It’s “beatified” and it means being made a saint. And you talk so much shit sev. A “shadow government agency” of the US had Romero assassinated? Because you found this crackpot conspiracy somewhere you think it’s true? How did JPII “talk down the people?” And you still haven’t given a single example of how he “turned his back” on Romero.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It’s “beatified” and it means being made a saint. And you talk so much shit sev. A “shadow government agency” of the US had Romero assassinated? Because you found this crackpot conspiracy somewhere you think it’s true? How did JPII “talk down the people?” And you still haven’t given a single example of how he “turned his back” on Romero.[/quote]
The church, he announced, is “not to be measured by the government’s support but rather by its own authenticity, its evangelical spirit of prayer, trust, sincerity and justice, its opposition to abuses.”
Romero was supposed to be pacifistic, which was why he was made Archbishop. When he spoke out all of a sudden Pope JP II had decided to have him removed as Archbishop. He wanted to basically demote the Martin Luther King of San Salvador. Romero's resurrection | National Catholic Reporter
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/01/09/vatican-panel-says-oscar-romero-was-a-martyr/
- I actually think Pope Pious didn’t overtly criticize the Nazi’s so he could help save Jewish people. So I don’t agree with that criticism in this article btw SexMachine, but it does site quite a few examples of Pope JP’s involvement and his politics in S. America with his power over the Church, and how he used it as a weapon against what he saw as a marxist threat.
PEACE!
And, don’t ask me again for examples of this. I’ve done it several times now, you just don’t read!
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It’s “beatified” and it means being made a saint. And you talk so much shit sev. A “shadow government agency” of the US had Romero assassinated? Because you found this crackpot conspiracy somewhere you think it’s true? How did JPII “talk down the people?” And you still haven’t given a single example of how he “turned his back” on Romero.[/quote]
The church, he announced, is “not to be measured by the government’s support but rather by its own authenticity, its evangelical spirit of prayer, trust, sincerity and justice, its opposition to abuses.”
Romero was supposed to be pacifistic, which was why he was made Archbishop. When he spoke out all of a sudden Pope JP II had decided to have him removed as Archbishop. He wanted to basically demote the Martin Luther King of San Salvador. Romero's resurrection | National Catholic Reporter
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/01/09/vatican-panel-says-oscar-romero-was-a-martyr/
- I actually think Pope Pious didn’t overtly criticize the Nazi’s so he could help save Jewish people. So I don’t agree with that criticism in this article btw SexMachine, but it does site quite a few examples of Pope JP’s involvement and his politics in S. America with his power over the Church, and how he used it as a weapon against what he saw as a marxist threat.
PEACE!
And, don’t ask me again for examples of this. I’ve done it several times now. [/quote]
No, you have done nothing of the sort. And I’ve just read those articles and they don’t relate to any of your claims. They just say, that at the time of Romero’s assassination, JPII was preparing to remove him from the office of Archbishop. And with good reason. The church is not a political activist group. An Archbishop should not be pushing a political agenda of any sort - right or left. And Romero died before he even learned about it.
So, you’ve been called out. First you made the ridiculous suggestion that the Vatican assassinated Romero and now you’ve changed it to a “shadow agency” of the US government. And none of your links suggest anything of the sort. They are heavily biased sources however, and they make suggestive statements like the US aid to the government of El Salvador was to “buy the deaths of poor El Salvadorians.”
And I will continue to call you out when you post false statements and radical, extremist junk.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It’s “beatified” and it means being made a saint. And you talk so much shit sev. A “shadow government agency” of the US had Romero assassinated? Because you found this crackpot conspiracy somewhere you think it’s true? How did JPII “talk down the people?” And you still haven’t given a single example of how he “turned his back” on Romero.[/quote]
The church, he announced, is “not to be measured by the government’s support but rather by its own authenticity, its evangelical spirit of prayer, trust, sincerity and justice, its opposition to abuses.”
