[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]
You mean this guy?
[quote] "That some desperate wretches should be willing to steal and enslave men by violence and murder for gain, is rather lamentable than strange. But that many civilized, nay, christianized people should approve, and be concerned in the savage practice, is surprising; and still persist, though it has been so often proved contrary to the light of nature, of every principle of Justice and Humanity, and even good policy, by a succession of eminent men, and several late publications. Our Traders in MEN (an unnatural commodity!) must know the wickedness of the SLAVE-TRADE, if they attend to reasoning, or the dictates of their own hearts: and such as shun and stiffle all these, wilfully sacrifice Conscience, and the character of integrity to that golden Idol.
"The Managers the Trade themselves, and others testify, that many of these African nations inhabit fertile countries, are industrious farmers, enjoy plenty, and lived quietly, averse to war, before the Europeans debauched them with liquors, and bribing them against one another; and that these inoffensive people are brought into slavery, by stealing them, tempting Kings to sell subjects, which they can have to right to do, and hiring one tribe to war against another, in order to catch prisoners. By such wicked and inhuman ways the English are said to enslave towards one hundred thousand yearly; of which thirty thousand are supposed to die by barbarous treatment in the first year; besides all that are slain in the unnatural ways excited to take them. So much innocent blood have the Managers and Supports of this inhuman Trade to answer for to the common Lord of all!" [African Slavery In America, by Thomas Paine, written in 1774 and published in March 8, 1775.][/quote]
I will refrain from posting further in this thread at this time and simply say that ol JP has bumped his head hard on my main point though there’s no way he could know that. Well done sir though you only got half way there.
[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]
As I said in another post, an alternative inference is that among homosexuals deliberately infiltrating positions of authority to subvert the teaching of Church doctrine, it was inevitable that some of them would be child molesters: and God then used the secular media to expose the corruption by focusing on the child-molesting.
The distinction between pedaphilia and ephebaphilia is most likely to implicitly strengthen the inference that it was inevitable that some of the corrupt homosexual subverters would do such things, given the combination of homosexuality and corrupt subversiveness: not in any way to downplay the horror of the things that were done to the victims.
A rough analogy would be that among a hypothetical group of extremely corrupt and lustful heterosexual men who planned to infiltrate positions of authority for evil purposes: it might be inevitable that some of them would be molesters of 14-year-old girls; while less inevitable that any substantial number of them would be molesters of 7-year-old girls. If the public were then to be given the impression that most of the molestation victims were pre-pubescent girls: this might make the phenomenon of widespread child-molestations appear to be unrelated to the group of lustful subversive heterosexual infiltrators. Someone like Voris might (correctly or not) think it useful to make the distinction of what type of “-philia” was involved, to try to lift the fog regarding the linkage.
I am somewhat skeptical as to whether pointing out the “-philia” distinction actually does clear anything up more than it muddies the waters. But nonetheless, I believe the intended purpose (effective or not) of making the distinction is to implicitly support the linkage.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
What makes you think I have given your main point any thought?
[/quote]
Tiribulus: “… ol JP has bumped his head hard on my main point though there’s no way he could know that.”
Not sure, but I think the wording implies that you would not necessarily have to have given his main point any thought. And no, I don’t know how you bumped your head hard on his main point; not to say that you didn’t, but I don’t currently see it.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
What makes you think I have given your main point any thought?
[/quote]
Tiribulus: “… ol JP has bumped his head hard on my main point though there’s no way he could know that.”
Not sure, but I think the wording implies that you would not necessarily have to have given his main point any thought. And no, I don’t know how you bumped your head hard on his main point; not to say that you didn’t, but I don’t currently see it.[/quote]
His usage of the phrase is obviously a bit different than what we use in the South. It really just seems like one of his usual cryptic comments that he throws out there when he wants to argue, but has no intelligible response.
The wording of my response was largely due to good manners, and I guess I failed to get my real point across. Tempering truth with consideration can muddy things up sometimes.
