Catholic Church is at Fault

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Calling the early American Catholics ‘oppressed’ is akin to claiming the KKK is ‘oppressed’.

Catholicism did influence early American culture, though. Just look at how many people followed the Malleus Maleficarum.

This country was founded upon the teachings of the Gospel, not religion of any sort.[/quote]

Keep in mind that all this hatred is a miserably bad misinterpretation of Revelation. Because tirib has been brainwashed in to thinking that the Catholic Church IS the whore of Babylon as described in Revelation he acts accordingly. If you understand the paradigm under which he is operating, you’ll understand the lingo, the name calling, and the vitriol and flat bad information being passed along.

There is one thing about Revelation that has rang true through out history, anybody who has thought they understood it, or that they interpreted it correctly has ALWAYS been wrong.
It’s also why he is on ignore, but I think it’s necessary for people to understand where he is coming from when he insults the religion that Jesus himself established. ← No amount of revisionist history can change that fact. It’s Biblical and nobody can do a thing about that.
You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to agree with it, but you cannot change the facts, they are pretty stubborn.[/quote]
Sorry, Pat. May as well put me on ignore, too. I know you haven’t been following my posts, but suffice it to say that the only person I trust out of the entire Bible is Christ Himself.

  1. Christ told us to call no man ‘father’ for you have only one Father
  2. Christ specifically told the Apostles that there should be no rulers among them, only servants.

There are many more, but these two basics rule out any possibility that the Catholic church follows the teachings of Christ. [/quote]

You are caught up in semantics. I am certain you refer to your Dad as a Father, having such a title means nothing. You can call them reverends if you wish. That is their title on letter heads. Fr. is more informal.

I am not sure what you mean by the second one at all. I am sure you have ordained ministers at your church no? And ordination that, no less, can claim NO apostolic tradition. Further, there are governing bodies such as the SBC. ALL protestant denominations were started by man. The RCC is the only faith that can trace it’s roots all the way back to Mt 16:18. That’s a fact, and you can do nothing about it.

The new testament biblical cannon was written by the first Christians ordained by the apostles and the apostles themselves. The biblical cannon was assembled by the Catholic Church.

No protestant can trace their roots past Martin Luther, who was only a man, who claimed no divine inspiration what so ever.

It’s not going to be productive to try and point out how the Catholic Church is not biblical. Because I can go all day long on how Protestantism is not Biblical. It’s to easy to do to go back and forth.

My only goal was to express to you a hidden bias, because you don’t know he who must not be named like I do. You aren’t now and will never get the truth out of him. That there are bad intentions and not an intention for honest dialog and understanding. That’s all I am trying to express. When I saw your response, I knew it was more ‘whore/ child of the devil’ bullshit meant to attack my faith. I tend to protect it as it’s near and dear to me, despite my own personal sinfulness and I will not tolerate lies being spread, I will correct them.

I don’t put people on ignore willy-nilly, there have only been 2 with one recent addition. But one guy was so bad, he was kicked off the entire site. Tirib isn’t on ignore because he doesn’t like Catholicism, the list is longer than my arm, but two major reasons are complete and total dishonesty, and perpetual insulting. I can take a lot, but I prefer people be upfront and honest about it. For instance, I disagree with smh about loads of things, but I can have honest meaningful conversations with him and he does not lie, and he does not insult my faith. And he does not lie about insulting my faith and then insult it in the process.
If you think I am wrong, you won’t for long.

I am willing to bet 90% of what you think the Catholic Church is about is wrong. You are free to ask all the questions you want, but do not get caught up in semantics. I can point out many, many things that protestants profess that one could claim is not following the teachings of Christ.
Nobody is perfect, no church is perfect, and nobody’s Biblical understanding is perfect. If you want to examine Catholic imperfections, examine your own first, after all, that’s following Christ’s word is it not?

