nature," has a man and woman, a father and mother, at its core? Do you not see that the integrity of any family depends upon confining sexual friendship to husband and wife, and that whatever dilutes—or pollutes—this friendship, weakens the entire family structure and deprives the family—and thereby free society—of its natural moral authority? The typical justification of homosexuality is that the sexual behavior of consenting adults is not subject to any just criticism from anyone else. But suppose the ones consenting are brother and sister, father and daughter, or mother and son? You will find no argument against incest in the homosexual literature. But why is consent made the authorizing ground of behavior? In the Declaration of Independence, the "just powers of government" are derived from "the consent of the governed." Not any powers, but only just powers. Consent as such does not authorize anything intrinsically immoral. The community of Jonestown—all 900 souls—committed suicide by unanimous consent. Did that make it right?"IBID

Autryn thanks for defending the truth...dont let the unbelivers off the hook by arguing from the bible alone because then they can hide in their atheism or false faiths...GOD HAS MADE TRUTH RECOGNIZABLE TO ALL SO THAT AT JUDGMENT DAY NO ONE CAN CLAIM IGNORENCE.....Christ Bless You! VivoChristuRex!

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 16th, 2005, 6:59 PM

see my post to autryn

dutchie

Feb 17th, 2005, 6:20 AM

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 17th, 2005, 8:00 AM

I was amazed to see this busy thread coming to existence so fast...

But... GREAT!! It has this good ol' Belfastish Northern Irish feel and spirit about it! Nice to see catholic and protestant bombing each other again in a thread this time....

Nice to sit back and read this with a big fat smile, while enjoying a good tumbler of Paddy on the rocks.

Do you guys have any idea of how stupid you all look?!? This thread is entirely confirming and proving my worst fears about intolerance, homophobia and bigotry of ALL christian religions. Kudos, guys!! You have done it again.

Derangel, what a horrible waste of energy to be defending your intelligence against the stance of the True Monkeys...

Dutchi

I have no I dea how any of us look since this a message board not a video conference...(awful judgmental and intolerant of you)

The issue here is what is worth defending STRONGLY. I've seen peace activists in Washington DC protesting loudly and vociferously during Bushs confirmation, one was dressed in A Rat suit (he looked pretty stupid)BUT GUESS WHAT HE WAS INTELLIGENT AND BRAVE AND COMPLETELY RIGHT IN WHAT HE WAS DOING...HE GOT ATTENTION for the issue.(in this case pointing out that Bush or whoever authorized it was in Violation of the Posse Comitatus act by using US MIlitary personal to search citizens for the inauguration) Dutchi I watched your string on Islam and salmund rushdi devolve into a name calling schoolyard rant, so spare us the holier then thou sanctimonious hash induced Holland-dazed moral(what? moral whats that?) outrage. Holland loves to sit back while the important work of protecting civilization from the Barbarians is left to the rest of the world.

as to homophobia, I reject this deliberate labeling tactic (straight out of the marxist handbook) as an attempt to shut down legitimate dissent from the LIE that homosodomy is normal and natural behavior as any one with a basic knowledge of anatomy can clearly see.

"This thread is entirely confirming and proving my worst fears about intolerance, homophobia and bigotry of ALL christian religions".

This quote from you is the most blatantly hypocritical of them all!
*)YOUR WORST FEARS??? You fear intolerance and bigotry in the same sentence you express yours for ALL christian religions. In fact when I followed the string you had on Islam it became clear that you are simply intolerant of the Religous instinct in anyone. To you the world is all you see touch taste and stuff into your hash pipe! No invisible verities, No absolutes about right and wrong.
The Reason your perplexed as to why passionate People of Islam, Or Christianity would be willing to zealously guard their Faith above all else at whatever cost is that you have no such noble instinct. Your instinct is to narcissism, self aggrandisement, fatalism. In a sense your Position and the position of all those who put themselves before truth is the following:
..."Cant we all just get along...not because I desire peace for my neighbor, but because I desire peace for myself, so I can sleep soundly and not be bothered by all the noises of human responsibility and maturity,,,let me sleep Im only dreaming after all, and when you disturb my fantasy life with all this annoying reality, all this uncomfortable Talk of God and Judgment, Truth and Lie, Liberty and Justice...well I get this queasy feeling that Im actually sitting on my arse not accomplishing anything of any import....and dammit I don't like it! It makes me afraid. So Stop it all you homophobic, intolerant,unscientific disturbers of MY peace...and let me go back to sleep!

AND ONE FINAL NOTE: Im Slavic not Irish, Im a Greek rite Catholic not a Roman rite Catholic, even though Im sure the distinction is lost on one so occupied with self preservation. VIVO CHRISTU REX!

dutchie

Feb 17th, 2005, 8:36 AM

I have no I dea how any of us look since this a message board not a video conference...(awful judgmental and intolerant of you)Funny how you kill this statement later on in your post yourself and how many words you seem to need to do it..

Dutchi I watched your string on Islam and salmund rushdi devolve into a name calling schoolyard rant, so spare us the holier then thou sanctimonious hash induced Holland-dazed moral(what? moral whats that?) outrage. Holland loves to sit back while the important work of protecting civilization from the Barbarians is left to the rest of the world.
Where did I rant in that thread?!? I did not. Your hash innuendo is just that, btw: schoolyard blah blah. Your warped idea of Holland just makes me laugh.

as to homophobia, I reject this deliberate labeling tactic (straight out of the marxist handbook) as an attempt to shut down legitimate dissent from the LIE that homosodomy is normal and natural behavior as any one with a basic knowledge of anatomy can clearly see.

"This thread is entirely confirming and proving my worst fears about intolerance, homophobia and bigotry of ALL christian religions".
I rest my case.

This quote from you is the most blatantly hypocritical of them all!
*)YOUR WORST FEARS??? You fear intolerance and bigotry in the same sentence you express yours for ALL christian religions. In fact when I followed the string you had on Islam it became clear that you are simply intolerant of the Religous instinct in anyone.
Not true. Absolutely tolerant. Does tolerance equals agreement in your book? Doesn't in mine.
To you the world is all you see touch taste and stuff into your hash pipe! No invisible verities, No absolutes about right and wrong.That's right! Spot on! I just don't see the point in bringing on that hash innuendo on again. I don't even smoke.

The Reason your perplexed as to why passionate People of Islam, Or Christianity would be willing to zealously guard their Faith above all else at whatever cost is that you have no such noble instinct.
Why, thank you!

Your instinct is to narcissism, self aggrandisement, fatalism.Do you now see the hypocrisy in your first sentence?

In a sense your Position and the position of all those who put themselves before truth is the following:
..."Cant we all just get along...not because I desire peace for my neighbor, but because I desire peace for myself, so I can sleep soundly and not be bothered by all the noises of human responsibility and maturity,,,let me sleep Im only dreaming after all, and when you disturb my fantasy life with all this annoying reality, all this uncomfortable Talk of God and Judgment, Truth and Lie, Liberty and Justice...well I get this queasy feeling that Im actually sitting on my arse not accomplishing anything of any import....and dammit I don't like it! It makes me afraid. So Stop it all you homophobic, intolerant,unscientific disturbers of MY peace...and let me go back to sleep!

AND ONE FINAL NOTE: Im Slavic not Irish, Im a Greek rite Catholic not a Roman rite Catholic, even though Im sure the distinction is lost on one so occupied with self preservation. VIVO CHRISTU REX!
My oh my... And YOU said this wasn't a video conference... It is unbelievable how you seem to know all about me... The arrogance of it, I mean.

The Northern Ireland metaphor clearly surpassed your wit. Pity. So not knowing the distinction between blah blah catholics and burp belch catholics means that I am occupied with self preservation, eh?? I couldn't care less about all your splinter groups. It's just evidence of the degree of mutual agreement you catholics seem to have among yourselves.
Apart from the fact that cause and consequence follow strange connections in your mind (almost smells of hash abuse), I must admit that your rant amused me. TYRANNO SAURUS REX! Or whatever. :Bott:

languageteacher33

Feb 17th, 2005, 10:48 AM

I agree with some of you who support the position that homo-sodomy is wrong and is against one of the Ten Commandments....not the Ten Suggestions!!!!! For you who wrote in with your sappy defense of homosexual "love" (is that what you call it??? I call it lust), you are way off the mark. As for derangel....you sound like your name...totally deranged!!!! ANY sexual contact outside of the marital state is AGAINST the laws of God. This means same sex couples, animals, birds, trees...ash cans and of course, self gratifying techniques. It amazes me that you homo lovers even have the nerve to post on this site. But, it is a free country. You are free to opine, blovinate, live your life as you see it and go to hell eventually if you choose it. God is your judge and I am not. I am a sister who is trying to admonish you for your faulty ideas and dead consciences. I am sure this post will start a firestorm, but I dont care. You need to hear the truth, so that one day when you stand in front of God, you cannot whimper..."Oh sorry...I didnt know!" You dont choose to know or enlighten your consciences. Peace out.

dutchie

Feb 17th, 2005, 11:42 AM

Sister, did they shut down TCU, and you now come to this place?!? Are you joking?

On this forum we abide the rules SET BY THE FORUM ADMINISTRATION.
If you don't want to, please leave.

"3a.) Anything distasteful or offensive - vulgar language, badgering and tasteless insults, or usernames - is unacceptable. We will absolutely NOT tolerate derogatory statements towards race or creed. Be Adolf Hitler somewhere else. This means NO RACIST COMMENTS!"

This includes derogatory statements towards people of a certain sexual preference. If you came here to insult gay people, you WILL be banned.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 17th, 2005, 12:10 PM

DarkAce

Feb 17th, 2005, 11:09 PM

then remove every illogical assertion (the church got its belifes from the bible when the church beleved every thing it belives now at least a full 2 centurys before the bible was canonized)

The church has always changed it's views. It didn't all of a sudden set in stone it's views on dogma/rituals/rules/etc. It gradually came to except different theories on the nature of God, Jesus, among other things.This didn't all happen at once, which is clear you have no understanding of which. A small example and isn't what I'm initially get at but is even easy enough for you to understand, the Catholic Church has accepted that the earth isn't flat and isn't the center of the universe for some time now.