I was giving you some credit for indirectly making a brilliant point. undoredo is correct, but I’m not playin that hand just yet. God has taught me the power of patience JP. I’ve been sittin on it since Sloth and I had our unpleasant falling out earlier this year. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure Chris knows. No big secret, it’s been sittin out there in plain view forever. People don’t usually pin the pieces of the bigger even obvious picture together though. It’s comin and you and everyone else can judge for yourselves how intelligible it is or isn’t. Sloth has inadvertently built and handed me one of my biggest weapons in that regard. Especially effective where dearest Christopher is concerned. The word “weapon” being used metaphorically of course. Chris and I are NOT enemies as far as I will ever be concerned. Sloth either BTW, or you. My battle is not against flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12) My goal here is to make known the true gospel of Jesus Christ and to discredit Catholicism which are two sides of the same coin in this context. One plants, another waters, but it’s God who causes the growth.(1st Corinthians 3:5-8)
Micheal Voris is starving for something he’ll never find where he is looking. The Word of God and history are witnesses to that fact. I will make that case. And I will make it very strongly.
[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]
Until people realize that religion and loving God are opposites, we’re doomed to hear such prattling as in the vid.
[/quote]
Actually religion is justice to God. It is what we owe God.[/quote]
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
There were plenty of pre-pubescent kids that were raped as well, so his argument doesn’t hold water.[/quote]
He never said there weren’t. There definitely was, but the fact stands that the majority of cases would not fall under pedophilia. The larger correlation would indicate some kind of depraved homosexuality rather than pedophilia.
That’s not my argument at all, breaking a vow is breaking a vow. The fact that it is illegal only makes it worse. However, I think we should remove the emotions from the situation and look at what he is saying from a neutral stance (understandably his deliverance makes this initially difficult).
95% of victims were male. A large percentage of that were not cases of pedophilia. So, you rule out that depraved sickness and look at what you have? A bunch of men who have sex with males who have already hit puberty. Understandably this is simplified somewhat, but I can see the why he would say that it is not pedophilia but homosexuality. Is it pedophilia? Not usually. Is it homosexuality? There seems to be a correlation, but I can’t say yes or no. Either way, disgusting and should be punished. Maybe it is just a reservation to condemn homosexuality as to why some people don’t want to consider the argument, I do not know. I know I condemned the argument when I first heard it before I became Catholic. I rejected it for along time.
However, as I researched the issue (I worked in the “safe parish” office for my diocese for awhile) and the John Jay reports came out, &c. It seemed the arguments had some facts on their side. Though the John Jay study doesn’t look at the correlation of homosexuality and sexual abuse I wouldn’t dismiss it either.
Lol. I’ll spare you the details, but this is the case is seminaries. There was large amounts of homosexual activity and in some places still is (Norte Dame comes to mind).
Well, that escalated quickly. Now, you’re basing your last statement off of less than 5% of priests, in the last 50 years. I don’t think they are trying to hide anything.
[quote]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]
Lol. I am not seeing the inference. I’ve argued this subject before and I understand the motivation behind this man’s statements. If he did not say it, I’m not sure why you are assuming he “meant” it. I understand the stickiness of the argument, as such, when you try to lay out a clear view of the situation people assume you are defending abusers.
I’ll be clear. I never defend criminals. Defend truth, absolutely. I advocate justice and mercy. What these men did was criminal and despicable. 1) These men are held to a higher standard, and they failed. There is a lower part of hell reserved for them because of their office in the world. Even lower part of hell for the Bishops who did not do their best to counter act the situation. 2) The media did an absolutely horrible job on reporting this (not that they SHOULDN’T have reported, but how they reported it was heinous, not so much what they DID report, but what they DIDN’T report).
I’ll explain my second point. The over abundance of focus on sexual abuse of minors was focused on the Church. The focus on the Church is not the issue, the lack of focus on the much wider abuse of minors was ignored. If the media cared about the children as they portrayed why did they ignore these school districts and teacher unions that helped cover up countless crimes? I don’t know anyone who could say I back up abusive priests. But, I know plenty of people who attacked priests who aren’t filled with righteous indignation because the same media won’t shine the light on a much larger situation of abuse elsewhere. I am all for the protection of minors from abusers, but I’m equal opportunity…I don’t care just about Catholic minors being abused, but all minors being abused. I cannot apologize for wanting justice no matter what creed you hold true.