Romero was supposed to be pacifistic, which was why he was made Archbishop. When he spoke out all of a sudden Pope JP II had decided to have him removed as Archbishop. He wanted to basically demote the Martin Luther King of San Salvador. Romero's resurrection | National Catholic Reporter
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/01/09/vatican-panel-says-oscar-romero-was-a-martyr/
- I actually think Pope Pious didn’t overtly criticize the Nazi’s so he could help save Jewish people. So I don’t agree with that criticism in this article btw SexMachine, but it does site quite a few examples of Pope JP’s involvement and his politics in S. America with his power over the Church, and how he used it as a weapon against what he saw as a marxist threat.
PEACE!
And, don’t ask me again for examples of this. I’ve done it several times now. [/quote]
No, you have done nothing of the sort. And I’ve just read those articles and they don’t relate to any of your claims. They just say, that at the time of Romero’s assassination, JPII was preparing to remove him from the office of Archbishop. And with good reason. The church is not a political activist group. An Archbishop should not be pushing a political agenda of any sort - right or left. And Romero died before he even learned about it.
So, you’ve been called out. First you made the ridiculous suggestion that the Vatican assassinated Romero and now you’ve changed it to a “shadow agency” of the US government. And none of your links suggest anything of the sort. They are heavily biased sources however, and they make suggestive statements like the US aid to the government of El Salvador was to “buy the deaths of poor El Salvadorians.”
And I will continue to call you out when you post false statements and radical, extremist junk.[/quote]
You once again didn’t read a thing.
Do you at all believe the Pope had close ties with the CIA chief at the time?
Do you think the School of the America’s is a made up thing, that fringe crazy people just made up?
If I have to I’ll prove point by point that you are experiencing denial, are simply ignorant, or just too lazy to read.
[quote] Severiano wrote:
You once again didn’t read a thing.
[/quote]
That’s actually offensive as I took the time to read your links, they don’t substantiate your claims(wasting my time) and now you’re saying I never read them? Very frustrating.
Undoubtably, given that he worked closely with Reagan on the resistance to Communist despotism and human rights abuses.
Of course it existed. And? The Pope trained there as an assassin? How does this relate to your wild, unsubstantiated claims?
Try to resist the temptation to do that. How about you just show me where you get this Vatican assassination plot. I thought “Popish plots” went out of style years ago. You need to keep up sev. It’s the Jews nowadays.
Anyway, as I said the links contain nothing to substantiate your claims. And it’s ironic that you claim I’m in “denial” about this. I’ve been very critical of the Vatican where legitimate, real problems exist. I have no love for the Vatican. But I’m only interested in reality as opposed to utterly groundless, loopie conspiracy theories.
Edited for clarity(one word added).
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] Severiano wrote:
You once again didn’t read a thing.
[/quote]
That’s actually offensive as I took the time to read your links, they don’t substantiate your claims(wasting my time) and now you’re saying I never read them? Very frustrating.
Undoubtably, given that he worked closely with Reagan on the resistance to Communist despotism and human rights abuses.
Of course it existed. And? The Pope trained there as an assassin? How does this relate to your wild, unsubstantiated claims?
Try to resist the temptation to do that. How about you just show me where you get this Vatican assassination plot. I thought “Popish plots” went out of style years ago. You need to keep up sev. It’s the Jews nowadays.
Anyway, as I said the links contain nothing to substantiate your claims. And it’s ironic that you claim I’m in “denial” about this. I’ve been very critical of the Vatican where legitimate, real problems exist. I have no love for the Vatican. But I’m only interested in reality as opposed to utterly groundless, loopie conspiracy theories.
Edited for clarity(one word added).[/quote]
Right.