Then remove the dodge and distraction arguments such as the Catholics edited the bible

Besides going in the obvious direction, the works of the bible weren't originally in latin. Translation equals first evidence of editing. The cannonization of the Bible didn't officially end until the council of Trent in I believe somewhere in the 1000s AD. Hence even more evidence of editing. For someone who claims to know much of Catholic history you seem to be devoid of quite essential and basic information.

Then remove the simple calumnys against the Church and me

These aren't calumnies, but well documented, historical facts about the Church. On the point of you however, I'm only going on by which you give me to. And so far it reinstates what image I've already disclosed.

Then remove the psudo science (homosexuality is normal)

Derangle does a good job on explaining that already.

Then remove the "im an ex catholic" bitterness

There was no bitterness, felt of betrayal or falling out, or any other negative thing you could use. I simply educated myself and didn't follow that train of thought anymore.

Whats left? not much,,,just your signature quote which I concur and condemn you yourself with

No, what's left is your innate ability to come up with a proper, resonable, logical response. Instead you dodged every point I brought up, instead by claiming I'm inherently lieing without providing any real evidence as to how or to counter my points. Heh.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 18th, 2005, 1:16 AM

You said

"The church has always changed it's views. It didn't all of a sudden set in stone it's views on dogma/rituals/rules/etc. It gradually came to except different theories on the nature of God, Jesus, among other things.This didn't all happen at once, which is clear you have no understanding of which. A small example and isn't what I'm initially get at but is even easy enough for you to understand, the Catholic Church has accepted that the earth isn't flat and isn't the center of the universe for some time now."

The earth IS flat comment is irrelevant as that is topic of science and nature which the Church does not bother addressing because it is not its Purpose.Never was never will be.

All Popes are required to defend and TEACH ONLY THAT WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THEM FROM THEIR PREDECESSORS. THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO TEACH NEW OR PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN DOCTRINES EVER! The deposit of faith (depositum fidei) is that body of revelation, containing truths to be believed (faith) and principles of conduct (morals), which was given by Our Savior to His Apostles, to be preserved by them and their successors, with the guarantee of the guidance and protection of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, in the visible Church for all times and to the end of timeThis is immutable Catholic Law! Hence we read from Apostle Paul & My Catholic Fathers (who Know much more than you or I the Churchs law);

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

"To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one's own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency."
Basil,EpistleTo the Canonicae,52:1 (A.D. 370),in NPNF2,VIII:155

"But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,ùif there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude ? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,ùthis, and nothing else,ùshe has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name."Vincent of Lerins,Commonitory,23:59 (c.A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:148-149

Of course your Knowledge of Catholicism is SO much more INFORMED then these hacks huh!
theres more:
"For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth." (Vatican Council I, Dz 1836).

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;..." First Portion of the Papal Oath taken by Popes since the 6th century!

So that seals what the Church actually teaches and proves categorically that you are in error
Anathema Sit!
"The authority of our Scriptures, strengthened by the consent of so may nations, and confirmed by the succession of the Apostles, bishops and councils, is against you"
C Faustus 8:5 St. Augustine

You said:
"the works of the bible weren't originally in latin".
Duh never said they were?

You said:
"The canonization of the Bible didn't officially end until the council of Trent in I believe somewhere in the 1000s AD...."
A man can belive anything he wants..but the historical fact is The Bible was canonised in perpetuity in the year 398...many centurys before Trent! In fact St. Athanasius had already collected all the Books of the Bible in his own canon a decade before this? And since your so much more informed than I on the Church I guess I shouldn't tell you when Trent actually occurred?(1545-1565ad)

You said
" For someone who claims to know much of Catholic history you seem to be devoid of quite essential and basic information...."
yes that basic info would be what it is you smoke that convinces you you know what the hell your talking about!

You said in regard to homosodomy being normal:
"Derangle does a good job on explaining that already"
Im sorry but no one has explained to me yet how a man placing his organ in anothers man anus constitutes a normal activity...if you saw a man eating a carrot with his nose would you think that was normal too?

I close with this before I consign you to the eternal Iggy Bin...
"It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob . . . It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands…” G.K.Chesterton
VERITAS!VERITAS!VERITAS REX! :2thumbs:

languageteacher33

Feb 18th, 2005, 10:39 AM

I am sorry if you pro-homo idealogues dont agree with me. I feel sorry for you all too.

Haliburton

Feb 18th, 2005, 10:49 AM

I am sorry if you pro-homo idealogues dont agree with me. I feel sorry for you all too.
Hey i'm with you as i have said. Its the bible thumpers that will defend the church at any cost even innocent children. There priests go around molesting little boys and the vatican does everything it can to cover it up. We'll see whos right in the end.

DarkAce

Feb 18th, 2005, 2:30 PM

The earth IS flat comment is irrelevant as that is topic of science and nature which the Church does not bother addressing because it is not its Purpose.Never was never will be.

I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, or apparently your just making it up as you go along, but you're ignoring tons upon tons of history and just making up whatever to fit your views of how the church should and has operated. Which is in most cases completly different than what's the actual truth of the Church and completly going against recorded history.

The Catholic Church not caring about scientific matters...am I the only one who's not going to call you on this BS you're spewing? Ever heard of Galileo? That's one example of the Church caring and interfeing within the realms of science, and that's an old example. Even today with stem cell research.....

I have to leave for work, but I'll respond more when I get back and hopefully won't be discouraged by the amount of stupidity shown fourth here.

rapture

Feb 18th, 2005, 3:11 PM

I notice rapture that you focus your feverish anti catholic screeds for those who can least defend against them....(you have yet to respond in the conspiricy room to my challenge against your hatefull bigotted poll)"One Question"

Did you figure out the answer to the bigotted poll?

You have No biblical proof that the Catholic Church was not established By Jesus Christ.

If Jesus established it he needs to repent

You have your traditions of men like Tim LaHaye and his cash cow series as support for your assertions..

I live by traditions of dust? Nah......

DarkAce

Feb 19th, 2005, 1:21 AM

Alright lets see where I left off.

You said:
"the works of the bible weren't originally in latin".
Duh never said they were?

It was a simple example to show the use of editing. I even make mention of it in the same paragraph. When the original works of bible were in hebrew/greek and translated into latin, like with anything that's translated it looses much of it's true meaning. Due to the fact, certain things mean different things in other cultures, the substitution of words that don't exist in one culture from the other, etc. I didn't want to go into too far details of editing of the bible because apparently all of that historical fact is lost on your make believe world of what happened according to you.

A man can belive anything he wants..but the historical fact is The Bible was canonised in perpetuity in the year 398...many centurys before Trent! In fact St. Athanasius had already collected all the Books of the Bible in his own canon a decade before this? And since your so much more informed than I on the Church I guess I shouldn't tell you when Trent actually occurred?(1545-1565ad)

Your point being? The cannonization of the books of the bible began back than but up until the council of Trent I believe, books could of still been added.

yes that basic info would be what it is you smoke that convinces you you know what the hell your talking about!

Can you justly provide real evidence of which I'm wrong?

You said in regard to homosodomy being normal:
"Derangle does a good job on explaining that already"
Im sorry but no one has explained to me yet how a man placing his organ in anothers man anus constitutes a normal activity...if you saw a man eating a carrot with his nose would you think that was normal too?

I was speaking of homosexuality, which occurs in both men and women and animals. How they express their love to one another is up to them. I've seen and heard of people who like to dress up in leather and be dominated, I wouldn't classify that as normal sexual activity, but whatever floats their boat. Just because something isn't viewed as 'normal' doesn't make it wrong.

Since you like quotes, (often ones that are misleading, out of context or doesn't really bring any relevance) I guess I'll quote historical facts.
I've posted this website for you too use as a tool to do badily needed research but it seemes you missed it. So in accordance to your claim that the Catholic Church never changed it's views since 39whatever, here's some small summaries to help you steer away from your disillusioned path:

III. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

The present article deals chiefly with the theological and canonical questions concerning councils which are Ecumenical in the strict sense above defined. Special articles give the history of each important synod under the head of the city or see where it was held. In order, however, to supply the reader with a basis of fact for the discussion of principles which is to follow, a list is subjoined of the twenty Ecumenical councils with a brief statement of the purpose of each.

First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325)

The Council of Nicaea lasted two months and twelve days. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were present. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, assisted as legate of Pope Sylvester. The Emperor Constantine was also present. To this council we owe The Creed (Symbolum) of Nicaea, defining against Arius the true Divinity of the Son of God (homoousios), and the fixing of the date for keeping Easter (against the Quartodecimans).

Second Ecumenical Council: Constantinople I (381)

The First General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Damasus and the Emperor Theodosius I, was attended by 150 bishops. It was directed against the followers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. To the above-mentioned Nicene Creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.

Third Ecumenical Council: Ephesus (431)

The Council of Ephesus, of more than 200 bishops, presided over by St. Cyril of Alexandria representing Pope Celestine I, defined the true personal unity of Christ, declared Mary the Mother of God (theotokos) against Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and renewed the condemnation of Pelagius.

Fourth Ecumenical Council: Chalcedon (451)

The Council of Chalcedon -- 150 bishops under Pope Leo the Great and the Emperor Marcian -- defined the two natures (Divine and human) in Christ against Eutyches, who was excommunicated.

Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II (553)

The Second General Council of Constantinople, of 165 bishops under Pope Vigilius and Emperor Justinian I, condemned the errors of Origen and certain writings (The Three Chapters) of Theodoret, of Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia and of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa; it further confirmed the first four general councils, especially that of Chalcedon whose authority was contested by some heretics.

Sixth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III (680-681)

The Third General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Agatho and the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, was attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch, 174 bishops, and the emperor. It put an end to Monothelitism by defining two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. It anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.

DarkAce

Feb 19th, 2005, 1:22 AM

Seventh Ecumenical Council: Nicaea II (787)

The Second Council of Nicaea was convoked by Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene, under Pope Adrian I, and was presided over by the legates of Pope Adrian; it regulated the veneration of holy images. Between 300 and 367 bishops assisted.