The focus on the priests who sexually abused minors is not the problem, it is the fact that they painted all priests as sexual abusers. My hunger for justice does not go forward only to minors, but those in the priesthood who are innocent. Who did nothing criminal, yet are blamed nonetheless. They are innocent and did nothing to stain the priesthood. I cannot but feel sympathetic to those men who gave their lives to shepherd their flock and to protect them at all costs to have their priesthood stained by those who took a selfish and less serious view of that priesthood. If you took vows to do something and where in a brotherhood, a brotherhood that required sacrificing all for the sake of the brotherhood and you took that seriously and there were some in the brotherhood that broke their vows and tarnished it by their actions. That is not just to you. Neither is it just to those priests who are innocent of these crimes.
The focus on abusive priests is not the problem, the fact that they lacked the journalistic integrity to show that the majority of cases are something other than pedophilia is angering because journalism now just seems to suck.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Slavery
Jim Crow
Segregation
Prohibition
New Deal
War on Drugs
Welfare
Prison system
Vietnam
Iraq War
Legalized Contraception
Legalized Abortion
Rejection of DOMA
Pornography
With such wonderful things that democracy (actually closer to a Republic) has provided our country. I’m more inclined to agree with him, though I’d be interested why he should move to the Vatican City if he wants a Catholic Monarch (whether that is absolute or constitutional, as most monarchists want)?
[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]
Until people realize that religion and loving God are opposites, we’re doomed to hear such prattling as in the vid.
[/quote]
Actually religion is justice to God. It is what we owe God.[/quote]
How do you figure?
[/quote]
Do you read anything besides Ayn Rand and infowars.com?
[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]
Until people realize that religion and loving God are opposites, we’re doomed to hear such prattling as in the vid.
[/quote]
Actually religion is justice to God. It is what we owe God.[/quote]
How do you figure?
[/quote]
Do you read anything besides Ayn Rand and infowars.com? ;)[/quote]
Religion is based on faith. Faith requires, by definition, that you accept something as true without evidence. So…you use your mind to figure out that you shouldn’t use your mind?
But if you’re not supposed to use your mind, how do figure that you’re not supposed to use your mind?
[quote]Karado wrote:<<< what about Japan? They are still around and kickin’ and they are NOT Christian…where are the Riots, Looting, and Pandemonum there?[/quote]And never were. I’ll say it again. we are uniquely judged because we were uniquely blessed and uniquely declared our dependence upon the God of the bible as a nation as we set forth our trajectory at our founding. http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/index3.html That’s how we defeated slavery in our midst and provided the greatest opportunity on earth for a man who would simply show up and work hard.
Yes, just as a Christian individual will struggle with sin and corruption all the days of his life, so will a nation this side of the final resurrection. THE foundational rudder in this nation by which the whole is steered is the absolute bedrock principles of marriage, family and sex. As those go so goes the nation. These were once directly informed by the new testament and the protestant reformation.
We excelled and ascended to the status of untouchable superpower, culminating in the world watching Neal Armstrong reading the book of genesis on the moon. The poison was already being drunk though. The tidal wave of perversion and whoredom was in full swing and today’s debt stangled, bleeding whimpering dying United States was already inevitable on the path she was then talking.
Why was she taking this path? Because THE CHURCH, by which I do not mean Catholic (Big C), was already gagging on modernist liberalism in the form of denigrating the authenticity and authority of scripture and the Satanic deception of macro bio-evolution. She was in the midst of surrender right when the country needed her most.
In her idolatrous quest at seeking her own relevance by fitting in with a culture of increasing godlessness she spurned the power of God, which comes only through purity of belief and hence purity of obedience. Look around these forums. There are numerous people claiming to be Christians who are in every way that matters, no different from the culture of Death and perversion Christ calls His people out of. They PM me. “Oh Tirb, you’re driving people away with all this narrow fundamentalist stuff. We need to learn to be like them so they’ll listen.” In essence. That is the lie of the devil.
The true church’s relevance lies exactly in her not being conformed to the world and by being transformed into the mind of Christ whereby she is a loud crystal clear voice of the holiness of God, the sinfulness of man and the cross and empty tomb of Jesus Christ, the only eternally begotten Son of the one true and living God as the answer.
All one need do is change the Big C in Voris’s sermonette to a small one and that first video posted by dearest Christopher becomes the best 14 minutes of media of the year. The Roman Catholic Church however had no place of significant influence in this country until JFK. Right when Voris quite accurately states that our decline and judgement was about to begin. Rome has never been a force for righteousness anywhere in this world for many dozens of centuries.
