• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Catholic Cardinal Takes Exception to the God's-Honest Trooth

Cephus said:
It's just that religion is one of the most common reasons they seem to find. But of course, you're such an absurd apologist for religion, you'll go to any length to excuse belief in your imaginary friend. And there is evil, subjective though it may be. And religion is one of those evils that still persists in the world. Good thing it's slowly going away.
Click to expand...

Every human is religious including you. Religion is whatever you deeply believe (communism vs capitalism, nature vs nurture, doctrine according to Lucifer or doctrine according to Jesus etc.)

Given the post-modernist refuse to stick with the traditional definitions or connotations of "male" and "female" (transsexuals) and "marriage" (gay marriage) I'm under no Hitlerian obligation to obey your crowd in sticking to some strict traditional definition or connotation of "religion."

Instead... I prefer to speak of what is orthodox and unorthodox and/or heterodox.

It is orthodox to give due honor and reverence to God Almighty.

Lucifer was not atheist but he did refuse to serve. Non serviam.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_serviam

Non serviam is Latin for "I will not serve". The phrase is generally attributed to Lucifer, who is said to have spoken these words to express rejection to serve God in the heavenly kingdom.
Click to expand...


220px-Guido_Reni_031.jpg


Loyal Michael uttered the words, "I will serve."

War is inevitable.




 
JackA said:
It has been right about the same thing every religion has been right about, organizing people around a civilizing cultural identity. Religions (I belong to none) have been instrumental in the development of social mores and the advance of language and other forms of human expression. They have been the glue that bound humans into social groups. Yeah, religion has heaped lots of carnage on the world along the way. Messy things they are, but apparently we needed them to get us here.
Click to expand...

Very true... and where is "here?"
 
FastPace said:
Every human is religious including you. Religion is whatever you deeply believe (communism vs capitalism, nature vs nurture, doctrine according to Lucifer or doctrine according to Jesus etc.) ]
Click to expand...

Wrong. Definition of religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
 
FastPace said:
Every human is religious including you. Religion is whatever you deeply believe (communism vs capitalism, nature vs nurture, doctrine according to Lucifer or doctrine according to Jesus etc.)
Click to expand...

Let there, then, be places of worship to the Boston Red Sox.
 
JackA said:
Let there, then, be places of worship to the Boston Red Sox.
Click to expand...

They already exist. They're called baseball stadiums.
 
Cephus said:
Wrong. Definition of religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Click to expand...

You may desire to be a de facto Pope but given you claim the right to change the definition of marriage and sex, I see you as no Christ to preach to me that you and only you and your anti-Christ crowd can change or retain the definition of "religion."

As I said:

Given the post-modernist refuse to stick with the traditional definitions or connotations of "male" and "female" (transsexuals) and "marriage" (gay marriage) I'm under no Hitlerian obligation to obey your crowd in sticking to some strict traditional definition or connotation of "religion."

Instead... I prefer to speak of what is orthodox and unorthodox and/or heterodox.
Click to expand...

And as I said: you (Cephus) are religious and I reject your religion nor hold you as my Pope or my Christ. You are free like Charles Manson to talk other Americans into your religious beliefs you as a teacher teach.
 
FastPace said:
You may desire to be a de facto Pope but given you claim the right to change the definition of marriage and sex, I see you as no Christ to preach to me that you and only you and your anti-Christ crowd can change or retain the definition of "religion."
Click to expand...

I provided the dictionary definition of the word. That's what the word means. If what you are claiming does not fit the definition of the word, then you are simply wrong. That's how it works.

And as I said: you (Cephus) are religious and I reject your religion nor hold you as my Pope or my Christ. You are free like Charles Manson to talk other Americans into your religious beliefs you as a teacher teach.
Click to expand...

Nor did I ask you to. But you don't get to redefine the English language on a whim because it fits your narrative, at least not if you wish to remain credible. You lack that power. It just makes you look ridiculous.
 
Cephus said:
I provided the dictionary definition of the word. That's what the word means. If what you are claiming does not fit the definition of the word, then you are simply wrong. That's how it works.
Click to expand...

Error. That is not the purpose of the dictionary. The purpose of the dictionary is to articulate how--in the given era the dictionary is produced--a word is commonly used. So, the term "bad" can take on new meaning years down the line in a newly published dictionary.



Nor did I ask you to. But you don't get to redefine the English language on a whim because it fits your narrative, at least not if you wish to remain credible. You lack that power. It just makes you look ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The English language does not even share the same spelling. I cash a check in the United States but I cash a cheque in the United Kingdom. A "bird" may be a woman or girl in London but in New York City she more likely is a "chick" and "bird" never denotes a woman or girl.

Slang itself often is used widely enough to eventually get placed in English language dictionaries.

Frankly, you don't have the intellectual capacity to argue with me. Dictionaries do not denote what a word is intrinsically. Like the word "American" does not intrinsically mean "only those that are citizens of the United States of America." Every citizen of every country in Latin America is an American--whether or not an English dictionary provides that as an explanation for the term "American."
 
