I’ve spent the last hour watching this guy’s videos. He talks A LOT about gays. The wikipedia entry on him says that he has NEVER been married.
Hmmm…Methinks he doth protest too much. Ted Haggard anyone?
I read a VERY interesting article YEARS ago however, about how Homosexuals infiltrated The Seminaries back in the 50’S and 60’s for the sole purpose of DESTROYING The Church from within.
It’s not the Enemy at the Door, it’s the Termites in the Floor.
I have MAJOR issues with Catholicism sometimes, alot of seemingly Unbiblical things they
practice and believe…ironcally though, most seem like good people.
They DON’T know much of Scripture because I’ve underhandedly “quizzed” many of them about it
through casual conversations without insulting them, and most are just clueless, but many are good peeps.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
MIKE!!! What it is homes!!! I was just thinking about you last night when I was looking back for some quotes of mine. Good to “see” ya man. Seriously. You were always a worthy banter buddy. I’ll have to watch your other Voris vids. I hope they’re as good as the one Christopher posted. [/quote]
Thanks. And I likewise have enjoyed your posts. I always thought you wrote with great passion even though we share opposite views on God and religion.
Always fun to take shots at the catholic church. It is simply yet another bureaucratic and corrupt institution created by humans. And I used to be a catholic so I say this based on experience.
[quote]undoredo wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]undoredo wrote:
The vast majority of this largely non-Catholic country held certain moral principles and views in common with traditional and/or orthodox Catholicism, despite not being Catholic. Arguably ironically, despite a larger proportion of the population being baptized Catholics, there is a smaller proportion of the population that holds those same moral principles and views. From a traditional and/or orthodox Catholic point of view, that would seem to be a glaring failure on the part of the human aspect of the Catholic Church in this country. i.e.: more “salt”; and yet less “saltiness” (referring to the “salt of the earth” passage in the Bible).
[/quote]
Please don’t think I’m Catholic-bashing. I’m just stating facts and making the argument that the Catholic church is not what brought this nation to greatness in the first place, so the argument that slacking-off on the part of the Catholic church being our downfall is a fallacy from the start.
The majority of the colonists were outright anti-catholic because of the evils they had witnessed at the hands of the church. As a matter of fact, there was a huge anti-catholic movement in America when the influx of Catholics started in the 1820’s. Americans during that era saw Catholicism on par with the way a lot of Americans view radical Islam today.
[/quote]
From a traditional and/or orthodox Catholic viewpoint, the Catholic church not being what brought a nation to greatness in the first place is not relevant. From a traditional and/or orthodox Catholic viewpoint: if a great nation is populated by a large number of Catholics who seriously fail in their duties, those Catholics will cause the downfall of that nation regardless of how the nation came to be great.[/quote]
The opposing argument could be made that no matter how great your nation is, if you let enough Catholics in, they’ll lead to your downfall regardless of what made your country great…
…and the data would actually support that argument. You can say ‘nuh-uh’ all you want, or tell me what the Catholic viewpoint is, but in the end you have no facts to back up your logic.
Again, I’m not Cat-Bashing. I know a few Catholics and they are genuinely good people. (what I’m saying is: I have a few Catholic friends, so that proves I’m not a religionist)
[quote]Karado wrote:
Question, because Christians always seem to Americanize these issues, and that we’re
generally losing our way…Society will collapse, But what about Japan?
They are still around and kickin’ and they are NOT Christian…where are the Riots,
Looting, and Pandemonum there?
A Country where they have Little Girl Panty Vending Machines, and where UNDERAGE Porn
is Legal to own?? Yes…LEGAL!
That’s just sick man, yet other than their ocassional Earthquakes, which they’ve had over in those
areas since recorded history BTW…Why isn’t that the Petri Dish for Society Collapse?, their
Ungodly Buddhist and Shinto Society shoulda been GONE long ago…yet it’s thrived LONGER, MUCH LONGER than our over barely over 200 Year old Country, can someone explain THAT one??
[/quote]
Traditional and/or orthodox Catholics believe that God holds Catholics more accountable for unrepented moral corruption than non-Catholics; I am pretty sure that a lot of Protestants believe that God holds Christians more accountable for unrepented moral corruption than non-Christians; I am pretty sure Orthodox Jews believe God holds Jews more accountable for unrepented moral corruption than Gentiles.
If we hypothesize that any one of those groups is correct: then it might stand to reason that God might give Japan “a pass” for a much longer period of time than a country where there is a large number of Catholics, Protestants, and/or Jews.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]undoredo wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
… and it was almost a good thing that these priests raped little kids …
[/quote]
Nope, I don’t think he actually argues that particular thing anywhere in the video.
