Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

[FretRider]

I trolled years ago. It has nothing to do with this discussion. You strike me as a very petty and superficial person that you have to always resort to ad hominem. You did it with regards to Bishop Williamson, then you did it to HHR and now you are doing it to me. Don't you think it is kind of pathetic to always evade the subject in such a way? When you lost an argument and have no point to make you should simply be quiet, not resort to atacking the other person pitfuly.

Except that gas chambers were used and as a man in a position of authority, these are views that should be reviewed carefully before sharing them with others.

If average joe in the street tells me he doesn't think the holocaust killed more than a million people Jews then all I would ask him is if that's not a high amount of people killed anyway ?

But if when a person with a lot of authority and a "flock" speak then that's a different case.

I hope you do realise that.

Also in the same regard, other things he says should be under much more scrutiny than average joe in the street.

So when he says the WTC is a conspiracy then it's something that casts doubts on his other messages ….

It's quite simple really…

The thing with Msgr. Williamson is that he is completely orthodox, and as mentioned, possibly the most pious and faithful Catholic Bishop around. Neither the Vatican nor the SSPX has the authority to go around playing "opinion police" and giving him hell because of what he thinks about politics, history or social matters. They tolerate heretics and blasphemers inside the Church, yet they like to play inquisition when a Bishop says something that is politically incorrect. These are people who have forgotten that their role is related to ritual, doctrine and SPECIALLY saving souls. Pope Francis himself is a media primadonna who plays the spotlights as well as any actor. Saints are usually hated and despised by their generation, not loved.

I have been following Msgr. Williamson's newsletter and lectures for years and I never minded the so called "conspiracy theories". He rarely discusses them. When an interviewer asks for his opinion in any subject, however, he will reply honestly. The man simply hates subterfuge and lies.

 

[Ripper]

I trolled years ago. It has nothing to do with this discussion. You strike me as a very petty and superficial person that you have to always resort to ad hominem. You did it with regards to Bishop Williamson, then you did it to HHR and now you are doing it to me. Don't you think it is kind of pathetic to always evade the subject in such a way? When you lost an argument and have no point to make you should simply be quiet, not resort to atacking the other person pitfuly.

If you think I'm afraid of an argument, you haven't been following these forums too closely! :lol:

I do have standards though. You are a self-confessed troll and sock puppeteer - that is not an ad hominem attack, it is your own statement of fact. Not engaging with you is a matter of common sense and good forum hygiene.

If you, HHR and the good bishop can be undermined by precise quotes of horrible things you've actually said, that is hardly a character assassination, is it? It's more like a character suicide bombing!

Let's assume for now that you are not HHR's more agitated alter ego, and he sticks to reasonably civilised arguments - I shall be quite happy to continue a debate with him. You are going on the ignore list

 

[txa1265]

Just a (non-mod in this forum) reminder that while heated debate is fine, personal attacks on other membvers are not.

 

[Ripper]

Just a (non-mod in this forum) reminder that while heated debate is fine, personal attacks on other membvers are not.

I do appreciate that. But if you're talking to me, I don't think pointing out that someone has freely said that they use sock puppets to troll people is a personal attack - it's a relevant fact. It's also important to point it out as the reason not to accept the debate.

 

[txa1265]

I do appreciate that. But if you're talking to me, I don't think pointing out that someone has freely said that they use sock puppets to troll people is not a personal attack - it's a relevant fact. It's also important to point it out as the reason not to accept the debate.

No one in particular... And all of us (myself included) in general

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Fretrider is from Uruguay while I live in Quebec, the only thing we have in common is that we are traditionalist Catholics so we tend to agree on these matters to a point. Usually he takes a more fiery stance.

He's the one who showed me who Bishop Williamson was a few years ago; like I said I take what I find useful from his newsletters and discard the rest, which there is since he is very knowledgeable and educated and he puts things in perspective (although it is from his perspective). It's valuable for me for instance to learn about famous figures in the history of the Catholic church and specific events in the past that caused the decline which ultimately led to Vatican II and the church embracing modernism, as I didn't have any education in the matter although I went to a private Catholic high school and even was thought Catholicism in public school (I was one of the last ones before it was removed from the curriculum of public schools in Quebec). I will not get sincere commentary on this from sources related to the Catholic church, whereas protestant sources or secular sources will probably be too biased.