So the whole part where the SOA, being the para military arm of puppet regimes installed by the U.S. Used to pacify peasants who speak out via fear and intimidation. The nature of the SOA is that they are trained in interrogation and torture tactics, and use intimidation and murder as a strategy to pacify people as a form of methodology… It started off as more a security force to aid in security for the Panama Canal, but they evolved and operate more similarly to some kind of Gestapo, and that isn’t an exaggeration. For intimidation they would kill anyone, women, kids, families and leave them in piles for people to see which is more similar to terror. The status quo for interrogations/ really torture is about 10 days after which time they put a round in your brain and leave you in the jungle to disappear… The amazing thing about the jungle is how quickly bodies are eaten up by nature. Doesn’t even leave bones!
So, while there were poor people being murdered because of this conflict… After a close friend of Romero’s was murdered, (the other guy the Pope reprimanded, not saying the Pope killed him) Romero became an activist Arch-Bishop…
The thing is the Pope being so anti-communist, buddy buddy with our super Catholic CIA Chief at the time, and buddy buddy with Ron Reagan who wanted to uphold the regime in San Salvador that killed Archbishop Romero.
The reality in San Salvador was that you were with the poor/ Romero/ Sandanista’s, or you were with the Americans, and the Regime… The Pope was with the Americans and the regime that we propped up and kept on life support.
The Pope attempted to undermine the resistance, and his plan to do such by demoting the Arch-Bishop Romero.
That is how he turned his back on Romero, and the poor.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Right.
So the whole part where the SOA, being the para military arm of puppet regimes installed by the U.S. Used to pacify peasants who speak out via fear and intimidation.
[/quote]
That’s not a complete sentence sev. Look, you do this all the time. You are called out on your BS and so you just glide into a completely unrelated subject and try to get the ball rolling in another direction. I’ll try this one more time: What has the US government’s actions have to do with what we are talking about?
Don’t just shift your attack onto the US government. We’re not talking about the US government. You’ve been called out for your Vatican assassination conspiracy theory and your utterly vague and non-specific accusations against JPII.
Pretty much yes. And that is related to your accusations against JPII and the Vatican how?
Actually, they didn’t operate on their own nor have any agenda. It was a training school used by the CIA to train anti-Communist forces all over the world. And yes, they were taught dirty tricks and many then went back to their home countries and applied said dirty tricks. I’m well aware of all of this but still at a loss as to what it has to do with your accusations against JPII and the Vatican.
Yes, that’s pretty much how politics works in the third world/developing world on both sides of the political spectrum. But again, irrelevant. You’re just twisting away from something you’ve been called out on and now you’re starting afresh with a new polemical hoping to distract. No, that’s not how it works.
Romero openly aligned himself with a movement that advocated revolutionary Marxism and violence. And as historian David W Del Testa explains:
“Romero, however unintentionally, contributed to the outbreak of a violent civil war in El Salvador…”
That’s why JPII was in the process of removing him from his office as Archbishop. Because of the violence, public association with a movement that openly advocates violence and Marxist vanguard militancy. He did not “turn his back” on Romero. In fact, he opened the door for his beatification.
Again, this is not a complete sentence. You’re rambling. I know you’re enamoured with radical Marxist movements and so on but you should try to understand that a lot of the stuff you’ve been reading from Marxist sources is a complete fabrication and rewriting of history. This is what Marxists do. They’re famous for it. They don’t even hide it. Marxism openly advocates the use of “history” as an “ideological weapon” by which they mean, they lie and distort history in order to further their revolutionary aims. You need to be able to assess your sources. Don’t just open wide and swallow every spoonful of horseshit they ladle. Use some critical thinking and try to find opposing views and sources then dispassionately assess them. Are you interested in doing that? Or are you only interested in seeking out radical Marxist stuff?
You outright claimed that JPII/Vatican assassinated Romero. Then changed it to a US “shadow agency” or something. The US government actually arrested and prosecuted one of the assassins BTW. Your narrative has just been pulled straight from the pages of Pravda. Do yourself a favour and follow my advice above. Broaden your mind and read some mainstream sources and some opposing sources > assess sources, conclusions etc > critical thinking. Give it a go.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Right.