Cephus said:
It's just that religion is one of the most common reasons they seem to find. But of course, you're such an absurd apologist for religion, you'll go to any length to excuse belief in your imaginary friend. And there is evil, subjective though it may be. And religion is one of those evils that still persists in the world. Good thing it's slowly going away.
Click to expand...

The most common reason is property, and control of property is the chief desire of those who do evil. Christianity, and most religions, teach the opposite of that basic human instinct. People don't tend to succeed in overcoming that basic instinct because people are predisposed to do evil.
 
jmotivator said:
The most common reason is property, and control of property is the chief desire of those who do evil. Christianity, and most religions, teach the opposite of that basic human instinct. People don't tend to succeed in overcoming that basic instinct because people are predisposed to do evil.
Click to expand...

And the Pope lives a life of poverty... oh wait, the Catholic Church is one of the biggest landowners out there. :roll:
 
Cephus said:
And the Pope lives a life of poverty... oh wait, the Catholic Church is one of the biggest landowners out there. :roll:
Click to expand...

And again, you can't separate Jesus' teachings from the actions of individuals.

As for the biggest landowners... no, not really. Anti-Catholics like to pretend that the Pope is the sole owner of all Vatican land so tat he comes in at #3 biggest land owner, but a quick check reveals that not only is the Pope not the owner of the land, but they count embassy land .. yet somehow fail to include other countries and those countries embassies on their lists. As an country the Catholic church is nowhere close to the biggest land owners in the world, and individually the Pope owns no land himself.

Also, while stories love to trumpet that the Catholic church has hundreds of billions in annual operating budgets they fail to point out that Vatican bank only maintains roughly $8 billion in liquid assets... or roughly $8 per parishioner. The rest of their operating budget goes to salaries and running one of the largest direct charity organizations in the world.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
And again, you can't separate Jesus' teachings from the actions of individuals.

As for the biggest landowners... no, not really. Anti-Catholics like to pretend that the Pope is the sole owner of all Vatican land so tat he comes in at #3 biggest land owner, but a quick check reveals that not only is the Pope not the owner of the land, but they count embassy land .. yet somehow fail to include other countries and those countries embassies on their lists. As an country the Catholic church is nowhere close to the biggest land owners in the world, and individually the Pope owns no land himself.

Also, while stories love to trumpet that the Catholic church has hundreds of billions in annual operating budgets they fail to point out that Vatican bank only maintains roughly $8 billion in liquid assets... or roughly $8 per parishioner. The rest of their operating budget goes to salaries and running one of the largest direct charity organizations in the world.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the Pope, I said the Catholic Church. The Pope is just one of the biggest individual beneficiaries of that wealth. He lives a life of luxury while many of his followers wallow in poverty. Many Catholic monks and nuns vow poverty, but the Pope sure isn't among them.
 
Cephus said:
I didn't say the Pope, I said the Catholic Church. The Pope is just one of the biggest individual beneficiaries of that wealth. He lives a life of luxury while many of his followers wallow in poverty. Many Catholic monks and nuns vow poverty, but the Pope sure isn't among them.
Click to expand...

I know you didn't say the Pope, I am telling you that if you go back to whatever source taught you that falsehood you will find that your source attributed all the land holdings to ownership by the Pope so that they could get the Catholic Church into the top 10. As a Sovereign state the Catholic church is near the bottom of the list in total land ownership, and an organization it doesn't crack the top 10 and the Pope doesn't own any of it so you source has likely pulled the wool over your eyes.
 
jmotivator said:
I know you didn't say the Pope, I am telling you that if you go back to whatever source taught you that falsehood you will find that your source attributed all the land holdings to ownership by the Pope so that they could get the Catholic Church into the top 10. As a Sovereign state the Catholic church is near the bottom of the list in total land ownership, and an organization it doesn't crack the top 10 and the Pope doesn't own any of it so you source has likely pulled the wool over your eyes.
Click to expand...

I didn't go to a source, I went to reality. You're battling a straw man in a desperate attempt to defend the RCC. Knock it off.
 
Cephus said:
I didn't go to a source, I went to reality. You're battling a straw man in a desperate attempt to defend the RCC. Knock it off.
Click to expand...

LOL! You just admitted that you claim was not based on data. I'll take my bow and my trophy now. Thanks for playing.
 
jmotivator said:
LOL! You just admitted that you claim was not based on data. I'll take my bow and my trophy now. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

You were just trying to ascribe a nefarious purpose to some imaginary source as a means of winning. There was neither a purpose, nor a source. You just lost. But then again, you have an imaginary friend, so losing ought to be commonplace for you.
 
Cephus said:
You were just trying to ascribe a nefarious purpose to some imaginary source as a means of winning. There was neither a purpose, nor a source. You just lost. But then again, you have an imaginary friend, so losing ought to be commonplace for you.
Click to expand...

No, I actually looked it up. The only source I found that came close to the unsourced claim you made was this article which committed all the errors I described. If you have a better source for your claim then provide it.... obviously you don't since you already admitted that you didn't have a source for your claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom