NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12058399&postcount=146

You said, in another way that if I can prove that you are wrong in justifying your racist, sexist, bigoted views with your Catholic faith, you would publicly denounce your faith. Well my friend, I've just got done with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which outlines the Catholic faith, dogma, rules and regulations, and what we are susspose to believe in. This will be delicious.

The first one is Genocide (which the Holacaust was and is)

Paragraph 2313 of Catechism state

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

When it comes to Rape.

Paragraph 2345 of Catechism states

6 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them

When it comes to the Jews

Paragraph 439

439 Many Jews and even certain Gentiles who shared their hope recognized in Jesus the fundamental attributes of the messianic "Son of David", promised by God to Israel. Jesus accepted his rightful title of Messiah, though with some reserve because it was understood by some of his contemporaries in too human a sense, as essentially political.

Paragraph 597

The historical complexity of Jesus' trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles' calls to conversion after Pentecost. Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept "the ignorance" of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd's cry: "His blood be on us and on our children!", a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence. As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:

. . . [N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . [T]he Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.

So, The Roman Catholic Church and the Second Vatican Council does not support your views on ANYTHING.

Now, since I have proven that your views are not accepted or supported by the Church, I humbly accept your denouncement.

To everyone else:
I know that the chances of him actually denouncing his Catholic Faith is slim, but I would just like to point out that the Catholic Church does not advocate what The Holy Fourth Reich is saying here on this forum. There are ALOT of sensible and normal Catholics out there.

I have a few major points.

A) I am aware of that particular verse on rape. Is there, however, a verse on whether or not it is possible to rape one's spouse?

B) Is the part on the Jews infallible? It seems to contradict an assload of tradition. I might be wrong. If I am, feel free to show how.

I have a few major points.

A) I am aware of that particular verse on rape. Is there, however, a verse on whether or not it is possible to rape one's spouse?

is there a passage in the legal stuff on marriage that says that post-marriage a person must always consent to sex with their spouse by virtue of them being married?

hint: no

I have a few major points.

A) I am aware of that particular verse on rape. Is there, however, a verse on whether or not it is possible to rape one's spouse?

B) Is the part on the Jews infallible? It seems to contradict an assload of tradition. I might be wrong. If I am, feel free to show how.

A.) The Catechism did not mention spousal abuse in a separate paragraph, so it must mean that all rape are against the Church's teaching, including the one where a spouse force him/herself against his/her spouse.

B.) Paragraph 11.

11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries".

It seems to contradict an assload of tradition.

Not really. Lots of Popes throughout the centuries have condemned anti-Semitism.

They just didn't do all that much about it.

A.) The Catechism did not mention spousal abuse in a separate paragraph, so it must mean that all rape are against the Church's teaching, including the one where a spouse force him/herself against his/her spouse.

Very well, I admit that I was in the wrong in saying that a husband should be able to force himself on his wife.

For all who care, I renounce that statement.

However, I do nonetheless hold that there are very few good instances in which a wife should refuse her husband.

B.) Paragraph 11.

In light of VII. See, that's the big qualifier. VII wasn't infallible, and assloads of Popes, Doctors of the Church, and Saints disagreed.

Not really. Lots of Popes throughout the centuries have condemned anti-Semitism.

They just didn't do all that much about it.

Paragraph 11 of Catechism reinstate that The Second Vatican has ruled on traditions, and that Catholics must follow the traditions set forth by The Second Vatican.

Not really. Lots of Popes throughout the centuries have condemned anti-Semitism.

They just didn't do all that much about it.

It's the classic example of the contrast of the elites and the masses. Sure, the Papacy had no use for anti-semitism, but if they tried to actively restrain it, then their public perception would be damaged, they would be viewed as impeding the will of the people.

This is much akin to the problems faced by witchhunts in the Austrian Empire between 1700-1850. The Hapsburgs loathed witchhunts and the burning of "witches". But, because they relied on the will of the people to remain in power, they never actually sought to stop them.

Goes to show that even the most cloistered systems of government can be responsive to the people. Typically in a negative fashion, but they can be responsive.

When was this catechism written?

When was this catechism written?

After VII, round about the same few years as the Novus Ordo Mess was polmugrated (sp?).

Very well, I admit that I was in the wrong in saying that a husband should be able to force himself on his wife.

For all who care, I renounce that statement.

However, I do nonetheless hold that there are very few good instances in which a wife should refuse her husband.



In light of VII. See, that's the big qualifier. VII wasn't infallible, and assloads of Popes, Doctors of the Church, and Saints disagreed.