The thing though is that it's easy to make something sound outrageous when the context is more complex, which is where my analogy came from. I share the same contempt for Richard Dawkins which you do for Mr. Williamson. However I am not going around saying he is defined by some of his most outrageously incendiary sayings.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

NO!! Some are, but that is NOT the Christian way and NEVER was despite some misguided groups doing just that. If you look at the words of Jesus He talked about turning the other cheek and loving those who 'spitefully use you'. The problem has always been not the religion per say, but what some people have done IN THE NAME OF that religion. The Inquisition of the Catholic church is a good example, in a different way, so are the Crusades. They had political agendas which used religion to further those agendas. Too many people confuse the one with the other.

Misguided groups? Who is misguiding people?

The Inquisition was composed with Christian people. They were Christian as so many others. They followed the bible (that they read and not simply quotes!!)

The Bible reads many, many things. Many things, things and their contrary, which gives a lot of flexibility in action.

There is nothing in the Bible that could exclude Christian people composing the Inquisition or the crusaders as being Christian.

Crusaders, the Inquisition found justification in the Bible because the justification is written in the Bible.

There are a few things that cant be justified using the Bible. The abolition of slavery can not be justified using the Bible for example. There is nothing in the Bible that could justify aboshing slavery. Nothing.
It is not about stressing one side of the bible over some other sides, as it could be the case for the Inquisition or the crusaders since the Bible reads many things and its opposite.

People who have been calling for ending slavery were not christian because the bible contains nothing relatively to the abolition of slavery.

Crusaders, the Inquisition? They were Christian as their behaviour found justification in the bible. Some might tell that they chose to stress one side in the bible and ignore other sides. But you do not collect things and their opposite when you do not want a kind of flexibility to act as you wish when the situation arises.

 

[Ripper]

Fretrider is from Uruguay while I live in Quebec, the only thing we have in common is that we are traditionalist Catholics so we tend to agree on these matters to a point. Usually he takes a more fiery stance.

I'll get to the question of the bishop and his credibility later, as he is most relevant to this topic - an ideological Christian so opposed by the Catholic Church that it excommunicated him.

First I'd like to address your claims of scriptural fidelity and lack of prejudice. I'm no stranger to the Bible - I too attended a Catholic boarding school, very harsh and traditional, run by Jesuits. You'd have loved it :lol:

To me, your adherence to the scriptures and the even-handedness with which you warn about sin are highly questionable. We have all seen your extreme comments in regard of sexual morality, but where are your admonitions to your partner FretRider about impersonating others in order to "troll" a community? I'm sure you know what the scriptures say about those quick to mischief, and those who speak lies to sow discord - God hates them, and they are an abomination unto him. You had best warn your friend to repent, and quickly.

Also, have a look at his conduct on this thread (another reason to ignore him), and his comments on the "raping Mohammedan sand negroes." We know what the Bible says about the revilers. Will you be warning him about the danger to his immortal soul? Indeed, you indulge in a fair bit of reviling yourself.

And then there's the matter of what scripture has to say about wasting our days in pursuits which do not honour God. Here you are playing cRPGs full of violence and sorcery, making hundreds of posts on forums which exist to promote this activity. You praise Dead State - a game in which the dead rise from the earth, not by the hand of God, and devour the flesh of men created in His image. I warn you - the scriptures say you are in danger.

Further still, there is the question of indulging in sensuality and luxury. You have recently advertised your intention to go shopping for luxury watches, and pictures of your newly purchased $1000 headphones - the height of sensual indulgence. I expect there are people going hungry in Quebec. I'm sure you know what the scriptures say about this, and your entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. These are not slip-ups of sin - this is a lifestyle choice to exist in your "muddy puddle" in defiance of scripture. This is a sure path to the lake of fire.

And yet, while you seem quite comfortable with all these blatant violations of scripture, you are extremely vocal about the "depravity" of "unwholesome" gays and sexual promiscuity. If you are genuine about your regard for scripture and have no prejudice, why are your warnings of sin so narrow,selective and hypocritical?

 

[Hexprone]

I don't know how to convey how depressing I find this thread. It makes me want to just avoid the site.

 

[Thrasher]

It is best just to take a lot of this as trolling. Can't take it seriously, seriously...