162

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Why can’t the whore and the city be the same thing? In a literary sense you can see how it could refer back to the same entity. I think in the case of revelations it is supposed to be a whore and adultery of the spiritual sense (idol worship) versus just the physical fornication sense.[/quote]
Because the beast has seven heads, not the whore. They are together, but are different entities. “The ten horns you saw, and the beast, will hate the prostitute” “The woman you saw is the great city that has an empire over the kings of the earth” - from the end of Rev 17.

Her fornications are all of the elements of other religions that are incorporated into Catholicism (and all of ‘Christianity’, really).

163

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< You still haven’t responded to my e-mail on that particular subject, >>>[/quote] I’m sorry man. There’s a couple other guys I still need to respond to too. I can barely keep up with my posts here.

The preterits view as mentioned here by Forbes is gaining popularity again. I’m gonna have to just say again that eschatology ios my weakest area.

We should take this somewhere else though. I was really trying to keep it to what Chris and I were finally getting to.
[/quote]
No problem.

164

[quote]pat wrote:

You are caught up in semantics. I am certain you refer to your Dad as a Father, having such a title means nothing. You can call them reverends if you wish. That is their title on letter heads. Fr. is more informal.[/quote]
Spiritually speaking, we have only one Father. That is not semantics. I have an Earthly father and a Heavenly Father, and that is all.

You don’t understand how it figures into Catholicism? Or you don’t understand that particular teaching of Christ?

You seem to mistake me for someone else. I am a Christian. I do not follow Paul in any way, shape, or form. The church (all inclusive) follows Paul because there is no profit in the teachings of Christ.

For you to insist that the RCC can trace its roots all the way back to Mt 16:18, you have to assume that Simon bar Jonah was the first pope. Peter was never even in Rome, according to all Scriptural accounts. Peter himself even said that it was wrong to ‘lord over’ God’s flock.

[quote]The new testament biblical cannon was written by the first Christians ordained by the apostles and the apostles themselves. The biblical cannon was assembled by the Catholic Church.

No protestant can trace their roots past Martin Luther, who was only a man, who claimed no divine inspiration what so ever.

It’s not going to be productive to try and point out how the Catholic Church is not biblical. Because I can go all day long on how Protestantism is not Biblical. It’s to easy to do to go back and forth. [/quote]
Again, neither Catholic nor Protestant. Just Christian.

[quote]My only goal was to express to you a hidden bias, because you don’t know he who must not be named like I do. You aren’t now and will never get the truth out of him. That there are bad intentions and not an intention for honest dialog and understanding. That’s all I am trying to express. When I saw your response, I knew it was more ‘whore/ child of the devil’ bullshit meant to attack my faith. I tend to protect it as it’s near and dear to me, despite my own personal sinfulness and I will not tolerate lies being spread, I will correct them.

I don’t put people on ignore willy-nilly, there have only been 2 with one recent addition. But one guy was so bad, he was kicked off the entire site. Tirib isn’t on ignore because he doesn’t like Catholicism, the list is longer than my arm, but two major reasons are complete and total dishonesty, and perpetual insulting. I can take a lot, but I prefer people be upfront and honest about it. For instance, I disagree with smh about loads of things, but I can have honest meaningful conversations with him and he does not lie, and he does not insult my faith. And he does not lie about insulting my faith and then insult it in the process.
If you think I am wrong, you won’t for long.[/quote]
He and I have had rounds about his propensity to insult under cover of denial.

The defensive posturing isn’t necessary. I am not trying to attack anything, but I cannot abandon the Truth just to avoid hurting feelings. I am not opposed to agreeing to disagree, though.

[quote]I am willing to bet 90% of what you think the Catholic Church is about is wrong. You are free to ask all the questions you want, but do not get caught up in semantics. I can point out many, many things that protestants profess that one could claim is not following the teachings of Christ.
Nobody is perfect, no church is perfect, and nobody’s Biblical understanding is perfect. If you want to examine Catholic imperfections, examine your own first, after all, that’s following Christ’s word is it not? [/quote]
That is very good advice (no sarcasm, it really is). That same examination is what led to my rejection of Paulinism. Seeing as both Catholic and Protestant are followers of Paul (under the pretense of following Christ), I believe in the teachings of neither.