Eighth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (869)

The Fourth General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Adrian II and Emperor Basil numbering 102 bishops, 3 papal legates, and 4 patriarchs, consigned to the flames the Acts of an irregular council (conciliabulum) brought together by Photius against Pope Nicholas and Ignatius the legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople; it condemned Photius who had unlawfully seized the patriarchal dignity. The Photian Schism, however, triumphed in the Greek Church, and no other general council took place in the East.

Ninth Ecumenical Council: Lateran I (1123)

The First Lateran Council, the first held at Rome, met under Pope Callistus II. About 900 bishops and abbots assisted. It abolished the right claimed by lay princes, of investiture with ring and crosier to ecclesiastical benefices and dealt with church discipline and the recovery of the Holy Land from the infidels.

Tenth Ecumenical Council: Lateran II (1139)

The Second Lateran Council was held at Rome under Pope Innocent II, with an attendance of about 1000 prelates and the Emperor Conrad. Its object was to put an end to the errors of Arnold of Brescia.

Eleventh Ecumenical Council: Lateran III (1179)

The Third Lateran Council took place under Pope Alexander III, Frederick I being emperor. There were 302 bishops present. It condemned the Albigenses and Waldenses and issued numerous decrees for the reformation of morals.

Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV (1215)

The Fourth Lateran Council was held under Innocent III. There were present the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, 71 archbishops, 412 bishops, and 800 abbots the Primate of the Maronites, and St. Dominic. It issued an enlarged creed (symbol) against the Albigenses (Firmiter credimus), condemned the Trinitarian errors of Abbot Joachim, and published 70 important reformatory decrees. This is the most important council of the Middle Ages, and it marks the culminating point of ecclesiastical life and papal power.

Thirteenth Ecumenical Council: Lyons I (1245)

The First General Council of Lyons was presided over by Innocent IV; the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Aquileia (Venice), 140 bishops, Baldwin II, Emperor of the East, and St. Louis, King of France, assisted. It excommunicated and deposed Emperor Frederick II and directed a new crusade, under the command of St. Louis, against the Saracens and Mongols.

Fourteenth Ecumenical Council: Lyons II (1274)

The Second General Council of Lyons was held by Pope Gregory X, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Constantinople, 15 cardinals, 500 bishops, and more than 1000 other dignitaries. It effected a temporary reunion of the Greek Church with Rome. The word filioque was added to the symbol of Constantinople and means were sought for recovering Palestine from the Turks. It also laid down the rules for papal elections.

Fifteenth Ecumenical Council: Vienne (1311-1313)

The Council of Vienne was held in that town in France by order of Clement V, the first of the Avignon popes. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, 300 bishops (114 according to some authorities), and 3 kings -- Philip IV of France, Edward II of England, and James II of Aragon -- were present. The synod dealt with the crimes and errors imputed to the Knights Templars, the Fraticelli, the Beghards, and the Beguines, with projects of a new crusade, the reformation of the clergy, and the teaching of Oriental languages in the universities.

Sixteenth Ecumenical Council: Constance (1414-1418)

The Council of Constance was held during the great Schism of the West, with the object of ending the divisions in the Church. It became legitimate only when Gregory XI had formally convoked it. Owing to this circumstance it succeeded in putting an end to the schism by the election of Pope Martin V, which the Council of Pisa (1403) had failed to accomplish on account of its illegality. The rightful pope confirmed the former decrees of the synod against Wyclif and Hus. This council is thus ecumenical only in its last sessions (XLII-XLV inclusive) and with respect to the decrees of earlier sessions approved by Martin V.

Seventeenth Ecumenical Council: Basle/Ferrara/Florence (1431-1439)

The Council of Basle met first in that town, Eugene IV being pope, and Sigismund Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Its object was the religious pacification of Bohemia. Quarrels with the pope having arisen, the council was transferred first to Ferrara (1438), then to Florence (1439), where a short-lived union with the Greek Church was effected, the Greeks accepting the council's definition of controverted points. The Council of Basle is only ecumenical till the end of the twenty-fifth session, and of its decrees Eugene IV approved only such as dealt with the extirpation of heresy, the peace of Christendom, and the reform of the Church, and which at the same time did not derogate from the rights of the Holy See. (See also the Council of Florence.)

Eighteenth Ecumenical Council: Lateran V (1512-1517)

The Fifth Lateran Council sat from 1512 to 1517 under Popes Julius II and Leo X, the emperor being Maximilian I. Fifteen cardinals and about eighty archbishops and bishops took part in it. Its decrees are chiefly disciplinary. A new crusade against the Turks was also planned, but came to naught, owing to the religious upheaval in Germany caused by Luther.

Nineteenth Ecumenical Council: Trent (1545-1563)

The Council of Trent lasted eighteen years (1545-1563) under five popes: Paul III, Julius III, Marcellus II, Paul IV and Pius IV, and under the Emperors Charles V and Ferdinand. There were present 5 cardinal legates of the Holy See, 3 patriarchs, 33 archbishops, 235 bishops, 7 abbots, 7 generals of monastic orders, and 160 doctors of divinity. It was convoked to examine and condemn the errors promulgated by Luther and other Reformers, and to reform the discipline of the Church. Of all councils it lasted longest, issued the largest number of dogmatic and reformatory decrees, and produced the most beneficial results.

Twentieth Ecumenical Council: Vatican I (1869-1870)

The Vatican Council was summoned by Pius IX. It met 8 December, 1869, and lasted till 18 July, 1870, when it was adjourned; it is still (1908) unfinished. There were present 6 archbishop-princes, 49 cardinals, 11 patriarchs, 680 archbishops and bishops, 28 abbots, 29 generals of orders, in all 803. Besides important canons relating to the Faith and the constitution of the Church, the council decreed the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra, i.e. when as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

Link:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

DontBeAfraid

Feb 19th, 2005, 3:59 AM

TYRANNO SAURUS REX! Or whatever. thank you dutchie

RavenWhitefang

Feb 19th, 2005, 4:19 AM

I've seen and heard of people who like to dress up in leather and be dominated, I wouldn't classify that as normal sexual activity, but whatever floats their boat. Just because something isn't viewed as 'normal' doesn't make it wrong.

I strive to be as far from what the populous says is "normal". We are Sado/Masochists. :bondage: Anyhew... who decides what is normal and what isnt?

Who cares if a man skrews another man, or a woman skrews another woman, its their choice, not yours what they do in their bedroom. Only when it becomes a problem of pedophilia that its an issue with me. Otherwise...who the hell cares? Why be a bastard telling someone who they can and cant have relations with according to a book, or what another person says is right. Pure Ignorance.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 19th, 2005, 1:59 PM

I strive to be as far from what the populous says is "normal". We are Sado/Masochists. :bondage: Anyhew... who decides what is normal and what isnt?

Who cares if a man skrews another man, or a woman skrews another woman, its their choice, not yours what they do in their bedroom. Only when it becomes a problem of pedophilia that its an issue with me. Otherwise...who the hell cares? Why be a bastard telling someone who they can and cant have relations with according to a book, or what another person says is right. Pure Ignorance.
I dont follow your opposition to pedophila then? Kinsey had no problem with pedophila....what standard is it in you that says child adult sex is wrong?
You cannot have it both ways either there is objective standards of right and wrong or their isnt! Child adult sex is wrong for the SAME reason male on male or female etc is wrong...Nice sophistry though Im sure it comes in handy on those ceiling staring nights when the gnawing truth about who youve become starts stalking your mind. :2thumbs:

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 19th, 2005, 2:02 PM

Did you figure out the answer to the bigotted poll?

If Jesus established it he needs to repent

I live by traditions of dust? Nah......
The so called Rapture is pure dust...man made.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 19th, 2005, 2:23 PM

Alright lets see where I left off.

Your point being? The cannonization of the books of the bible began back than but up until the council of Trent I believe, books could of still been added.

I see your point on this one and I grant it to you in the sense that the Canon was sealed at Trent...so Point taken and received....Vox

Can you justly provide real evidence of which I'm wrong?
Ive proven many things you said wrong...you just dont accept the evidence....which I find strange(and conveinent) considering that quotes are the only real evidence that can be offered in this forum...what do you want some kind of mathamatical formula?...Vox

I was speaking of homosexuality, which occurs in both men and women and animals. How they express their love to one another is up to them. I've seen and heard of people who like to dress up in leather and be dominated, I wouldn't classify that as normal sexual activity, but whatever floats their boat. Just because something isn't viewed as 'normal' doesn't make it wrong.
A man expressing his Love for another Man is not what is the definition of Homosodomy/Homosexuality....without the sexual acts there is no homosex--uality
LOve is not Sex...sex can be done without any emotion or love at all...sex is a pleasurable function of the sexual organs. Love has no need of sex to be Love.
ANd since animals dont know of LOve or it cant be proven they do only wishfully assumed...the animal kingdom is irrelevant...of Course I hold Humanity as a unique Creation of a Loving God...and you hold him merely as an animalistic accident of blind evolution and thus you have a sub-concsious contempt for your fellow species....Vox
Since you like quotes, (often ones that are misleading, out of context or doesn't really bring any relevance) I guess I'll quote historical facts.
I've posted this website for you too use as a tool to do badily needed research but it seemes you missed it.(youll never approch the level of research Ive already done and continue to do in this field Of Catholic Apologetics)...Vox So in accordance to your claim that the Catholic Church never changed it's views since 39whatever, here's some small summaries to help you steer away from your disillusioned path:

See this is the part where you play the "ill decide what is evidence" sophistry.
If in this debate only you and you alone is the arbiter of what is valid evidence and what is not then its not really a debate is it.
What historical fact did you provide that showed the Church Changing a doctrine?
all the summerys you provide on the councils don't illustrate anything opposing my assertions. In fact if you posit these councils as evidence against me then is it not fair to say you respect these councils as evidence? May I quote these councils in the future?( I doubt you'll say yes but I hope you do!)ANd are you even reading my posts...I never said they hav'nt changed since 39 whatever...I said since Christ and the apostles ceased their Ministrys.
AND ON A FINAL NOTE I NEVER EXPECT YOU TO BELIVE WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES ONLY THAT IT IN FACT TEACHES IT.
heres some sources for you:
http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tindex.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/aquinas/aindex.htm This one probebly wont work for you since you hold yourself Smarter then Thomas Aquinas...Vox

RavenWhitefang

Feb 19th, 2005, 3:25 PM

DontBeAfraid

Feb 19th, 2005, 3:40 PM

You need to quit trying to draw black and white copies of a color photo vox.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 19th, 2005, 6:03 PM

sorry but huh?