So the whole part where the SOA, being the para military arm of puppet regimes installed by the U.S. Used to pacify peasants who speak out via fear and intimidation.
[/quote]
That’s not a complete sentence sev. Look, you do this all the time. You are called out on your BS and so you just glide into a completely unrelated subject and try to get the ball rolling in another direction. I’ll try this one more time: What has the US government’s actions have to do with what we are talking about?
Don’t just shift your attack onto the US government. We’re not talking about the US government. You’ve been called out for your Vatican assassination conspiracy theory and your utterly vague and non-specific accusations against JPII.
Pretty much yes. And that is related to your accusations against JPII and the Vatican how?
Actually, they didn’t operate on their own nor have any agenda. It was a training school used by the CIA to train anti-Communist forces all over the world. And yes, they were taught dirty tricks and many then went back to their home countries and applied said dirty tricks. I’m well aware of all of this but still at a loss as to what it has to do with your accusations against JPII and the Vatican.
Yes, that’s pretty much how politics works in the third world/developing world on both sides of the political spectrum. But again, irrelevant. You’re just twisting away from something you’ve been called out on and now you’re starting afresh with a new polemical hoping to distract. No, that’s not how it works.
Romero openly aligned himself with a movement that advocated revolutionary Marxism and violence. And as historian David W Del Testa explains:
“Romero, however unintentionally, contributed to the outbreak of a violent civil war in El Salvador…”
That’s why JPII was in the process of removing him from his office as Archbishop. Because of the violence, public association with a movement that openly advocates violence and Marxist vanguard militancy. He did not “turn his back” on Romero. In fact, he opened the door for his beatification.
Again, this is not a complete sentence. You’re rambling. I know you’re enamoured with radical Marxist movements and so on but you should try to understand that a lot of the stuff you’ve been reading from Marxist sources is a complete fabrication and rewriting of history. This is what Marxists do. They’re famous for it. They don’t even hide it. Marxism openly advocates the use of “history” as an “ideological weapon” by which they mean, they lie and distort history in order to further their revolutionary aims. You need to be able to assess your sources. Don’t just open wide and swallow every spoonful of horseshit they ladle. Use some critical thinking and try to find opposing views and sources then dispassionately assess them. Are you interested in doing that? Or are you only interested in seeking out radical Marxist stuff?
You outright claimed that JPII/Vatican assassinated Romero. Then changed it to a US “shadow agency” or something. The US government actually arrested and prosecuted one of the assassins BTW. Your narrative has just been pulled straight from the pages of Pravda. Do yourself a favour and follow my advice above. Broaden your mind and read some mainstream sources and some opposing sources > assess sources, conclusions etc > critical thinking. Give it a go.
[/quote]
I never claimed the Vatican itself assassinated Romero. But nice strawman… YOU cooked that bullshit in your own head and concluded such, because you don’t read lol.
When I originally posted something about Romero’s death, I left an article for you to read which fingered the School of the Americas. You got pissed and said I went too far, you even called me a commie 
When I responded and said you didn’t read a fucking thing, you went and changed edited your prior post. Are you intellectually lazy? You don’t seem dumb, you just seem to be in denial about this, just like you are about a lot of things.
So, here…
Hopefully the L.A. Times isn’t too coo coo for you. I even took a little snippet and copy pasted it for you to READ.
After John Paul’s ascension in 1978, Vatican commissions visited Romero two times demanding that he explain his outspoken criticism of El Salvador’s military rulers and the seeming impunity of death squads that ended up claiming 21 priests and nuns as victims.
For years after his death, the Vatican maintained a pointed distance from Romero, while he became recognized as a martyr. Although John Paul twice visited Romero’s tomb during Central American visits, the Vatican only recently announced that it was formally initiating Romero’s beatification process.