165

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
That is very good advice (no sarcasm, it really is). That same examination is what led to my rejection of Paulinism. Seeing as both Catholic and Protestant are followers of Paul (under the pretense of following Christ), I believe in the teachings of neither.
[/quote]
Does that mean you do not accept the Epistles of Paul as Scripture?

166

[quote]undoredo wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
That is very good advice (no sarcasm, it really is). That same examination is what led to my rejection of Paulinism. Seeing as both Catholic and Protestant are followers of Paul (under the pretense of following Christ), I believe in the teachings of neither.
[/quote]
Does that mean you do not accept the Epistles of Paul as Scripture?[/quote]
It’s hard to explain.

They are Scripture, and they belong exactly where they are. Paul was foretold by the prophets, and serves an important purpose, but he is not who we are supposed to follow. He is there to mislead and deceive, and he’ll lead you away from the Light if you let him.

My shepherd is Christ. I accept Him and I know His voice. I cannot follow Paul.

167

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]undoredo wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
That is very good advice (no sarcasm, it really is). That same examination is what led to my rejection of Paulinism. Seeing as both Catholic and Protestant are followers of Paul (under the pretense of following Christ), I believe in the teachings of neither.
[/quote]
Does that mean you do not accept the Epistles of Paul as Scripture?[/quote]
It’s hard to explain.

They are Scripture, and they belong exactly where they are. Paul was foretold by the prophets, and serves an important purpose, but he is not who we are supposed to follow. He is there to mislead and deceive, and he’ll lead you away from the Light if you let him.

My shepherd is Christ. I accept Him and I know His voice. I cannot follow Paul.
[/quote]
Do you believe that the Epistles of Paul are parts of Scripture insofar as the Holy Spirit wants us to know what Paul wrote, but that we are not supposed to take Paul’s instruction? i.e. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit’s intent for them as Scripture is narrative but not directly instructive (even if Paul’s intent was directly instructive)?

168

[quote]pat wrote:<<< I don’t put people on ignore willy-nilly, there have only been 2 with one recent addition. But one guy was so bad, he was kicked off the entire site. Tirib isn’t on ignore because he doesn’t like Catholicism, the list is longer than my arm, but two major reasons are complete and total dishonesty, and perpetual insulting. >>>[/quote]For some reason JP it matters to me what you think about Pat’s lies. I am fully prepared, unlike him, to document EXACTLY what happened between us, but it won’t be here. He’s a liar and to defend my name here against a man who slings mud from behind the ignore button, I WILL prove that if you want me to. If not that’s actually fine because I am booked already, but I will if need be.

169

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Sounds like you must actually hate heresy then. Including mine. My mistake. Unless you go about destroying things you love. Or things you hate, but only in yourself which would be pretty selfish.[/quote]

I attempt to stop all persons from believing or holding heresy, as best as I can.

No.

And, we come to the unquestioned and false assumption - first principle if you may oblige - (though not candid, admittedly). What do you mean that Christian scriptures are the “defining first standard?”

One step at a time.

I won’t play the machine guy fallacy with you, so since you brought up the subject. We’ll go one subject at a time Tirib. You fiend disinterest on this subject, but I know it is because you are aware in your bones the only resolution of a debate on this and now we have it. I didn’t bring it up this time, you did, and I’m giddy as a fat man who just got another gig as Santa Claus at the Metro Mall.

[quote]UNLESS, that first standard itself is dictated by an external authority that can make that standard say whatever they like by definition no matter how foreign to the original meaning of the text it actually is. In other words, unless they are replaced as first standard by one that can make them say whatever it likes.