The Second Vatican started in 1962 under Pope John XXIII and as to the infalliblity of the Second Vatican.

This is from Wiki

Scripture and divine revelation

The council sought to revive the central role of Scripture in the theological and devotional life of the Church, building upon the work of earlier popes in crafting a modern approach to Scriptural analysis and interpretation. A new approach to interpretation was approved by the bishops. The Church was to continue to provide versions of the Bible in the "mother tongues" of the faithful, and both clergy and laity were to continue to make Bible study a central part of their lives. This affirmed the importance of Sacred Scripture as attested by Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII and the writings of the Saints, Doctors, and Popes throughout Church history but also approved historically conditioned interpretation of Scripture as presented in Pius XII's 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council#Scripture_and_divine_revelation

Now on Infallibility

The Catholic Encyclopedia



A. Ecumenical Councils

1. An ecumenical or general, as distinguished from a particular or provincial council, is an assembly of bishops which juridically represents the universal Church as hierarchically constituted by Christ; and, since the primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church, it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope. No body can perform a strictly corporate function validly without the consent and co-operation of its head. Hence:

* the right to summon an ecumenical council belongs properly to the pope alone, though by his express or presumed consent given ante or post factum, the summons may be issued, as in the case of most of the early councils, in the name of the civil authority. For ecumenicity in the adequate sense all the bishops of the world in communion with the Holy See should be summoned, but it is not required that all or even a majority should be present.
* As regards the conduct of the deliberations, the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative; while as regards the decisions arrived at unanimity is not required.
* Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees, and this must be subsequent to conciliar action, unless the pope, by his personal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification (for details see GENERAL COUNCILS).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

So, because Pope John XXIII was in chrage of setting up The Second Vatican, and he took part in forming the Catechism in which The Second Vatican lays out the rules, dogma, scriptures, etc. The Second Vatican is indeed a legit ruling body and is infalliable, because of Pope John XXIII orders.

Check mate.

After VII, round about the same few years as the Novus Ordo Mess was polmugrated.

It was written during The Second Vatican under Pope John XXIII.

So, because Pope John XXIII was in chrage of setting up The Second Vatican, and he took part in forming the Catechism in which The Second Vatican lays out the rules, dogma, scriptures, etc. The Second Vatican is indeed a legit ruling body and is infalliable, because of Pope John XXIII orders.

Check mate.

The source on ecumenical councils didn't say that ecumenical councils are all infallible. It merely stated that it requires the pope call it. VII was a pastoral council, not a dogmatic council. No new doctrines were issued; therefore, it was not infallible.

Who the fuck is this Reichy fellow? I live under a rock.

The source on ecumenical councils didn't say that ecumenical councils are all infallible. It merely stated that it requires the pope call it. VII was a pastoral council, not a dogmatic council. No new doctrines were issued; therefore, it was not infallible.

Wrong again, Look, I can keep this up all night long. The Second Vatican was an ecumenical Council.

Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, or Vatican II, was an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI in 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

Face it The Fourth Holy Reich, you lost, it's over, please just denounce your faith and be done with it.

I am not denying that VII was an ecumenical council; however, please post proof that all ecumenical councils are infallible.

Who the fuck is this Reichy fellow? I live under a rock.

Nazi catholic guy..........

I am not denying that VII was an ecumenical council; however, please post proof that all ecumenical councils are infallible.

If you are denying that these are infallible, then you also must admit that all of the anti-semetics in all of past history were also infallible. You can't have one without the other.

Nazi catholic guy..........

Oh, we haven't had one in a while.

Oh, we haven't had one in a while.

Hell, I didn't know they existed until now; don't Nazis and the KKK ilk they hang around with hate Catholics?

If you are denying that these are infallible, then you also must admit that all of the anti-semetics in all of past history were also infallible. You can't have one without the other.

True.

Look in the Catholic Church, the only person who can be infallible, is the Pope, and he can only be infallible when he speaks on moral issues. The Second Vatican was a council that ruled on moral issues as well as issues within the church.

True.

Look in the Catholic Church, the only person who can be infallible, is the Pope, and he can only be infallible when he speaks on moral issues. The Second Vatican was a council that ruled on moral issues as well as issues within the church.

Wilgrove. When you can reconcile VII to this, (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm) this, (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm) among these others, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Catholicism#Allegations_of_discontinuity_and_rupture) then I'll consider admitting error.

Wilgrove. When you can reconcile VII to this, (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm) this, (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm) among these others, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Catholicism#Allegations_of_discontinuity_and_rupture) then I'll consider admitting error.

Hmm, I've always been curious, isn't it a bit hypocritical to hate Jewish people and worship someone who was Jewish in the first place? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesus was at one point considered "King of the Jews".