“The pope didn’t understand the meaning of Romero,” said former priest Ventura, now 59. “It indicated that Rome doesn’t give aspects of the Salvadoran, the Latin American church, the attention it should.”
Oh, you don’t remember that? It’s not important, all I took it was that you were Catholic.
So, anyhow… Enjoy your opiates.
I never did anything of the sort. I don’t even know what you mean “went back and changed [my] post”. Changed what? I suggest you direct me to the comment and explain what it is I changed. I sometimes fix a typo or add something for clarity but I have never changed a post for any other reason. Perhaps the time stamp on the post and some info from the mods about it might sort this out. Anyway, you’ve now resorted to personal attacks and even mocking my health condition and so on. Not very sporting of you. And I don’t take opiates for “enjoy[ment]” as you well know. They’re prescribed to treat chronic pain resulting from serious spinal injuries.
If memory serves me correctly you said something along the lines of:
“He(Romero) was trapped between the Vatican and the right-wing dictatorship they supported. Who do you think killed him?”
^^ That’s paraphrasing from my recollection. I could go and look it up if need be. However, the tone and implications, vague accusations and so on, are a common feature of your anti-American/Marxist diatribes. Anyway, it’s been a pleasure as always.
[quote] Severiano wrote:
Oh, you don’t remember that? It’s not important, all I took it was that you were Catholic.
[/quote]
You took from an (allegedly) edited post that I’m a Catholic? That must’ve been a long time ago as you’ve been labouring under that misapprehension for a long time. I didn’t correct you at first because my personal beliefs are private. However, your posts became increasingly silly, accusing me of being a religious fanatic and so on. And you’re still labouring under misapprehensions about me because you think you know everything and make incorrect assumptions. You posted a long comment about how I must’ve been brainwashed as a kid(both my parents were atheists) and all kinds of other misapprehensions. You don’t know what you think you know. It’s a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
PS - Can you please direct me to this comment you say I edited and describe what it is you say I deleted? Thanks.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] Severiano wrote:
Oh, you don’t remember that? It’s not important, all I took it was that you were Catholic.
[/quote]
You took from an (allegedly) edited post that I’m a Catholic? That must’ve been a long time ago as you’ve been labouring under that misapprehension for a long time. I didn’t correct you at first because my personal beliefs are private. However, your posts became increasingly silly, accusing me of being a religious fanatic and so on. And you’re still labouring under misapprehensions about me because you think you know everything and make incorrect assumptions. You posted a long comment about how I must’ve been brainwashed as a kid(both my parents were atheists) and all kinds of other misapprehensions. You don’t know what you think you know. It’s a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
PS - Can you please direct me to this comment you say I edited and describe what it is you say I deleted? Thanks.[/quote]
Right. I’m done here.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] Severiano wrote:
Oh, you don’t remember that? It’s not important, all I took it was that you were Catholic.
[/quote]
You took from an (allegedly) edited post that I’m a Catholic? That must’ve been a long time ago as you’ve been labouring under that misapprehension for a long time. I didn’t correct you at first because my personal beliefs are private. However, your posts became increasingly silly, accusing me of being a religious fanatic and so on. And you’re still labouring under misapprehensions about me because you think you know everything and make incorrect assumptions. You posted a long comment about how I must’ve been brainwashed as a kid(both my parents were atheists) and all kinds of other misapprehensions. You don’t know what you think you know. It’s a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
PS - Can you please direct me to this comment you say I edited and describe what it is you say I deleted? Thanks.[/quote]
Right. I’m done here. [/quote]
Actually you’re not done. You made an accusation that I dishonestly/surreptitiously edited one of my posts. I asked you to explain what you’re talking about and direct me to said post. To refuse to do so after making such an accusation is the act of a lowlife. If you do not act accordingly and explain yourself then you go on ignore, because I have no interest in speaking to lowlifes.