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 19th, 2005, 6:08 PM

Pedophilia and Homosexuality arent the same thing. You are too busy living in your holier than thou world and looking down your nose at other people, telling them what is right or wrong.

Same as I said before, Why do you care. Homophobia? Self Hate? You arent in their bedroom, dont stick your nose there and you wont have to see it.

when truth is raped all civilization suffers!

ps I asked you to tell me by what standard do you use to condemn pedophilia?
If you were honest you would see your contradiction!
Niccolo Machievelli (1469-1527), who wrote: "If you can't attack the argument, attack the man." Or, as Francis Cardinal Spellman (1889-1967) replied to his accusers: "What can you expect from pigs but grunts?"

DontBeAfraid

Feb 19th, 2005, 6:09 PM

You group too many things in the the same catagories. Adults having consensual sex is not the same as a child being raped.
consensual is the key word here and a child cannot consent.

RavenWhitefang

Feb 19th, 2005, 7:37 PM

ps I asked you to tell me by what standard do you use to condemn pedophilia?

if you are 16 and have concentual sex thats your business, i am talking about pre teen to 15. A child has no idea of what the meaning of the sexual act is, it is the adult imposing their will on a child. That act is what i use to condemn pedophilia.

If a Gay couple of adults wish to engage in sex concentually good on them. It is not pedophilia.

Making the inference that being gay and being a pedophile as the same just doesnt cut it. You boast so much knowledge, yet you cant seem to differentiate between the two.

Niccolo Machievelli (1469-1527), who wrote: "If you can't attack the argument, attack the man." Or, as Francis Cardinal Spellman (1889-1967) replied to his accusers: "What can you expect from pigs but grunts?"

LOL you are no better even if you have to use quotes, you still do it.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 19th, 2005, 8:02 PM

if you are 16 and have concentual sex thats your business, i am talking about pre teen to 15. A child has no idea of what the meaning of the sexual act is, it is the adult imposing their will on a child. That act is what i use to condemn pedophilia.

If a Gay couple of adults wish to engage in sex concentually good on them. It is not pedophilia.

Making the inference that being gay and being a pedophile as the same just doesnt cut it. You boast so much knowledge, yet you cant seem to differentiate between the two.

****************************

You rightly condemn the act against children...but you still offer no source as to WHY it is WRONG.....you point out correctly WHAT is wrong...but deftly avoid why it is wrong...is it wrong because its illegal...is it wrong because you say so...is it wrong because God says its wrong? this is my question.

"sodomy is to be condemned because the rational ground of all morality is nature, and sodomy is against nature." To regard "the generative distinction between male and female" as arbitrary is to regard all the distinctions upon which all morality rests—e. g., those which condemn slavery and genocide—as arbitrary. It implies that we are free to choose whether there are objective limitations upon human action, objective standards of right and wrong." Professor Harry Jaffa

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 19th, 2005, 8:12 PM

You group too many things in the the same catagories. Adults having consensual sex is not the same as a child being raped.
consensual is the key word here and a child cannot consent.

You are correct THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEODOPHILIA...but the question is WHY is it wrong...why does socioty condemn this revolting crime?
Why...why...why?
My posit is that the condemnation of pedophila rests upon the same foundation that condemns sodomy....remove that foundation and both practices can be rationalised....(ever hear of NAMBLA?) And at what age is consent to be respected?
What if the child swears he wanted to engage in the activity? (im getting sick even haveing to explain this!)

This professor makes the point im making:
"sodomy is to be condemned because the rational ground of all morality is nature, and sodomy is against nature." To regard "the generative distinction between male and female" as arbitrary is to regard all the distinctions upon which all morality rests—e. g., those which condemn slavery and genocide..." (or in this case pedophilia...my comment)"—as arbitrary. It implies that we are free to choose whether there are objective limitations upon human action, objective standards of right and wrong." Professor Harry Jaffa

Havoc Angel

Feb 19th, 2005, 8:32 PM

If it works it's natural. There's no way a natural being, as a human is no matter what some people want to belief, can go agains the rules of nature.

So where can you take what's acceptable and what not?
I myself go with a simple rule of thump: Cause as little as possible suffering to yourself or others, best cause none at all, no matter what reasons you might have to cause suffering.

If two members of the same sex have fun with each other they don't hurt anyone because of that. Those that writhe in disgust only hurt themselves, it's not the problem of the couple.
If a man (as it's usually) forces himself on a child he is causing much suffering and lifelong mental scarring on the child so it's wrong to do it and has to be prevented/forbidden.

DontBeAfraid

Feb 19th, 2005, 9:12 PM

Nothing to do with god vox. The golden rule is what makes it wrong. Forcing your will on another is wrong because you dont want theirs forced on you. As an adult you can know you are glad you werent raped as a child or you can be upset that you were raped as a child. This is what makes it wrong.

DarkAce

Feb 20th, 2005, 2:19 AM

See this is the part where you play the "ill decide what is evidence" sophistry.

Hardly. I asked you for evidence (links) for what you were talking about. Because you were generally talking about things as if you knew what you were talking about and that they were true. Perhaps they might be true to you, but they go against what's acutually taught by the Roman Catholic church and it's history.

What historical fact did you provide that showed the Church Changing a doctrine?

You're right. I provided the link in hopes that you would find your way, but apparently I have to spell it out for you too. So here:

While revising the text of the Old Latin Version, St. Jerome became convinced of the need in the Western Church of a new translation directly from the Hebrew. His Latin scholarship, his acquaintance with Biblical places and customs obtained by residence in Palestine, and his remarkable knowledge of Hebrew and of Jewish exegetical traditions, especially fitted him for a work of this kind. He set himself to the task A.D. 390 and in A.D. 405 completed the protocanonical books of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and the deuterocanonical Books of Tobias and Judith from the Aramaic. To these were added his revision of the Old Latin, or Gallican, Psalter, the New Testament, revised from the Old Latin with the aid of the original Greek, and the remaining deuterocanonical books, and portions of Esther, and Daniel, just as they existed in the Itala. Thus was formed that version of the Bible which has had no less influence in the Western Church than the Septuagint has had in the Eastern, which has enriched the thought and language of Europe and has been the source of nearly all modern translations of the Scriptures. The Hebrew text used by St. Jerome was comparatively late, being practically that of the Massoretes. For this reason his version, for textual criticism, has less value than the Peschitto and the Septuagint. As a translation it holds a place between these two. It is elegant in style, clear in expression, and on the whole, notwithstanding some freedoms in the way of restricted or amplified readings, it is faithful to the sense of the original. At first it met with little favour. It was looked upon by some as a perversion suggested and encouraged by the Jews. Others held it to be inferior to the Septuagint, and those who recognized its merits feared it would cause dissensions. But it gradually supplanted the Old Latin Version. Adopted by several writers in the fifth century, it came into more general use in the sixth. At least the Spanish churches employed it in the seventh century, and in the ninth it was found in practically the whole Roman Church. Its title "Vulgate", indicating its common use, and belonging to the Old Latin until the seventh century, was firmly established in the thirteenth. In the sixteenth the Council of Trent declared it the authentic version of the Church.

From an early day the text of the Vulgate began to suffer corruptions, mostly through the copyists who introduced familiar readings of the Old Latin or inserted the marginal glosses of the manuscripts which they were transcribing. In the eighth century Alcuin undertook and completed (A.D. 801) a revision with the aid of the best manuscripts then current. Another was made about the same time by Theodulph, Bishop of Orléans. The best known of other and subsequent recensions are those of Lanfranc (d. 1089), of St. Stephen, Abbot of Cîteaux (d. 1134), and of Cardinal Nicolas (d. 1150). Then the universities and religious orders began to publish their "Correctoria biblica", or critical commentaries an the various readings found in the manuscripts and writings of the Fathers. After the first printing of the Vulgate by Gutenberg in 1456, other editions came out rapidly. Their circulation with other Latin versions led to increasing uncertainties as to a standard text and caused the Fathers of the Council of Trent to declare that the Vulgate alone was to be held as "authentic in public readings, discourses, and disputes, and that nobody might dare or presume to reject it on any pretence" (Sess. IV, decr. de editione et usu sacrorum librorum). By this declaration the Council, without depreciating the Hebrew or the Septuagint or any other version then in circulation and without forbidding the original texts, approved the Vulgate and enjoined its public and official use as a text free from error in doctrine and morals. It was left to the Holy See itself to provide for a corrected revision of the Vulgate, but the work went on but slowly. Contributing towards the desired end, John Henten, O.P., published at Louvain, 1547, as amended text with variants, which was favourably received. The same was republished at Antwerp, 1583, with a larger number of variants, by the Louvain theologians under the direction of Lucas of Bruges. In 1590 a Roman edition was prepared by a commission of scholars. After revising it, Sixtus V ordered it to be taken as the standard text. After his death a further revision was carried out under the direction of Franciscus Toletus, S.J., and finally the work was printed in 1598, with its title unchanged: "Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ editionis, Sixti V Pontificis Maximi jussu recognita et edita". This was under the pontificate of Clement VIII, and his name has appeared in the title since 1641. This revision is now the officially recognized version of the Latin Rite and contains the only authorized text of the Vulgate. That it has numerous defects has never been denied, yet it ranks high in the evidence it affords of the competent scholarship that produced it. To bring it into closer touch with the latter developments of textual criticism is the purpose that induced Pius X to entrust to the Benedictines the work of further revision. The importance of this enterprise consists in this that it will reproduce, as correctly as possible, the original translation of St. Jerome, and will thereby furnish biblicists with a reliable clue to an ancient Hebrew text, differing in many details from the Septuagint, or the Massoretic Text.

Link:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

all the summerys you provide on the councils don't illustrate anything opposing my assertions.