That is where your church goes very VERY wrong Chris.
It’s why knowledge of the bible among Catholics is paltry and pathetic at very best. It’s not needed. None of that stuff comes from there anyway and if it can say whatever the authority contrives then why bother? Just look to the authority and skip the bible which is what your church would be much better off just doing. I’m not being sarcastic or mean to you Chris. There is just NO way that Roman Catholicism AND the Holy Bible can both be true.

I hate that church just as much as I love you. In fact they’re the same thing.

BTW, What do you think of my rendition of the Socratic method?
[/quote]

Rendition? You mean above? Great, except that the Socratic method usually requires more than one person, because you have obviously assumed the conclusion in your premise, which is a rather big weakness.

So, I’ll put the first question on the subject forward so it is clear: What do you mean that Christian scriptures are the “defining first standard?”

170

I couldn’t even get through the whole damn video, it was so stupid. Seriously, as soon as NASA can put a squat rack on the moon I’m leaving.

171

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Calling the early American Catholics ‘oppressed’ is akin to claiming the KKK is ‘oppressed’. [/quote]

Except Klansman in America are permitted and are actually voted (well, only by the Democratic Party) into office, while the Colonies were still subject to the George the Tyrant, they were not permitted office. Unless of course you forget what the 1st Amendment actually says, which isn’t at all surprising.

Obviously you lack the ability to distinguish Catholicism (what Jesus and the Church put forth for the faithful to hold and believe) and what individual Catholics believe, if Malleus Maleficarum is Catholicism, then so is Lutheranism and Calvinism and Ayranism. The Magisterium clearly – clearly – pointed out that believing there were real witches (magical powers, brooms, &c.) was in fact ignoring reality and holding such nonsense was a danger to one’s soul and preaching such falsehoods was in fact a danger to one’s soul. But, thanks again.

P.S. Just so you all remember, unless there is a magisterium document or something of equal weight put forth you might as well be quoting from the Davidic Branch to use as evidence against Christendom. It might be valid by the sheer luck that a room full of monkeys could produce the Catechism in a 1000 years with a stock pile of bananas and Macbook Airs.

Oh, I was not aware you were given authority to interpret Scripture. Where did you receive this authority?

172

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< tirib has been brainwashed in to thinking that the Catholic Church IS the whore of Babylon >>>[/quote]Here’s another coward who peeks out from behind the ignore button to take cheap shots at me and then runs back. I never once said anything about believing the Catholic Church was the whore of Babylon. Never. Of course my demand for a demonstration that I have will be met with derision, as if asking for documentation of their accusation was outrageous or something. Same as always. Never said it because I don’t know what I believe there and HAVE said THAT. This poses no problem for Pat though to whom such common decencies are completely foreign.
[/quote]

As you have said, you are not settled on the Church being the Great Whore, but you have nevertheless alluded to the Church being the Whore of Babylon. Why not stop with this backboneless PC modernism and go with your convictions, where is the Calvinist that would use the civil magisterium to murder me because I’m a heretic (not to mention that you yourself gave precedence to heresy).

173

[quote]Peter Noto wrote:
I couldn’t even get through the whole damn video, it was so stupid. Seriously, as soon as NASA can put a squat rack on the moon I’m leaving.[/quote]

The logic of this post alone makes your viewpoint understandable.

174

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< So, I’ll put the first question on the subject forward so it is clear: What do you mean that Christian scriptures are the “defining first standard?”[/quote]They are the earliest record and represent decades of divinely inspired theological and historical thought. They deliver a clearly distinguishable body of knowledge. They are not magic. Even total unbelievers with sufficient effort can and have told us what they say. Formally anyway. Many liberals will tell us why John 1:1 DOES in fact teach that Jesus is God. They just don’t believe that though. Point? They are essentially accessible enough to not require a special anointing to read and understand. To believe unto salvation is a whole different matter altogether.