That would be your inference from his statement that God’s plan was to use the secular media to shine a light on the moral corruption of the homosexual infiltrators.
[/quote]
You are right - it was an inference on my part. But I would say that it was a reasonable inference. If the priests had sex with each other, this would not have received the same attention. So, it was God’s plan for priests to ass-rape kids (the distinction between pre-pubescent and pubescent that he makes is meaningless IMO) for the greater good of the church. Ass rape as a gift from God. Hmmm…
[/quote]
An alternative inference might be that homosexuals who would deliberately infiltrate the Church to undermine the teaching of its doctrines would inevitably have a certain proportion of child-molestors among their ranks; and God’s plan was to use the secular media to shine a light on their corruption.
[quote]Karado wrote:
Question, because Christians always seem to Americanize these issues, and that we’re
generally losing our way…Society will collapse, But what about Japan?
They are still around and kickin’ and they are NOT Christian…where are the Riots,
Looting, and Pandemonum there?
A Country where they have Little Girl Panty Vending Machines, and where UNDERAGE Porn
is Legal to own?? Yes…LEGAL!
That’s just sick man, yet other than their ocassional Earthquakes, which they’ve had over in those
areas since recorded history BTW…Why isn’t that the Petri Dish for Society Collapse?, their
Ungodly Buddhist and Shinto Society shoulda been GONE long ago…yet it’s thrived LONGER, MUCH LONGER than our over barely over 200 Year old Country, can someone explain THAT one??
[/quote]
I’m not afraid to come right out and tell you that, ummm… yeah, I got nothin’.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
The insinuation I get from the video is that it’s the church’s fault for not taking over the government and forcing people to do right. The church was never supposed to rule over people.
It’s the people’s fault, not the Catholic church. Nor the Protestants, nor the Jewish, nor any other. This country was founded on freedom from religion, and it should stay that way.[/quote]
Your insinuation is wrong.[/quote]
In that case, I stand corrected.
What could the church have done to prevent all of this?[/quote]
Be Catholic.[/quote]
What I mean is that this country was not founded on Catholicism but thrived anyway. Catholic population in the US remained very small until the 1840’s (in 1850 it was still only ~5%). By the turn of the 20th Century, it was up to 17%, and even to this day, Catholicism only makes up 25% of our population at best.
So it seems to me that we were better off without your religion. In fact, a correlation can be made between the rise of the Catholic church and the downfall of American society.
The facts of the matter prove your entire argument false.[/quote]
Lol. What do you think this country was founded on? Christian principles: Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All stem from the Church.
Yes, Catholicism makes up only 25% of the population. The largest religion in America and the world. U mad, bro?
P.S. You haven’t even addressed any of my argument’s points. Let alone shown any facts to prove my argument wrong.
P.P.S. The only fact that you have shown is that you don’t know history very much and you seem to be a bigot. Interestingly enough the one fact you did show is about how big the population of Catholics are in this country and it goes against your argument. When one creed makes up quarter of the country, and is the biggest creed, that is significant. Especially since Catholics could control (pretty much by themselves) every election in the country; from Presidential to local. If they exercised their freedom of religion we wouldn’t have this weird two party system and we’d have someone who cares about the poor and elderly, as well as private property and justice for all.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
This guy wants the U.S. to be ruled by a Catholic dictator:
[/quote]
Dictator =/= Monarch.
And, why wouldn’t a Catholic want someone who represents him as the leader of this country?
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations.” - Patrick Henry
“Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?” - John Adams
“Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error
all over the earth.” - Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363.)
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.” - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Protestants won’t make it to heaven. Sorry.[/quote]
Why would those who protest the body of Christ be in Heaven?
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” - James Madison
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Here he is arguing that pedophilia really wasn’t pedophilia. It was something else, and just another variant of homosexuality, and it was almost a good thing that these priests raped little kids because it ultimately purged the church of evil. So cheer up abused children and get over that ass-raping by the creepy priests because the end result was a good thing.
[/quote]
Glad you’re finding all these videos interesting. He’s not really arguing so much as pointing out that pedophilia was not the case in majority of cases. Unless you want to show me some new evidence that it was. Or, are you disagreeing with the definition of pedophilia, because if so then please show me a psychologist who disagrees with the definition he provided since that is the agreed upon definition of pedophilia by the experts.
I don’t think he ever said it was good that priests raped anyone, whether they be minors or little kids (most of the people abused where boys after puberty, so not really little kids). You should probably listen a little better there, son.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
“Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error
all over the earth.” - Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363.)