They don't? Gee from what you said here "do you Know that the Catholic church's doctrines or Dogmas are only those taught by the apostles themselves?" or "Th reason this is relevent is that in that Year the Catholic Church belived everything it does now. If the Catholic faith is in error now it was in error when it Compiled the Book you are useing to say it is error"

From just those two quotes of yours you make the assertions that The Church believed everything from that time frame as the same as what it believes today.
Also that the dogma and doctrine of the Catholics today are the exact same taught by the apostles.
My quotes about the councils is a significantly small example to show you the ever changing beliefs. You could pick one of the councils and research it indepth to see exactly what dogmatic changes were discussed and made, etc.

Ive proven many things you said wrong...you just dont accept the evidence....which I find strange(and conveinent) considering that quotes are the only real evidence that can be offered in this forum...what do you want some kind of mathamatical formula?...Vox

There's a major difference between quoting historical fact, and historical opinion. I could tell you the sky is blue and you could doubt me to the last and say that it's purple. Doesn't change the matter that I'm essentially right, and you thinking that you're right.

I could go through each of your posts and point out the inaccuracies and provide historical evidence and even church samples to show you how you're wrong. But that would be a complete waste of time and effort even more so than now. If you can't see the major inaccuracies in what your saying now when I'm countering in a more general sense, there's no need to go indepth because it would be lost on you.

repentantsinner

Feb 20th, 2005, 9:37 AM

People are gonna do what people are gonna do. It has become a "hate" crime to quote the bible at gay rallys. God wants a PERSONAL relationship with you. There is alot of peace of mind with letting the world be as it is.

Sammy56

Feb 20th, 2005, 11:44 AM

I agree with repentantsinner, no matter how much you speak out against homosexuality, it's still going to happen. I have a close personal friend who is gay, and although I don't support his lifestyle choice, I don't constantly tell him that what he is doing is wrong and evil. Instead of debating gay rights and whether it's wrong or not, we should be worrying more about helping people like the tsunami victims. I'm willing to bet this is more important to God then bashing people because they are different.

dutchie

Feb 21st, 2005, 2:52 AM

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 21st, 2005, 12:27 PM

Vox says gays are sinners because scriptures says they are.
Fine. You're entitled to your POV. You think it's unnatural: have it your way!

In my book EVERYONE has a right to be happy. You only got a meager 70 or 80 years on this bullock we call home. If you are a homosexual (and let there be no doubt about that: homosexuality is NOT a disease you contract somewhere and can be "cured" from, it is what you ARE. There is conclusive scientific proof of that.) and you are happy, GREAT!! If you're a hetero, COOL! Whatever gets you through the day.

Abusing children is something ENTIRELY different. It is forcing your will upon a human being that hasn't the ability to defend itself, or make a choice against you. In my book (while I am against the death penalty) all child molesters may be shot when caught in the act.

God has got NOTHING to do with determining the right or wrong of crime. For the rest of it: be happy with your ideas. They're just not mine.

1st) What conclusive scientific proof homosodomy is nature not nurture?

2nd) My question is from whence does humanity derive the concept of right and wrong? If you posit that all notions of right and wrong reside in individual choice...then you can have no problems with individuals who choose to rape ,murder,molest etc...can you? Examine yourself...why do you think somethings like homophobia or antGay bigotry is wrong? By your standards NO ONE CAN CONDEMN THE ACTIONS OF ANYONE ELSE. THIS IS PURELY FOLLOWING YOUR LINE OF REASONING.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 21st, 2005, 12:33 PM

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 21st, 2005, 1:14 PM

Hardly. I asked you for evidence (links) for what you were talking about. Because you were generally talking about things as if you knew what you were talking about and that they were true. Perhaps they might be true to you, but they go against what's acutually taught by the Roman Catholic church and it's history.

You're right. I provided the link in hopes that you would find your way, but apparently I have to spell it out for you too. So here:

Link:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

They don't? Gee from what you said here "do you Know that the Catholic church's doctrines or Dogmas are only those taught by the apostles themselves?" or "Th reason this is relevent is that in that Year the Catholic Church belived everything it does now. If the Catholic faith is in error now it was in error when it Compiled the Book you are useing to say it is error"

From just those two quotes of yours you make the assertions that The Church believed everything from that time frame as the same as what it believes today.
Also that the dogma and doctrine of the Catholics today are the exact same taught by the apostles.
My quotes about the councils is a significantly small example to show you the ever changing beliefs. You could pick one of the councils and research it indepth to see exactly what dogmatic changes were discussed and made, etc.

There's a major difference between quoting historical fact, and historical opinion. I could tell you the sky is blue and you could doubt me to the last and say that it's purple. Doesn't change the matter that I'm essentially right, and you thinking that you're right.

I could go through each of your posts and point out the inaccuracies and provide historical evidence and even church samples to show you how you're wrong. But that would be a complete waste of time and effort even more so than now. If you can't see the major inaccuracies in what your saying now when I'm countering in a more general sense, there's no need to go indepth because it would be lost on you.

Im not sure but you seem to be saying that that long acurate quote about the Vulgate(which I thoroughly enjoyed for its excellent explination of BIBLE history)
HAS NO COMMENTARY WHATSOVER ABOUT DOGMA OR DOCTRINES CHANGING. It mearly pointed out at best that Biblical scholarship had become more sophisticated which I fully concur as true! However you have not made your case that Dogma has been CHANGED.
I cant see how you could hold up a more authoritative source then the Catichism of the Council of Trent, or the Cat of Cath Church which both teach unambigously that the Church defends the DEPOSIT OF FAITH.DEPOSITOFFAITHDEPOSIT OF FAITHDEPOSIT OF FAITHDEPOSIT OF FAITHDEPOSIT OF FAITHDEPOSIT OF FAITHDEPOSIT OF FAITHDEPOSIT OF FAITHDEPOSIT OF FAITHDEPOSIT OF FAITH
LOOK it up the DEPOSIT OF FAITH....that is CATHOLIC TEACHING! AND I WILL BET YOU YOU CANT FIND 1 SINGLE QUOTE FROM AN AUTHORITATIVE CATHOLIC SOURCE (soryy newadvent is a resourse not a source) THAT DEFINES THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH AS A CHANGING doctrine. Christ deposited the Truth once and for all, the Catholic Churchs mandate is to defend these truths. period.......and since you quote the councils let me quote the councils:
There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved. Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)

"The Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within Her, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock..."(Council of Florence, Dz 714).

AND SINCE YOU KEEP PUSHING NEW ADVENT HERE YOU GO CASE CLOSED...USING YOUR OWN RESOURCE!!!!!!!!!!
"The truths of Christian revelation were made known to the Apostles either by Christ Himself or by the Holy Ghost. They constitute what is called the Deposit of Faith, to which nothing has been added since the Apostolic Age." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm 2ND PARAGRAPH!!!!!!!!!!!
:gotcha: gotcha!!!!!!!

DarkAce

Feb 21st, 2005, 3:13 PM

Since I doubt you'd actually accept scientific evidence, lets see what the Catholic church's view is:

The Catholic Church considers homosexual behavior to be disordered and sinful, but has clearly stated that homosexual desire itself is not. On the one hand, "[homosexual acts] are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (Catechism of the Catholic Church para. 2357) On the other hand, "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." (ibid, para. 2358) (In the first edition of the Catechism in English, the phrase "they do not choose their homosexual condition" appeared. However, this was removed in the second edition to reflect corrections made to the official Latin text.) For homosexuals, in general, the Catholic Church offers the following counsel: "Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." (ibid, para. 2359) It should be noted that the same call to the virtue of chastity applies to all persons. See Catechism of the Catholic Church Article 6 Section II: The Vocation to Chastity (http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm)

The golden rule has been around long before Christ showed up in other religions also.

Confucianism
Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2

Buddhism
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1

Hinduism
This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517

Zoroastrianism
That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

etc.

HAS NO COMMENTARY WHATSOVER ABOUT DOGMA OR DOCTRINES CHANGING.

Either your not reading it or it's not registering. I put the quote about the vulgate to illustrate the point that the bible has been edited, since you inquired it never was since whenever. I listed the councils in hopes that you would pick one and research indepth to see which articles of dogma are addressed and built/refined upon, because it's from these councils that we have built upon what our dogma is today.

The imposing edifice of Catholic theology has been reared not by individual nations and men, but rather by the combined efforts of all nations and the theologians of every century. Nothing could be more at variance with the essential character of theology than an endeavour to set upon it the stamp of nationalism: like the Catholic Church itself, theology must ever be international. In the history of dogmatic theology, as in the history of the Church, three periods may be distinguished:

the patristic
the medieval
the modern
...

From "History of Dogmatic Theology":http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14588a.htm

AND SINCE YOU KEEP PUSHING NEW ADVENT HERE YOU GO CASE CLOSED...USING YOUR OWN RESOURCE!!!!!!!!!!
"The truths of Christian revelation were made known to the Apostles either by Christ Himself or by the Holy Ghost. They constitute what is called the Deposit of Faith, to which nothing has been added since the Apostolic Age." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm 2ND PARAGRAPH!!!!!!!!!!!

And? The deposits of faith cannot be changed, but our understanding of them can and has been throughout the centuries. That's the whole point I've been trying to show. As one person eloquently puts it:

Christ gave to His Church, in the person of its first officials, the apostles, a mass of truth concerning God and man; concerning the nature of God, His threefold personality, His attributes, His purpose in making man, the means by which His purpose was to be achieved. This teaching, given by Christ to the apostles, was by them passed on to others, who in their turn passed it on. The Church then, by the time the last apostle died, had all the mass of truth the apostles had taught, the whole of it by word of mouth, a part of it in writing. She might have simply gone on, through the nineteen centuries since, repeating what had been taught, reading what had been written. In this case, she would have been a preserver of truth - but scarcely a teacher. In fact, she not only repeated what the apostles had been taught, she thought about it, meditated on it, prayed by it, lived it. And, doing all this, the Church came to see further and further depths of truth in it. And, seeing these, she taught these too... This development in the Church's understanding of what has been committed to her is not like anything else in the world.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 21st, 2005, 6:11 PM

Since I doubt you'd actually accept scientific evidence, lets see what the Catholic church's view is
This is not the Churchs veiw just the veiw of the apostate bishops in the nccbuscc.org NOT an infallable part of the Churchs teaching office. Your quoteing the same bishops who protect the pedophiles...do you realize that?..Its references to the Catichisms are there after they define them to their prohomosodomitic slant..
I utterly and catagorically deny any respect due to this NON catholic body nccbuscc.org (this is a topic for another thread) A St Augustine said the floors of Hell are littered with the skulls of unworthy bishops. And it wasnt because of the latin it was retracted....it was considered seriously theologically flawed by the Popes own commission (if your interested see ... http://sspx.org/New_Catechism/new_catechism__is_it_catholic_I.htm)

The golden rule has been around long before Christ showed up in other religions also.