NOTHING can be inspired by the same God who inspired them which contradicts them. So all it takes is one single Catholic dogma or interpretation to be shown to be in contradiction of the bible and your church is a lie. I just finished an evening of this exact same topic on a facebook page somebody lured me to. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< As you have said, you are not settled on the Church being the Great Whore, but you have nevertheless alluded to the Church being the Whore of Babylon. Why not stop with this backboneless PC modernism and go with your convictions, where is the Calvinist that would use the civil magisterium to murder me because I’m a heretic (not to mention that you yourself gave precedence to heresy). [/quote]This is a great heaping load of caca Christopher. (I think you were lookin for “magistrate” there.)

175

[quote]undoredo wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]undoredo wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
That is very good advice (no sarcasm, it really is). That same examination is what led to my rejection of Paulinism. Seeing as both Catholic and Protestant are followers of Paul (under the pretense of following Christ), I believe in the teachings of neither.
[/quote]
Does that mean you do not accept the Epistles of Paul as Scripture?[/quote]
It’s hard to explain.

They are Scripture, and they belong exactly where they are. Paul was foretold by the prophets, and serves an important purpose, but he is not who we are supposed to follow. He is there to mislead and deceive, and he’ll lead you away from the Light if you let him.

My shepherd is Christ. I accept Him and I know His voice. I cannot follow Paul.
[/quote]
Do you believe that the Epistles of Paul are parts of Scripture insofar as the Holy Spirit wants us to know what Paul wrote, but that we are not supposed to take Paul’s instruction? i.e. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit’s intent for them as Scripture is narrative but not directly instructive (even if Paul’s intent was directly instructive)?
[/quote]
It’s meant as a test. As you read Paul’s works, red flags should pop up everywhere. Things that Christ warned us against are evident right there in Paul’s words.

Just take 1Cor4:14-21 for an example. Paul calls his congregation his children and says he became their father in Christ through the gospel (red flag). Urges them to imitate him (red flag), and asks if he should come to them with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness (red flag).

Will you follow Christ? or Paul? That is the test.

176

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You are caught up in semantics. I am certain you refer to your Dad as a Father, having such a title means nothing. You can call them reverends if you wish. That is their title on letter heads. Fr. is more informal.[/quote]
Spiritually speaking, we have only one Father. That is not semantics. I have an Earthly father and a Heavenly Father, and that is all.
[/quote]
Which makes two not one, and it is semantics because you are referring to titles. Titles are names. And it’s rediculus as the NT is full of ‘fathers’ Mt Chap 1, Mt 3:9, Mt 10:1, MT 10:35-37, Mk 7:12, Rom 4:16, Phil 1:10 just to name a few. Let’s examine what St. Paul says:
“For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” 1 Cor 4:15.
So clearly, by this example, the reference to clergy as Fr’s is not unbiblical at all. And since you want to be all semantical about it, we don’t call them “Our Father”, or “Our Heavenly Father”.

Rome did not make the Pope and yes, St. Peter was the first pope, as ordained by Christ himself. The early Popes did not live Rome either. And there is no ‘lording over’ they are servants to Christ and his church.

Fine with me.

Nor am I which is why we can converse without the histrionics. Like I said, I don’t put people on ignore for hate Catholics. Lot’s of people do.

[quote]

[quote]I am willing to bet 90% of what you think the Catholic Church is about is wrong. You are free to ask all the questions you want, but do not get caught up in semantics. I can point out many, many things that protestants profess that one could claim is not following the teachings of Christ.
Nobody is perfect, no church is perfect, and nobody’s Biblical understanding is perfect. If you want to examine Catholic imperfections, examine your own first, after all, that’s following Christ’s word is it not? [/quote]
That is very good advice (no sarcasm, it really is). That same examination is what led to my rejection of Paulinism. Seeing as both Catholic and Protestant are followers of Paul (under the pretense of following Christ), I believe in the teachings of neither.[/quote]

We’re not followers of Paul, we are followers of Christ. Paul’s instruction is considered valuable, no doubt, but we don’t ‘follow’ him per se.
But that’s an interesting take. I have never heard of a Christian rejecting the Pauline epistles. I’d like to hear more about why…