 

[Myrthos]

It is a depressing thread, but that's what you get with religious fanatics. They also tend to stick together, which is probably why they adore their bishop so much, regardless of whatever foul opinion he has.

 

[Ripper]

I don't know how to convey how depressing I find this thread. It makes me want to just avoid the site.

That's how I felt when I saw the earlier parts of this thread, the thread I linked to, and several others on this site.

I think, though, that some of this crosses the line into that which should be opposed, not merely ignored. That includes race hatred, holocaust denial, antisemetic conspiracy theories, homophobic abuse, and extreme religious fundamentalism.

I am not a believer, but I was schooled in the Bible until I was old enough to make it over the fence. I'm also sympathetic to reasonable Christians. I am keen to confront the malignancy and intellectual bankruptcy of some of what runs riot on this site.

 

[Damian]

Misguided groups? Who is misguiding people?

The Inquisition was composed with Christian people. They were Christian as so many others. They followed the bible (that they read and not simply quotes!!)

Actually at that time it was impossible to read the bible because it was never translated and forbidden by commoners to read the bible. That is why they have the missal.

The Bible reads many, many things. Many things, things and their contrary, which gives a lot of flexibility in action.

There is nothing in the Bible that could exclude Christian people composing the Inquisition or the crusaders as being Christian.

Crusaders, the Inquisition found justification in the Bible because the justification is written in the Bible.

There are a few things that cant be justified using the Bible. The abolition of slavery can not be justified using the Bible for example. There is nothing in the Bible that could justify aboshing slavery. Nothing.
It is not about stressing one side of the bible over some other sides, as it could be the case for the Inquisition or the crusaders since the Bible reads many things and its opposite.

Actually you wont find a single thing telling people to kill another person in the new testament. It is all done by Jesus if anything in the new testament. Which is why when they wanted to go for a war on Afghanistan they only ever used old testament quotes.

People who have been calling for ending slavery were not christian because the bible contains nothing relatively to the abolition of slavery.

Crusaders, the Inquisition? They were Christian as their behaviour found justification in the bible. Some might tell that they chose to stress one side in the bible and ignore other sides. But you do not collect things and their opposite when you do not want a kind of flexibility to act as you wish when the situation arises.

William Wilberforce was a Christian. Heck the tune for Amazing Grace was from slave galleys.

 

[Damian]

Enjoy.

 

[Damian]

A bit of misinformation in that video so skip to 5:00 and listen to the song.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Actually at that time it was impossible to read the bible because it was never translated and forbidden by commoners to read the bible. That is why they have the missal.

People in the Inquisition were commoners? Crusaders were commoners?

Actually you wont find a single thing telling people to kill another person in the new testament. It is all done by Jesus if anything in the new testament. Which is why when they wanted to go for a war on Afghanistan they only ever used old testament quotes.

Where is it written that the new testament made the old obsolete?

William Wilberforce was a Christian. Heck the tune for Amazing Grace was from slave galleys.

It might have been a Christian but there is nothing in the Bible to justify the abolition of slavery. Nothing.

 

[Thrasher]

Anti-Gay NC Church Members Indicted For Felony Kidnapping And Assault Of Gay Man

Good Christians all, I'm sure…

EDIT: on a related note

Rep. Michele Bachmann delivers her farewell address

 

[FretRider]

Where is it written that the new testament made the old obsolete?.

The covenant was evidently renewed and God being made man and sacrificing Himself for all mankind obviously had a big role in that. Christ defending the adulterous woman about to being stoned to death is a big example of a considerable change in mindset between Christianity and ancient Judaism.

Plus there is the fact that old hebrew law was simply never practiced in the near two millenia of Christendom. I always find it pathetic when atheists quote leviticus to justify their hatred of Christianity, at best they should be protesting those bronze age laws before orthodox synagogues and even that would be a big stretch and abuse of common sense.

People in the Inquisition were commoners? Crusaders were commoners?

The guy you are replying to was just being obtuse and anti-Catholic. Protestants had brutal inquisitions and religious wars too and they were all about "just me and my bibul". Not to mention they genocided native americans while the Catholics bothered to convert them and save their souls;

It might have been a Christian but there is nothing in the Bible to justify the abolition of slavery. Nothing.