Either your not reading it or it's not registering. I put the quote about the vulgate to illustrate the point that the bible has been edited, since you inquired it never was since whenever. I listed the councils in hopes that you would pick one and research indepth to see which articles of dogma are addressed and built/refined upon, because it's from these councils that we have built upon what our dogma is today.

From "History of Dogmatic Theology":http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14588a.htm

And? The deposits of faith cannot be changed, but our understanding of them can and has been throughout the centuries. That's the whole point I've been trying to show. As one person eloquently puts it:

Golden rule then is recognized in different philosophys...so the appeal for you as to what is right and wrong lie in something in our inherent make-up...and this is proof for a common creator...and Ibelive but i have to Check that these religions POST Date at least the Old Law (Prechristian Judaism) so I still hold it to be JudeaoChristian construct. Borrowed by others or simply part of the natural Law written on their hearts by a single Creator.

I understand now the misunderstanding about "editing" and why you keep pounding me on it.....I misunderstood your assertion...and you misunderstood my complaint....when I said that Catholics didnt edit the bible I was refering to the protestant accusation that Catholics added books...So as to your point I give it to you whole heartedly...Yes in the sense of translations and editing....As St Jerome most assuredly had to do it was done (I myself ONLY trusts the St Jerome bible/Doauy Rheims)....this is not to imply however that Jerome changed the Meanings of the texts at all..so we were debateing an issue not in dispute...my apologys for the knee jerk defensiveness on this matter.( I know youll find this hard to belive but Im not perfect)

In reference to the deposit of faith...
If you mean that the understanding changes you are wrong, it is an act of clarity not an act of paridigm shift. In other words Mary was always known to be without sin,,that is the Dogma, what was clarified and made absolute was about how such a thing could be...and at no time in the future could it ever be asserted that Mary WAS NOT conceived without sin. The intetion and basic truth of any of the Deposit of Faith has NOT Changed as I proved from a previous quote...to point it out here it is again
""But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude ? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,this, and nothing else,she has thence forward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name."
Vincent of Lerins,Commonitory,23:59 (c.A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:148-149

Read the underlined sections carefully Because this GREAT Saint of the CAtholic Church is of Greater authority on this topic then you or I.(more about Vincent http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15439b.htm)
"provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently,....Ibid" That is not a CHANGE in meaning get it?

DontBeAfraid

Feb 21st, 2005, 8:09 PM

You are wrong, the golden rule is not religious at all. And no judaism was not the first religion. And just because MOST people have a little common sense(the golden rule) does not imply a creator at all.

dutchie

Feb 22nd, 2005, 1:46 AM

1st) What conclusive scientific proof homosodomy is nature not nurture?

2nd) My question is from whence does humanity derive the concept of right and wrong? If you posit that all notions of right and wrong reside in individual choice...then you can have no problems with individuals who choose to rape ,murder,molest etc...can you? Examine yourself...why do you think somethings like homophobia or antGay bigotry is wrong? By your standards NO ONE CAN CONDEMN THE ACTIONS OF ANYONE ELSE. THIS IS PURELY FOLLOWING YOUR LINE OF REASONING.
1. Please do not "shout" on this forum.
2. Your question about conclusive evidence: see attached image. (source: Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 2000, page 35)
Homosexuality is as natural as a tree in a meadow...
3. The global differences in values and morals are only very partially explained by religion. Geography, population density, cultural history, relative economic wealth are all factors in determining those values and morals.

DontBeAfraid

Feb 22nd, 2005, 4:38 AM

Dutchie why didnt you approve your own image?

dutchie

Feb 22nd, 2005, 5:34 AM

A little technicality rendering too much hassle...

BTW, the figures say enough, IMO.

DontBeAfraid

Feb 22nd, 2005, 7:08 AM

we cant see the figures until that gets approved

dutchie

Feb 22nd, 2005, 8:06 AM

Ooopsss.... :yikes: I forgot that I always can... There. That's solved.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 22nd, 2005, 8:43 AM

1. Please do not "shout" on this forum.
2. Your question about conclusive evidence: see attached image. (source: Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 2000, page 35)
Homosexuality is as natural as a tree in a meadow...
3. The global differences in values and morals are only very partially explained by religion. Geography, population density, cultural history, relative economic wealth are all factors in determining those values and morals.

Hardly conclusive at all simply muddy Kinsey like wishfull thinking, not dispationate science.

Nice dodge but you didnt answer the "shouted" question.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 22nd, 2005, 8:48 AM

PS
(as loud as i can)
WE ARE NOT SEAGULLS AND APES, SEGULLS AND APES seagulls and apes,,,,,,,,(echo)!

dutchie

Feb 22nd, 2005, 9:08 AM

Havoc Angel

Feb 22nd, 2005, 10:02 AM

hmmm....

natural: not caused, made or controlled by human beings.

that's from my dictionary

now vox says everything that is not natural is bad.
So the bible was compiled (made) by humans and is controlled by humans so it is not natural and therefore bad.

I guess this is just another case where religion contradicts itself.
But hey, it's nothing that can't be fixed with generous amounts of 'faith' and indoctrination.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 22nd, 2005, 7:23 PM

You got one crappy dictonary.
I guess just another case of poor scholarship mixed with a dimwitted attempt to contradict and confuse.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 22nd, 2005, 7:35 PM

Come on now - now you're doing evasive manoeuvres again..

The issue was: is homosexuality "natural"?!? These figures prove it actually is. I might as well ask: did God NOT create gulls and monkeys??!

My answer was clear: In OUR culture racism, pedophelia and/or child abuse, murder and rape are all wrong. I do not need to differentiate.

Homosexuality is just wrong to those thinking from a biblical perception. Fine by me. I just do not agree. Which does not necessarily make me wrong. Or you, for that matter. I grant anyone their portion of happiness in life. That is not the same thing as condoning all crime.

I just dont think your picking up what Im putting down here...
Let me try again.
you said the following;
"In Our culture..." this that and the other thing "...are all wrong."So if another Culture said these things were not wrong But right...therefore they are also right? Forget the Homosodomy issue for now....lets try murder...animals murder each other all the time and dont seemed to have the least bit of recrimination about it. Humans (exept for a few we call psychopathic) all feel guilty(to a greater or lesser degree) for committing murder. A Gorilla will murder another Gorilla to mate with the dead gorillas mate...A human does the same thing and we convict...or he feels guilty and confesses or kills himself etc...
See what Im trying to appeal to here?
Or how about this...When the Founding fathers said we were endowed By our Creator with certain inalienable rights...to what did they refer except Natural law.
You are confusing the law of the Jungle with Natural Law.
Animals do alot of things we would find unspeakbly evil would you use that to justify it.?
Certain Gulls will kill the Hatchlings of rival Gulls...would you endorse such behavior In Humans?

dutchie

Feb 23rd, 2005, 2:16 AM

Ha ha ha!! Now you're doing it again: pushing me back into a corner I didn't even come from.... :crazy:

The keyword here is conscience.

There are no animals doing any "unspeakable evil". Animals do not "murder". They do not "rape". This is exactly what sets us apart from the animal word. Is a stinging nettle evil? (it IS injecting poison into any creature that touches it, it makes no distinction...) Is a lion killing a wildebeest and eating it evil? Is it evil to kill a cow and eat it?!? Forget it, I love my bbq'd steak in summer.... Yet the hindus would be appalled by such an idea... There is a difference in culture that makes eating a steak an appalling sin in the eyes of part of the world population.

Don't make me explain this over and over again.

You try to wrap "unnatural" and "evil" into the same package, just like you now do with animal and human behavior. Don't be naive. You're now walking a path in this discussion I do not care to follow.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 23rd, 2005, 8:19 AM

languageteacher33

Feb 23rd, 2005, 9:31 AM

Kinsey, if you arent in the know....had a mad, fabulous fascination with Alistair Crowley....there are even photos of them on the web....Crowley was an avowed satanist....and we the people put our trust in all of Kinsey's documentation on sex. How stupid the human race!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 23rd, 2005, 5:19 PM

Laungueage.
Kinsey was a sick twisted sexually addicted pedophile, and in the end suicidal masocist!
And yet to this day his "research" is one of the pillars of all sexual assumptions made in so called sex education!

DontBeAfraid

Feb 23rd, 2005, 6:12 PM

and it has a singular absolute code of right and wrong
this is untrue.

dutchie

Feb 24th, 2005, 1:50 AM

Then why should I accept your "evidence" from the animal kingdom, as evidence of the "goodness" of the homosodomitic act.? It is you who are dancing like mercury around this central question. You have just contradicted you previous evidence.
If Im wrong show me the distinction.
you said rightly "This is exactly what sets us apart from the animal word."
On the one hand you set humanity apart from animals only to make us inseperable when it comes to sex. Cant have it both ways.
Conscience is not about despising Homosodomy because the Bible said so...the conscience exists in every human whether they ever saw a bible or not(even the Bible admits this)....and it has a singular absolute code of right and wrong...and the only way to accept a behaviour that is objectivly contrary to its purpose as "good" (as pleasurable as it may seem to some) is to render this code arbitrary to render it mercurial and ever shifting and changing with the cultures and fads of human zeitgiest. No just civilization could ever survive much less progress under such a worldveiw.
There is absolute truth and it is and can be known...this is the basis of sanity.
The concept of the shifting conscience is the very defintion of insanity.