Hmm, I've always been curious, isn't it a bit hypocritical to hate Jewish people and worship someone who was Jewish in the first place? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesus was at one point considered "King of the Jews".

*Sigh*

The Jews were once God's people. Now they aren't. Nuff said. I am not an antisemite in say...the Nazi sense of the word. I don't call the Jews a race. I don't think that Jews should be racially identified and killed.

Hell, I didn't know they existed until now; don't Nazis and the KKK ilk they hang around with hate Catholics?

Not in NSG.

*Sigh*

The Jews were once God's people. Now they aren't. Nuff said. I am not an antisemite in say...the Nazi sense of the word. I don't call the Jews a race. I don't think that Jews should be racially identified and killed.

So at this point what do you believe in at all?

Wilgrove. When you can reconcile VII to this, (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm) this, (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm) among these others, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Catholicism#Allegations_of_discontinuity_and_rupture) then I'll consider admitting error.

Question, How can Pope Pius IX condoned the Second Vatican, when the Second Vatican wasn't formed until 1962, and Pope Pius IX lived from 1792-1878.

If Pope John XXIII felt like we needed The Second Vatican, then there must be a good reason. I have submitted evidence after evidence that The Second Vatican is legit, and so are it's rulings and teachings. If it wasn't then the next Pope in line or hell even Pope Benedict XVI can denounce The Second Vatican and go back to the first one. However, neither has done so. The Church realized that it needed to change and update it's teachings and it's dogma, and The Second Vatican cannot be held responsible for the Church of old. The Church of old no longer has any power or bearings on the Church today.

So at this point what do you believe in at all?

I am a Catholic Traditionalist and believe all the parts of National Socialism that do not expressedly contradict the Catholic Tradition.

I am a Catholic Traditionalist and believe all the parts of National Socialism that do not expressedly contradict the Catholic Tradition.

So you just pick and choose.

The Church of old no longer has any power or bearings on the Church today.

Thus the reason that I cannot in good conscience give very much credibility to VII.

To everyone else:
COLOR="White"]I know that the chances of him actually denouncing his Catholic Faith is slim, but I would just like to point out that the Catholic Church does not advocate what The Holy Fourth Reich is saying here on this forum. There are ALOT of sensible and normal Catholics out there.[/COLOR]

QFT. We're just much less notable/less easy to make a strawman out of than the crazy Catholics.

So you just pick and choose.

No more than the rest of the traditionalists do. Rest you assured, there are thousands, who knows, millions of people who think exactly like I do in respect to VII.

I am a Catholic Traditionalist and believe all the parts of National Socialism that do not expressedly contradict the Catholic Tradition.

Is there really much more to Nazism besides killing people?

And despite my incredibly limited knowledge of Catholic tradition, I know "Thou Shalt Not Kill" Is a commandment.

Is there really much more to Nazism besides killing people?

Yeah. Killing people is actually a very minor part of Naziism. Naziism isn't about hating what's in front of you. It's about loving what's behind you.

No more than the rest of the traditionalists do. Rest you assured, there are thousands, who knows, millions of people who think exactly like I do in respect to VII.

Just none of these people can figure out how to use the internet.

Thus the reason that I cannot in good conscience give very much credibility to VII.

Translation: The Second Vatican condones what I believe in as a Nazi, so I do not give it the credit that it deserves. 'nuff said.

Yeah. Killing people is actually a very minor part of Naziism. Naziism isn't about hating what's in front of you. It's about loving what's behind you.

Your ass?

Yeah. Killing people is actually a very minor part of Naziism. Naziism isn't about hating what's in front of you. It's about loving what's behind you.

Ohhh that is TOO easy.

Translation: The Second Vatican condones what I believe in as a Nazi

Dude, even were I not an anti semite, even were I not a NAZI, I couldn't possibly give very much credibility to the Second Vatican Miscouncil. Did you read the link I gave?

Yeah. Killing people is actually a very minor part of Naziism. Naziism isn't about hating what's in front of you. It's about loving what's behind you.

how can you love something you can't see?

oh, hang on... nevermind.

edit: damn, missed a perfect opportunity to break the poor wickle nazi's mind.

Yeah. Killing people is actually a very minor part of Naziism. Naziism isn't about hating what's in front of you. It's about loving what's behind you.

Killing Jews and Gypsies and invading Poland?

Dude, even were I not an anti semite, even were I not a NAZI, I couldn't possibly give very much credibility to the Second Vatican Miscouncil. Did you read the link I gave?