Indeed, there isn't. There is quite a bit about treating slaves with respect and love, and also about denying earthly possessions(and in antiquity slaves fit that category absolutely) but nothing about abolition.

And yet it was Christianity that eventually gave rise to free labour and the feudal system that would eventually pretty much abolish slavery in the western medieval world. The medieval Church fathers had nothing to say about the condemnation of slavery in general(specially considering the great influence classical philosophy had on them), but they did forbid the robbery and slavery of fellow Christians. After mass conversion fo European peoples, that was why slavery was such a rarity during medieval times.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

To me, your adherence to the scriptures and the even-handedness with which you warn about sin are highly questionable. We have all seen your extreme comments in regard of sexual morality, but where are your admonitions to your partner FretRider about impersonating others in order to "troll" a community? I'm sure you know what the scriptures say about those quick to mischief, and those who speak lies to sow discord - God hates them, and they are an abomination unto him. You had best warn your friend to repent, and quickly.

Also, have a look at his conduct on this thread (another reason to ignore him), and his comments on the "raping Mohammedan sand negroes." We know what the Bible says about the revilers. Will you be warning him about the danger to his immortal soul? Indeed, you indulge in a fair bit of reviling yourself.

Silly mischief he did in the past, I don't care too much. On the Codex it's often a contest of who is going to be the most outrageous possible so I take it with a grain of salt. However I did tell him many times that I find he gets very inflammatory and rude and needlessly so and this isn't how a Christian should act, on the Codex as well as in private exchanges. I don't approve of it, but I hope he will improve with time.

I know I do, but hopefully I am able to end up growing beyond it and turn it into something meaningful.

And then there's the matter of what scripture has to say about wasting our days in pursuits which do not honour God. Here you are playing cRPGs full of violence and sorcery, making hundreds of posts on forums which exist to promote this activity. You praise Dead State - a game in which the dead rise from the earth, not by the hand of God, and devour the flesh of men created in His image. I warn you - the scriptures say you are in danger.

Further still, there is the question of indulging in sensuality and luxury. You have recently advertised your intention to go shopping for luxury watches, and pictures of your newly purchased $1000 headphones - the height of sensual indulgence. I expect there are people going hungry in Quebec. I'm sure you know what the scriptures say about this, and your entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. These are not slip-ups of sin - this is a lifestyle choice to exist in your "muddy puddle" in defiance of scripture. This is a sure path to the lake of fire.

And yet, while you seem quite comfortable with all these blatant violations of scripture, you are extremely vocal about the "depravity" of "unwholesome" gays and sexual promiscuity. If you are genuine about your regard for scripture and have no prejudice, why are your warnings of sin so narrow,selective and hypocritical?

I never got the argument that videogames are a form of witchcraft, that is was some fundamentalist southern evangelicals say. But they fail to take into account a few things, such as the Bible tells us to use our own judgement.

Gary Gygax said on an interview on 60 Minutes where he was defending D&D that anything can be abused and by and large I agree. It would become a bad thing if it became an obsession that would warp my way of thinking or make me neglect more important things.

To be honest I am less and less interested in games that feature high levels of violence as it seems gratuitous to me. But the point of games is not to indulge in violent acts through an avatar; it is to manage resources, strategize and train your reflexes. I don't play games that much and my interest diminishes. It doesn't fulfill my soul, it is merely a mindless activity.

Some like Dead State are more involved, but they are a mix of the above, of escapism, and of situations which bring up questions of morality. Perspective is useful when it comes to defining and shaping our beliefs. Videogames probably having a more subversive power than other forms of media is one thing I will agree with, but I think the Gygax analogy still applies.

About my purchases, a significant portion of my salary goes to charity. It mostly goes to paying for my family's expenses and it is saved.

With the rest I do indulge from time to time, but I don't see anything wrong with it because I seek great quality products with fine craftmanship and quality, something which is vanishing. I don't do it because I want to feel superior to anyone else. It is tertiary and simply a way to share happy things with others. The headphones for example I am discussing with a friend who enjoys it as well and we make comparison and talk about the music we enjoyed listening on it. So it is what I really value, not materialism in and of itself.

 

[Ripper]

Or, to put it briefly, you compromise on the hard details of the scriptures as it suits you, while using them to criticize others, as it suits your prejudices.