And Im sorry you wont continue the discussion...I think your responses to be intellegent even though I dont agree.
When I follow your line of thinking I should be regarding homosexuality as fundamentally wrong. Regardless of culture or religion. When it is about humans interacting and causing each other bodily or mental HARM it's true: I feel this is fundamentally wrong. When it is about two people interacting with mutual consent - even finding happiness in this interaction - I would never feel that as being fundamentally wrong. Which does not necessarily mean I would engage in the same acts - I don't. I was just born a heterosexual male, that's all.

The link towards animals was just added to show there is nothing "unnatural" about humans interacting like this, because in that realm we find the same conduct occurring. At that point the comparison stops: animals do not act from their conscience - they act from instinct.

The fundamentals of right and wrong are not universal - that is a line of thinking which is typical of western calvinistic culture. There are cultures where people fundamentally believe that eating the brain, heart and liver of an enemy add to their life strength. They see absolutely no evil in this. Actually it's the main cause of "Kuru", a strange brain disease comparable with Kreuzfeld Jacob (mad cow disease). You and I would see cannibalism as fundamentally wrong. They don't. We shiver at the idea of walking city streets stark naked. There are tribes in the world that think of clothing as laughable nonsense. There goes your universal right and and wrong idea.

BTW, for a good read on homosexuality and the psychology around it visit this link. (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/index.html)

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 24th, 2005, 3:31 PM

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 24th, 2005, 3:34 PM

Are you SURE this is untrue?
Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE?
Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE TRUTH?

DontBeAfraid

Feb 24th, 2005, 7:12 PM

Yes I am. We all view different realities.

dutchie

Feb 25th, 2005, 2:04 AM

Forget these cultural abberations, Show me a tribe or nation where deliberate murder is considered appealing and good,
Show me a tribe or Nation were betraying those people closest to you who showed you nothing but kindess was consodered a good thing (betrayal)
These ARE Universal Morals recognosed by all who hold sanity.
Im beginning to think you are a fundamentalist Nihilist.
Wow, and that makes me "dangerous"?!?

Pity that you feel you now have to resort to trying to debate me at this level. My sanity is never questioned by anyone on this forum or by anyone else in my social environment. It is striking you feel you must use this word so frequently when debating people that don't share your views.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 25th, 2005, 5:29 PM

Wow, and that makes me "dangerous"?!?

Pity that you feel you now have to resort to trying to debate me at this level. My sanity is never questioned by anyone on this forum or by anyone else in my social environment. It is striking you feel you must use this word so frequently when debating people that don't share your views.
Your level..lol..your level...quite the self promoter arnt we.... Inoticed you didnt answer the question Oh exaulted one!

Bigsky770

Feb 25th, 2005, 6:26 PM

Originally posted by voxpopulisuxx
Forget these cultural abberations, Show me a tribe or nation where deliberate murder is considered appealing and good

Overview of Bushido and Eastern Morality

Bushido and Eastern Morality are not the sum total of any member of the Japanese clan. However, it is a part of the each character's personality.

Overview of Bushido
The term "Bushido" literally means the "Way of the Warrior." This "Way" incorporates strict ethical responsibilities with a code of physical sacrifice. Significance to ethics: Bushido requires systematic training of mind and body, emphasizing absolute loyalty, spontaneity, collective responsibility, and personal sacrifice. This training has been adapted to business and religious practices.

The great flowering of Bushido came in the Edo period - in a time of relative peace - not only in Yamaga Soko's writings, but also in the Buke Sho Hatto of Tokugawa Ieyasu. This piece of legislation is widely regarded as the earliest written formulation of Bushido, albeit it does not call it by that name. The Buke Sho Hatto, or 'Rules for Martial Families', laid down strict codes, governing the behavior of the samurai clans in times of peace. While it does formalize elements of the code of warfare, its primary purpose was to create a new focus for the samurai, thus reducing the chances of a rebellion against the newly formed Tokugawa bakufu.

The Buke Sho Haet required the samurai to devote themselves to philosophical pursuits, and to a life of training and intense discipline, so as to refine and preserve the arts of war through times of peace. The Buke Sho Hatto created the classical samurai. Its rules laid the foundations for the creation of new schools of bujutsu - the arts of war - and for the philosophical and literary advances of the Edo period. More importantly, it urged the samurai in peacetime to be something other than an unemployed warrior, itching for a war which would allow him to do the only thing he did well.

Duty was almost always seen as the keystone of the samurai code. It was paramount in a way that few Western cultures could rival, or even completely understand. From Buddhism, Bushido took the notion of 'freedom from fear', that a warrior must strip himself of all fear of death, pain or defeat in order to serve his master loyally and without regard for himself. The devotion of the samurai also relates to sutemi, an enduring, insular Japanese ethos of self-sacrifice in the service of a greater cause. Samurai meant 'one who serves', and a good samurai was expected to set aside personal concerns in the service of his master.

All forms of loyalty and patriotism were encouraged. From Shinto, national pride; from Confucianism, an emphasis on personal relationships, not only between daimyo and samurai, but between family members and friends. Another principle which impacted on all relationships was the maintenance of correct etiquette and propriety. All relations - externally at least - were governed by strict, formal rules. The ideal samurai was a rock for all his relatives and comrades to lean on, and a stalwart foe of those who would threaten Japan or the daimyo. He observed an absolute dignity, propriety and formality in all public relations, and in the end his absolute devotion could belong only to his master, above even the law.

A samurai was also supposed to be magnanimous and generous, to aid and protect those beneath him, and to seek internal focus, and self-knowledge. He was supposed to be respectful before all, to seek knowledge and wisdom in all things, to be compassionate and truthful, to care for the aged and infirm. Far from these being a goal merely to aim for, the samurai was supposed to make himself a paragon, a figure for those of lesser class to look upon in wonder and reverence; a superior man through superior living, exemplifying all virtue in himself.

The principles of loyalty and sutemi combined produce the phenomenon of seppuku; ritual suicide. Seppuku is a natural result of the principles and influences of Bushido, because as well as a way of living, Bushido was a way of dying. The samurai who lived by Bushido did not fear death, and was supposed to die for his master if necessary. He was also expected to maintain dignity and propriety, and his performance in all things would be seen as a measure of his master, his ancestors and his family. Thus, a samurai's disgrace harmed far more people than merely the samurai, and seppuku was not a coward's flight from responsibility, but a shouldering of your own failure to spare those close to you.

The classic method of seppuku was hara-kiri (literally, belly-cutting). The samurai would take his shoto - the shorter of his two swords - and draw it across his abdomen, disembowelling himself. A second - usually a friend, comrade or retainer, would stand behind the samurai as he did this, and decapitate him with his daito (long sword). Seppuku was traditionally practised only to avoid great disgrace, to atone for the failure to protect one's lord from death (suicide on the death of a samurai's lord was also called junshi) or as the ultimate form of protest against a superior's error. In the latter case, disobedience to your superior would not be an option, because loyalty and obedience were so firmly ingrained in Bushido. By committing seppuku, the samurai showed that he believed death to be preferable to following the superior's orders. A samurai could also be ordered to commit seppuku as a death sentence.

. . .As for the second part of your query,

Originally posted by voxpopulisuxx
Show me a tribe or Nation were betraying those people closest to you who showed you nothing but kindess was considered a good thing (betrayal)

. . .Hope you do not mind, as I corrected the misspellings in your quote, though I did not change the essence thereof; All of the aforementioned from above can come into play through REASONING in thought is that which promotes a particular action. That is, what one party may consider a "betrayal" the opposing party could consider a "saving grace" by that self-same action; This is where a subjective outlook by the concerned parties can come into view. In the end? who's to judge? WE DO WHAT WE DO AS OUR CONCSIENCE GUIDES US, which could be construed as wrong for one, although correct for another, and yet under the laws outlined above, one could be called-upon to take his own life he had disgraced his master.

. . .And yet, this way of life and living was and is highly refined; i.e.

Life is suffering.
All suffering is caused by ignorance.
Suffering can be ended by overcoming ignorance and attachment.
To suppress suffering Buddha recommended the Noble Eightfold Path, which consists of right views, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right-mindedness, and right contemplation.
There has never been, nor is there now, a central authority in Buddhism.

There is no equivalent to the Holy Father of the Roman Church or to anything that resembles papal law. With no supreme arbitrator, the diversification of Buddhism has flourished. But Buddah also left a few more points regarding morality, about things he saw as a no-no.

The Pancha Shila, or five moral precepts:

1. Avoid killing, or harming any living thing.
2. Avoid stealing -- taking what is not yours to take.
3. Avoid sexual irresponsibility, which for monks and nuns means celibacy.
4. Avoid lying, or any hurtful speech.
5. Avoid alcohol and drugs which diminish clarity of consciousness.
To these, monks and nuns add...

1. One simple meal a day, before noon.
2. Avoid frivolous entertainments.
3. Avoid self-adornment.
4. Use a simple bed and seat.
5. Avoid the use of money.
Full monastic life adds over two hundred more rules and regulations!

And then you have The Perfections or Virtues -- noble qualities that we should all strive to achieve.

1. Generosity (P: dana)
2. Moral discipline (P: sila)
3. Patience and tolerance (P: khanti)
4. Wisdom or (full-) consciousness (P: pañña)
5. Energy (P: viriya)
6. Renunciation (HP: nekkhamma)
7. Truthfulness (P: sacca)
8. Determination (P: adhitthana)
9. Loving kindness (P: metta)
10. Equanimity (P: upekkha)
Then he provides a lesson on friendship -- how to distinguish good friends from bad friends. There are four types that are not really your friends, but will make your life miserable in the long run:

1. The leech who appropriates your possessions
2. The liar who manipulates you
3. The boot-licker who flatters you
4. The party-animal who encourages you to do the same
A good friend, on the other hand, is one who...

1. is always ready to help you
2. is steady and loyal
3. provides good advice
4. is sympathetic

[I]Originally posted by voxpopulisuxx
Your level..lol..your level...quite the self promoter arnt we.... Inoticed you didnt answer the question Oh exaulted one!

. . .Lastly, you know nothing of "Dutchie", for if you had known him as I do, you would understand that if he is anything, he is NOT the "Self-Promoter" unlike yourself and your ideologies; In all probability he has most likely grown as tired of you as I have. . .