She is a fat bloated, waddling, spiritually impotent religio/political empire and an affront to the God of the bible. THE true church of Christ and her God, whose providence not even that pagan Thomas Jefferson dared deny the colonies firm reliance on, IS the story of this nation. Not Roman Catholicism which was barely even tolerated and would have been illegal had many had their way.
The last 50 years has seen an ever rising tide of liberalism in the evangelical church, the evangelical church’s embracing of Rome AND the lethal family destroying sexual promiscuity Voris decries. Three sides of the same coin.
I’m ready when you are Chris. I utterly respect Micheal Voris. AND you. I truly believe that you have a thirst for truth and righteousness. Both of you. Tragically however, you have your face planted in the sandy bottom of a dry well.
I am an ambassador representing God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning created from nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good. I pray that I might decrease so that He might increase and that my every thought and Word bring glory to His magnificent name in this discussion. You can represent your church.
Tell me where I’m wrong. For right now I couldn’t care less about the revisionist croakings of the God hating unbelievers around here. YOU tell me where I’m wrong. IF you would be so magnanimous and accommodating. I’m gonna invite your friends from Fundamentalist Logic 101. You can advise them to the contrary if you see fit.
Do you think, maybe, the massive amount of sin in our nation includes people who speak for the Father without His input?
All of you who like to speak as if you understand His intentions; Are you a prophet? Have you been directed by Him to speak in His name? Do you understand what it means to speak in His name without His instruction?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Do you think, maybe, the massive amount of sin in our nation includes people who speak for the Father without His input? >>>[/quote]Oh indeed I do. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< All of you who like to speak as if you understand His intentions; Are you a prophet? >>>[/quote]Not in the individually ordained sense of a Jeremiah, Isaiah or Ezekiel no. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Have you been directed by Him to speak in His name? >>>[/quote]Every Christian has. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Do you understand what it means to speak in His name without His instruction?[/quote] That would be to proclaim doctrine and or practice which He Himself condemns in His word. And or to condemn doctrine and or practice which the commands in His word. I will say yet again, in nauseatingly repetitious fashion, that absolutely EVERYTHING I have ever said here was boringly commonplace mainstream Christian belief and practice at the founding of this once great nation. Even the details like providence, predestination and election. I can prove it.
Am I saying that everybody, or even most of the colonists were true converts? Born again members of the true body of Christ? NO. Now did ya hear that that time guys? It’s a simple two letter word. NO. However, THE CHURCH, by which I mean numerous denominations of orthodox protestant believers, who would have agreed with pretty much everything I’ve said in this thread, held moral and cultural sway by the power of the gospel of almighty God that they were faithful to.
That’s what made her great ya know? That’s what’s gone, and that’s why she’s choking on her own blood and vomit.
It is absolutely EVERYWHERE throughout the bible. God’s people fall into idolatry (look at the OT priesthood) and the nation is judged because of the purifying preserving power of the Law of the Lord being thrown aside and every man doing what is right in his own eyes. EVERYWHERE. One of god’s favorite judgments is to simply lift His hand of grace and LET THEM HAVE WHAT THEY WANT just like Voris quite rightly said.
Japan for instance has never been viewed as Christian country by anybody. That’s why panty machines and sickness like that are what you’d expect. WE TOLD the world right from day one that we were building a society on, at the absolute very least, Judeo-Christian morality. If you asked half the world right now today, they would identify us still as a Christian nation.
God is not mocked. He will not allow a culture pickled in filth, debauchery, whoredom and just plain sin of every public variety to go on blaspheming His name before the nations. This is so manifestly and abundantly clear from scripture as to call into question the 4th grade reading skills of anybody who would dare crack open a bible and deny it.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
This guy is a fucking idiot. Listening to 15 minutes of this made me want to punch him square in the balls.[/quote]
Why is he an idiot?[/quote]
His assertion that the Presidents entire agenda is the “proliferation of evil”, his assertion that the US is evil (at least half of it) his assinine belief that somehow he (rather than anyone else) knows what is right/wrong, good/bad, just leads me to that rather clear observation. he is a jackass.