177

[quote]pat wrote:
We’re not followers of Paul, we are followers of Christ. Paul’s instruction is considered valuable, no doubt, but we don’t ‘follow’ him per se.
But that’s an interesting take. I have never heard of a Christian rejecting the Pauline epistles. I’d like to hear more about why…
[/quote]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]undoredo wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]undoredo wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
That is very good advice (no sarcasm, it really is). That same examination is what led to my rejection of Paulinism. Seeing as both Catholic and Protestant are followers of Paul (under the pretense of following Christ), I believe in the teachings of neither.
[/quote]
Does that mean you do not accept the Epistles of Paul as Scripture?[/quote]
It’s hard to explain.

They are Scripture, and they belong exactly where they are. Paul was foretold by the prophets, and serves an important purpose, but he is not who we are supposed to follow. He is there to mislead and deceive, and he’ll lead you away from the Light if you let him.

My shepherd is Christ. I accept Him and I know His voice. I cannot follow Paul.
[/quote]
Do you believe that the Epistles of Paul are parts of Scripture insofar as the Holy Spirit wants us to know what Paul wrote, but that we are not supposed to take Paul’s instruction? i.e. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit’s intent for them as Scripture is narrative but not directly instructive (even if Paul’s intent was directly instructive)?
[/quote]
It’s meant as a test. As you read Paul’s works, red flags should pop up everywhere. Things that Christ warned us against are evident right there in Paul’s words.

Just take 1Cor4:14-21 for an example. Paul calls his congregation his children and says he became their father in Christ through the gospel (red flag). Urges them to imitate him (red flag), and asks if he should come to them with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness (red flag).

Will you follow Christ? or Paul? That is the test.
[/quote]
In case you missed that exchange.
EDIT – Not endorsing. Putting exchange that appears to address pat’s question (about JP’s take on the Pauline Epistles) immediately underneath pat’s question.

178

^ 1st Corinthians deals with this directly. CLIFF NOTES- 1 Corinthians 3:5, and ties in the chapter, repeating the theme in 3:21-23

3 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, ?I am of Paul,? and another, ?I am of Apollos,? are you not carnal?
Watering, Working, Warning

5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

9 For we are God?s fellow workers; you are God?s field, you are God?s building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

and the tie in

1 Corinthians 3:21-23

21 So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future–all are yours, 23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

179

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You are caught up in semantics. I am certain you refer to your Dad as a Father, having such a title means nothing. You can call them reverends if you wish. That is their title on letter heads. Fr. is more informal.[/quote]
Spiritually speaking, we have only one Father. That is not semantics. I have an Earthly father and a Heavenly Father, and that is all.
[/quote]
Which makes two not one, and it is semantics because you are referring to titles. Titles are names. And it’s rediculus as the NT is full of ‘fathers’ Mt Chap 1, Mt 3:9, Mt 10:1, MT 10:35-37, Mk 7:12, Rom 4:16, Phil 1:10 just to name a few. Let’s examine what St. Paul says:
“For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” 1 Cor 4:15.
So clearly, by this example, the reference to clergy as Fr’s is not unbiblical at all. And since you want to be all semantical about it, we don’t call them “Our Father”, or “Our Heavenly Father”.[/quote]
You said you follow Christ, and not Paul. Fair enough…

…but do you realize that you just used a quote from Paul to counter my quote from Christ?

And regarding that particular quote; The only way that Paul could have become anyone’s father through the Gospel is if he were God. But if you have a Biblical argument as to how exactly he could have become their father according to the Gospel, I’d definitely be interested to hear it.

180

[quote]Peter Noto wrote:
I couldn’t even get through the whole damn video, it was so stupid. Seriously, as soon as NASA can put a squat rack on the moon I’m leaving.[/quote]

Imagine the numbers you’d pull on the moon!