Joe (Bigsky770)

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 25th, 2005, 6:36 PM

Mr Big Sky,'
the first was not an example of willfull murder,
Im not sure what the second was supposed to mean at all,
and your noble defense of your friend proves my point that all humans have a code written in their hearts that is the same for all.

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 25th, 2005, 6:39 PM

and all the buddist concepts you illustrated were taught by Christ Himself further strengthening my contention of a universal moral instinct.

Bigsky770

Feb 25th, 2005, 7:13 PM

. . .Shall we then turn to "The Old Testament?"

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill Followers of Other Religions.

1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Kill Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle

For the LORD had said to Moses, 'Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites. You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment. They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it. Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again. Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.' (Numbers 1:48-51 NLT)

Kill People for Working on the Sabbath

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

Kill Sons of Sinners

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

God Will Kill Children

The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

Kill Men, Women, and Children

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

Kill Old Men and Young Women

"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26)

(wanna give it up here?)

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 25th, 2005, 7:17 PM

What am I giving up...?
And for the record arn't you the guy who supports Bushs death inititiative in Iraq?
So when Bush tells us to kill its ok...when God says to its wrong? hmmmm
Do you worship a Bush?

Bigsky770

Feb 25th, 2005, 7:40 PM

Jihad

Arabic: jihâda

Islamic term, Arabic for 'battle; struggle; holy war for the religion'.
Jihad has two possible definitions: the greater, which is the spiritual struggle of each man, against vice, passion and ignorance. This understanding of jihad has been presented by apologetics of modern times, but is an understanding of the term rarely used by Muslims themselves.
The lesser jihad is simplified to cover holy war against infidels and infidel countries, aiming at spreading Islam. This kind of jihad is described in both the Holy Koran and in the hadiths. Muslim law has divided the world into two entities, dâra l-'islâm, the abode of Islam, and dâru l-harb, the abode of war. Battling against the Abode of war was a duty for a Muslim, as this is the only way for the peace of Islam to take the place of the warlike conditions of the infidels' society. Jihad can be both defence, as well as attacking an enemy.
The enemies of Islam are divided into two groups, the Peoples of the book, âhlu l-kitâb and the pagans, the kâfirûn. The first group, defined as Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Mandeans need only to submit to an Islamic ruler, and live in peace with other Muslims to end the situation where jihad is imperative.
For the pagans there is a principle fairly similar, but they get less rights under the Muslim ruler than the Peoples of the book. While this group generally can live safely inside a Muslim society, some Muslims have propagated that these should either convert to Islam or face death penalty. In situations where the Muslim rulers mean that war has to be waged against the infidels, they should be allowed sufficient of time to convert before the Muslim army attacks.
Jihad is a duty for every Muslim community, but not necessarily for every individual: it's sufficient that a certain number of the the able men perform jihad. The one who dies in the battle against the infidels, becomes a martyr, a shahid, and is guaranteed a place in Paradise as well as certain privileges there.
While offensive jihad, i.e. attacking, is fully permissible in Sunni Islam, it is prohibited for some of the larger groups of Shi'i Islam, which consider only the Imam, now in occultation, as carrying the right to decide to go to war or not.
The Kharijis regard jihad as the sixth pillar of Islam, a position that other groups of Islam have adhered to earlier.

. . .The above is the battle we are engaged in NOW, for these believers in a "Jihad" believe that their world will not indeed be cleansed until the last of we infidels are eradicated (or) converted, (not unlike) those in the past that followed the biblical "Old Testament". Whether or not you believe they exist, they have made themselves known throughout the civilized world by the acts they have carried out. You may choose to remain ignorant of their existence, (or) understand better now as never before that we are engaged in a battle that will take us to the precipice of the freedoms we have come to know and cherish. Your choice. But by your "Avatar" (be forewarned) in their eyes that may serve to provide them with a more than adequate target.

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 25th, 2005, 7:52 PM

so again,
Bush says to kill jihadist, men women and Children its ok
But God says the same thing and its uh wrong?

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 25th, 2005, 7:55 PM

as far as being a target
BRING IT ON! Islam has been trying to extinquish catholics for centurys....their threats hold no dread for me...especially not enought to send my kids to kill thier kids...
i cant belive a smart guy like you bought the entire Islamic threat , hook line and sinker...Im dissappointed.

Bigsky770

Feb 25th, 2005, 8:24 PM

. . .YOU wish to live in?

Celebration of the conquest by raping

Women and girls all over Afghanistan live in constant fear of being raped by armed guards. For years, armed guards have been allowed to torture them in this way without fear of reprimand from their leaders. In fact, rape is apparently condoned by most leaders as a means of terrorizing conquered populations and of rewarding soldiers. .... Some women have attempted suicide to avoid being raped... Fear of rape and other abuses has led many families to leave Kabul. .... Torture of civilians in their homes has become endemic. Women and girls are treated as the spoils of war, being raped by armed guards or sold into prostitution. Unarmed civilians suspected of belonging to a rival ethnic group are routinely beaten and otherwise ill-treated.
Amnesty International, November 1995

Suicide to avoid rape

The Amnesty International report on women in Afghanistan says:
"Armed group have massacred defenseless women in their homes, or have brutally beaten and raped them. Scores of young women have been abducted and then raped, taken as wives by commanders or sold into prostitution. Some have committed suicide to avoid such a fate. Scores of women have reportedly disappeared and several have been ston-ed to death. Many women are traumatised by the horrific abuses, they have suffered or witnessed."

The conquerors often celebrate by killing and raping women and looting property.
The Frontier Post, August 4, 1995

Women’s fault or cruelty in the name of "Shariat" (Islamic Law)?
"Turpeki was taking her toddler to the doctor. The child had acute diarrhea and needed to be seen by a doctor soon. Turpeki was dressed in a borqa. She reached the market area when a teen-aged Taliban guard noticed her. The guard called her. Turpeki knew that if she stopped she would be beaten for appearing in public. She was also frightened that her child might die if she did not hurry. She began to run. The Taliban guard aimed his Kalashnikov at her and fired several rounds. Turpeki was hit but did not die. People intervened and took the mother and the child to the doctor. Turpeki’s family then complained to the Taliban leaders. But were simply told that it had been the woman’s fault. She should not have been appearing in public in the first place; once she did, she should stop, when told so, and not run away." .... "The young woman was carrying her baby, her two friends walking beside her. All three were veiled, their faces completely hidden from view. Suddenly a passing car braked to a halt and two men jumped out. From the style of their turbans, wrapped round their heads with one end loose and hanging almost down to the waist, it was clear they were the Taliban from Kandahar. .... Each was brandishing a stick. They set about beating the women on the legs as their arms rose and fell, they shouted that the women should never come out in public dressed in such immoral fashion again. A few inches of bare leg were showing above the women’s ankles between their shoes and the bottom of their pajama-style trousers. .... The women with the baby staggered and swayed beneath the blows, desperately trying to stay upright. None of the three dared to utter a sound as the sticks whipped their legs. Then the men got back in the car and drove off. The incident lasted less than five minutes, but it was sufficiently brutal to leave the women quaking as they limped silently away."
Women who did not have a burqa before the Taliban arrived in Kabul have had to spend excessive amounts of money to buy one. In mid-October 1996, a burqa reportedly cost as much as $33, about three times the salary of a senior civil servant. The serious finance burden this imposes on women who have lost their jobs has led to further punishment. An eye- witness reported Amnesty International: "A Taliban guard stopped an Afghan woman who had gone out of the house, and beat her severely with a cable rod for not wearing a burqa. The women cried that she could not afford to buy a burqa but the guard did not stop beating her.’
AI, November 18,1996

Give it a rest, already. . .

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 25th, 2005, 8:37 PM

I ment bring it on me personally as you tried to say that my catholicism makes ME a target....Ever hear the song American Idiot? This is the age of HYSTERIA...and your hysterical!

Bigsky770

Feb 25th, 2005, 8:53 PM

voxpopulisuxx

Feb 26th, 2005, 6:03 AM

. . .'Cause you must be ROTFLYAO over this one!

Algeria says 150,000 killed in Islamic rebel violence
23 Feb 2005 18:51:58 GMT

Source: Reuters

ALGIERS, Feb 23 (Reuters) - Algeria's President Abdelaziz Bouteflika acknowledged for the first time on Wednesday that 150,000 people have died in more than a decade of an Islamic holy war or "jihad".

"The number of victims has reached 150,000 and the destruction has reached $30 billion," Bouteflika said in a speech. He did not provide further details.

Until now authorities maintained that 100,000 people died in the violence since 1992, although human rights groups have long said the figure exceeded 150,000.

Militants unleashed a "jihad" after the powerful army cancelled legislative elections that the hardline Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) looked set to win in 1992. Authorities feared an Iranian-style revolution if they let the now-banned FIS take power.

. . .But then, in your world, this is allright?

Rest of the story @ this LINK:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L23300284.htm

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:
NO THIS IS not all right....but the fact that evil exists and mankind around the globe commits atrocitys does not lead me to the conclusion that our Nation in violation of its Constitution should go around committing atrocitys our selves...hence the 100,000 dead Iraqis....Islam is No threat politically....it is only a threat THEOLOGICALLY....The only way to combat heresy is with truth...and since you reject Christianity( and Islam is a Christian heresy...) the only course left to you is unconstitutional "american" terrorism...political war...and physical war...remember the crusades? Remember how evil you think they were...and Yet this is the only time ISLAM WAS ACTUALLY PUT IN CHECK...but historical facts are meaning less...you only want HYSTERICAL facts....good go have your war enjoy it...cheer "ra ra ra...kill the rag heads" but know this...you are wiping your ass on the Constitution and all of Americas children are going to reap what their asshole reactionary parents were lead by the nose to do...one cannot fight a religious war with political slogans and high tech weapons. I have 4 sons and Id sooner have my limbs chopped off then allow them to enter into this unjust, un winnable,unconstitutional barbarity. It will be Christianity that will destroy Islam, and my sons are most assuredly Christians. That is were they will fight, not killing for the "god" demos (democracy) but laying down their lives for Christ the King.!