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.” - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)[/quote]
Didn’t one of these guys think murdering a guy just because he was a king was a good idea?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
This guy wants the U.S. to be ruled by a Catholic dictator:
[/quote]
Dictator =/= Monarch.
And, why wouldn’t a Catholic want someone who represents him as the leader of this country?[/quote]
Because neither a dictator nor monarch “represents” anyone. Yes, he used the term “benevolent monarch,” but a monarch is still an absolute ruler. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The fact that he would propose having any type of monarchy in the year 2012 raises serious questions about his rational faculties. I would never be in favor of an atheist or agnostic monarch, but an atheist or agnostic elected official would be a nice change.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
This guy wants the U.S. to be ruled by a Catholic dictator:
[/quote]
Dictator =/= Monarch.
And, why wouldn’t a Catholic want someone who represents him as the leader of this country?[/quote]
Because neither a dictator nor monarch “represents” anyone. Yes, he used the term “benevolent monarch,” but a monarch is still an absolute ruler. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The fact that he would propose having any type of monarchy in the year 2012 raises serious questions about his rational faculties. I would never be in favor of an atheist or agnostic monarch, but an atheist or agnostic elected official would be a nice change.[/quote]
No, a monarch is not still an absolute ruler. Not sure where you took your civics class, but hopefully they fired the teacher. Lol. Canada has a monarchy. I don’t believe they are ruled by an absolute ruler.
P.S. Why would there be anything wrong with his mental faculties. We have plenty of monarchs in Western Civilization, from the UK to Spain.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Here he is arguing that pedophilia really wasn’t pedophilia. It was something else, and just another variant of homosexuality, and it was almost a good thing that these priests raped little kids because it ultimately purged the church of evil. So cheer up abused children and get over that ass-raping by the creepy priests because the end result was a good thing.
[/quote]
Glad you’re finding all these videos interesting. He’s not really arguing so much as pointing out that pedophilia was not the case in majority of cases. Unless you want to show me some new evidence that it was. Or, are you disagreeing with the definition of pedophilia, because if so then please show me a psychologist who disagrees with the definition he provided since that is the agreed upon definition of pedophilia by the experts.
I don’t think he ever said it was good that priests raped anyone, whether they be minors or little kids (most of the people abused where boys after puberty, so not really little kids). You should probably listen a little better there, son.[/quote]
There were plenty of pre-pubescent kids that were raped as well, so his argument doesn’t hold water. And his argument creates a distinction without a difference - unless you want to argue that ass-raping a 16 year old boy is somehow “not as bad” as as-raping an 8 year old boy. And his argument has another flaw. If homosexuality was the MAIN problem that plagued that church, then the news reports would have shown priest on priest action or priests having relationship with gay members of their parishes. But that wasn’t the case - they targeted kids and teens. It is true that the targets were primarily boys, so yes, there was a homosexual component there. However, while I am no expert on this, I think there is a difference between homosexual behavior and pedophilia or hebephilia, even if the pedophilia/hebephilia contains a homosexual component. Bottom line is this: anyone who would voluntarily submit to a life of celibacy is probably trying to hide from something.
Finally, I realize he never argued that what the priests did was a good thing, but as I said in another post, the inference was there. If it were not for the pedophile scandal, the media would have never gotten involved and “exposed” all of the homosexual priests that were allowed to remain in the clergy. The inference is clear that the sex scandals purged the church of evil priests, which was ultimately a good thing.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
This guy wants the U.S. to be ruled by a Catholic dictator:
[/quote]
Dictator =/= Monarch.
And, why wouldn’t a Catholic want someone who represents him as the leader of this country?[/quote]
Because neither a dictator nor monarch “represents” anyone. Yes, he used the term “benevolent monarch,” but a monarch is still an absolute ruler. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The fact that he would propose having any type of monarchy in the year 2012 raises serious questions about his rational faculties. I would never be in favor of an atheist or agnostic monarch, but an atheist or agnostic elected official would be a nice change.[/quote]
No, a monarch is not still an absolute ruler. Not sure where you took your civics class, but hopefully they fired the teacher. Lol. Canada has a monarchy. I don’t believe they are ruled by an absolute ruler.
P.S. Why would there be anything wrong with his mental faculties. We have plenty of monarchs in Western Civilization, from the UK to Spain. [/quote]
The wikipedia entry for Canada notes that the form of government is a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. From what I know of modern governments, even with countries that have monarchs, the legislation comes from a Parliament and the monarchs having mostly a ceremonial function. So no, my knowledge is not lacking here. He was proposing an absolute monarchy, albeit benevolent. However, I don’t believe there can be such a thing as a benevolent absolute monarch. Basically, this guy is willing to trade democracy for a catholic theocrat. He should just move to Vatican City.