[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
I don’t quite get how the first ‘issue’ brought up to create the dilemma is an issue given the question posed. Is the video explaining the dilemma incorrectly?
A) Where does morality come from
->God
---->But is it good because God commands it or because it’s good
-------->Because God commands it
That may mean that ‘something can be good just because he commanded it’ as mentioned in the video,but… isn’t that kind of the point if it’s the answer to ‘what created morality?’ Any other possible answer will be subject to infinite regress(mentioned by the guy in the suit, who apparently teaches a Philosophy and Religion class while being openly disdainful and dismissive of religion).
I’m sure I’m wrong, awaiting replies that inform me.[/quote]
You’re on to something there. ‘Did God create morality or did morality create God’?
[/quote]
Pretty close Roybot. And the answer is no[/quote]
The answer isn’t ‘no’…
[quote]nephorm wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
You’re on to something there. ‘Did God create morality or did morality create God’?
[/quote]
That’s an easier question to answer, because the original conversation in the Euthyphro was about the good, not the moral. The question of the moral pertains to human things (pigs don’t have moral or immoral behavior), and what is moral for human beings finds its kernel in human nature, which for a theist is created by God. In that sense, God would create the moral as an aspect of the human. Morality is therefore not by continuous fiat, nor does it exist outside of God’s creation. [/quote]
Surely morality is goodness.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]nephorm wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
You’re on to something there. ‘Did God create morality or did morality create God’?
[/quote]
That’s an easier question to answer, because the original conversation in the Euthyphro was about the good, not the moral. The question of the moral pertains to human things (pigs don’t have moral or immoral behavior), and what is moral for human beings finds its kernel in human nature, which for a theist is created by God. In that sense, God would create the moral as an aspect of the human. Morality is therefore not by continuous fiat, nor does it exist outside of God’s creation. [/quote]
Surely morality is goodness.
[/quote]
Talking about the good is probably different from what you mean by goodness, but I’m not sure.
At any rate, I can make my point concisely enough: is the good of a man the same as the good of a fish? Or is it relative to what they are? We don’t usually speak of fish being moral, but we speak of men being moral. So that implies that morality is, again, relative to what we are. If that is so, then is there reason to believe that human goodness and/or morality are comprehensive, i.e., that they apply to beings higher than ourselves?
So even if morality is a good, is it reasonable to think that it is identical with the good in the highest sense? Perhaps it is a species of the good, but not the thing itself.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]nephorm wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
You’re on to something there. ‘Did God create morality or did morality create God’?
[/quote]
That’s an easier question to answer, because the original conversation in the Euthyphro was about the good, not the moral. The question of the moral pertains to human things (pigs don’t have moral or immoral behavior), and what is moral for human beings finds its kernel in human nature, which for a theist is created by God. In that sense, God would create the moral as an aspect of the human. Morality is therefore not by continuous fiat, nor does it exist outside of God’s creation. [/quote]
Surely morality is goodness.
[/quote]
Talking about the good is probably different from what you mean by goodness, but I’m not sure.
At any rate, I can make my point concisely enough: is the good of a man the same as the good of a fish? Or is it relative to what they are? We don’t usually speak of fish being moral, but we speak of men being moral. So that implies that morality is, again, relative to what we are. If that is so, then is there reason to believe that human goodness and/or morality are comprehensive, i.e., that they apply to beings higher than ourselves?
So even if morality is a good, is it reasonable to think that it is identical with the good in the highest sense? Perhaps it is a species of the good, but not the thing itself.[/quote]
Fish have no concept of morality. It isn’t an inherent trait.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]nephorm wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]nephorm wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
You’re on to something there. ‘Did God create morality or did morality create God’?
[/quote]
That’s an easier question to answer, because the original conversation in the Euthyphro was about the good, not the moral. The question of the moral pertains to human things (pigs don’t have moral or immoral behavior), and what is moral for human beings finds its kernel in human nature, which for a theist is created by God. In that sense, God would create the moral as an aspect of the human. Morality is therefore not by continuous fiat, nor does it exist outside of God’s creation. [/quote]
Surely morality is goodness.
[/quote]
Talking about the good is probably different from what you mean by goodness, but I’m not sure.
At any rate, I can make my point concisely enough: is the good of a man the same as the good of a fish? Or is it relative to what they are? We don’t usually speak of fish being moral, but we speak of men being moral. So that implies that morality is, again, relative to what we are. If that is so, then is there reason to believe that human goodness and/or morality are comprehensive, i.e., that they apply to beings higher than ourselves?
So even if morality is a good, is it reasonable to think that it is identical with the good in the highest sense? Perhaps it is a species of the good, but not the thing itself.[/quote]
Fish have no concept of morality. It isn’t an inherent trait.
[/quote]
Yes, but they have a good, even if they have no concept of it.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
I don’t quite get how the first ‘issue’ brought up to create the dilemma is an issue given the question posed. Is the video explaining the dilemma incorrectly?
A) Where does morality come from
->God
---->But is it good because God commands it or because it’s good
-------->Because God commands it
That may mean that ‘something can be good just because he commanded it’ as mentioned in the video,but… isn’t that kind of the point if it’s the answer to ‘what created morality?’ Any other possible answer will be subject to infinite regress(mentioned by the guy in the suit, who apparently teaches a Philosophy and Religion class while being openly disdainful and dismissive of religion).
I’m sure I’m wrong, awaiting replies that inform me.[/quote]
You’re on to something there. ‘Did God create morality or did morality create God’?
[/quote]
Pretty close Roybot. And the answer is no[/quote]
The answer isn’t ‘no’…[/quote]
explain please…
I don’t see any reason why Archbishop Romero should be beatified. He wasn’t a martyr for the faith,best I can tell. I don’t believe he worked any miracles either. I do admire the man,however. He died trying to help people. He knew his life was in danger. “greater love hath no man than this,that a man lay down his life for his friends”. Confusion
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] Severiano wrote:
Oh, you don’t remember that? It’s not important, all I took it was that you were Catholic.
[/quote]
You took from an (allegedly) edited post that I’m a Catholic? That must’ve been a long time ago as you’ve been labouring under that misapprehension for a long time. I didn’t correct you at first because my personal beliefs are private. However, your posts became increasingly silly, accusing me of being a religious fanatic and so on. And you’re still labouring under misapprehensions about me because you think you know everything and make incorrect assumptions. You posted a long comment about how I must’ve been brainwashed as a kid(both my parents were atheists) and all kinds of other misapprehensions. You don’t know what you think you know. It’s a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
PS - Can you please direct me to this comment you say I edited and describe what it is you say I deleted? Thanks.[/quote]
Right. I’m done here. [/quote]
Actually you’re not done. You made an accusation that I dishonestly/surreptitiously edited one of my posts. I asked you to explain what you’re talking about and direct me to said post. To refuse to do so after making such an accusation is the act of a lowlife. If you do not act accordingly and explain yourself then you go on ignore, because I have no interest in speaking to lowlifes.[/quote]
Are you just being an old man/ old dog set in his ways? Having grown stubborn though the years?
Are you the sort that is smart enough to know when you are wrong but too much ego and ability to rationalize the wrong argument?
Maybe a combination of the two as a matter of your personality. I wish you the best. Thats what I recognize about you. Remind me of a lot of other good old men I’ve seen in my life… Hopefully you don’t turn too bitter with time.
Don’t wait too long to entertain the other sides seriously. The world changes and it’s not always for the best, but change is inevitable and sometimes it brings about good things.
As for the post, if you want to make a huge deal about it, when the only reason I brought it up was to explain to you why I thought you were Catholic. If it’s a big deal to you, and you are losing face about it then I’m sorry. But you did post those things. Have some integrity man.