Did you read the several links, and quotes from the Vatican itself that I posted?

You only post one link, I posted several contradicting your link.

Your ass?

I don't hate negros (though I don't particularly like them). I do love the Aryan race.

I don't think that all places in which non Aryans reside should be obliterated. I do believe that those places traditionally populated and governed by Aryans should be restored to Aryan purity.

I don't hate negros (though I don't particularly like them). I do love the Aryan race.

I don't think that all places in which non Aryans reside should be obliterated. I do believe that those places traditionally populated and governed by Aryans should be restored to Aryan purity.

Why are Non-Aryan people any different than Aryan people?

Did you read the several links, and quotes from the Vatican itself that I posted?

You only post one link, I posted several contradicting your link.

I gave a link to a wiki article. In that wiki article, there were several contradictions clearly noted.

Aside from that, you still didn't directly refute the many, many Saints, Doctors of the Church, and Popes who would have disagreed with the Second Vatican Miscouncil.

You've openly admitted that you don't care about the "Church of the old."

You are a VII liberal. I am not.

Tell me, are traditions infallible?

Wilgrove, you fool! You foolish fool! Didn't you learn your lesson from the last Nazi thread? Nazis + threads = a feeling akin to having your brains eaten by a grizzly bear. And no one on NSG wants that. WHY?

Tell me, are traditions infallible?

They are as or more infallible than the Second Vatican Miscouncil. :rolleyes:

Wilgrove, you fool! You foolish fool! Didn't you learn your lesson from the last Nazi thread? Nazis + threads = a feeling akin to having your brains eaten by a grizzly bear. And no one on NSG wants that. WHY?

Watching Nazis make asses out of themselves = funny.

er...


So how far back in time do you go as far as being a catholic traditionist? Back to the days when Popes started Crusades so they could afford their palaces and harems and orgies?

Or just back to the days when the Pope was a woman?

Maybe back to the days when Popes claimed that jews and Muslims were children of satan and needed to be wiped out?

Back to the days when the priests said Latin and nobody was allowed to read the Bible?

Back to the days when there were three or four popes at the same time, each declaring the other a heretic?

Or maybe back to the days when saints sat in caves and smokes hash and write crazy shit, and smeared feces on the walls and people though they were somehow more spiritual?

Or maybe I am wrong. Maybe you just go back to the days when the Pope was to scared to actually stand up and fight the haulocaust?

Could be you date your catholicism back to the days when the popes declared all indiginous peoples of the Americas as Anthemas and said there were only two things to be done with them: enslavement and conversion or death.--that's my favorite catholic time period.

What REALLY astounds me is that you claim to be a "catholic" "Nazi"

That one really gives me a laugh. See, Hitler HATED you catholics. He spent almost as much time raving about the Catholics as he did the Jews. ONly difference to him was that the Catholics were willing to help him burn Jews.


What a strange position for a person to stake. It makes me wonder...you seem to have a lot of detailed knowledge of Catholocism, but I'm not sure how you justify combining the two. It seems you would be busy trying to kill yourself a lot of the time if you really believed either...

Ok, I have Father Gray helping me here, I love him he rocks. Regarding the authority of The Second Vatican.

Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of (can. 194 §1 n.2) an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in (can. 1336 §1 n.1,2, and 3.)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM

Sorry, not even The Vatican agrees with you.

From a Father himself.

What this supposed person (if what is being presented is accurate) is proposing is directly contradictory to the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.

If this is true then in some way the person has removed himself or herself from full communion with the Church. The Church in the past and currently speaks against and condemns such actions therefore Catholic faithful are to avoid those things contrary to such decrees of the Church and to concede to the Church in such decrees. Therefore, the supposed person and the supposed doctrines are not Catholic. If the supposed person is serious about such claims it is very possible they are committing Mortal Sin.

To the matter of excommunication, formal excommunication is always possible under the proper judgment of the Bishops, but I believe you are referring to automatic excommunication. A person must be aware that the offence they are committing is an excommunicating offence, refuses to do anything to correct their situation, meet requirements for automatic punishment, and finally commit the act in question.

Since the Church believes and holds to the belief of the faithful that many of the things being proposed is contrary to the moral teachings of the Church. Also because the Church has condemned the actions of the Nazis in the world such as the Holocaust and so forth; which many Saints of the Church found martyrdom in.

I am not a proper judge of this but most certainly heretical doctrine is being proposed and a position being taken contradictory to the authority of the Church thus being schismatic. Thus the possibility is that if the claims are serious and true then it is very likely the person is a heretic and/or a schismatic thus would incur automatic excommunication.

Because this is so theoretical there isn’t much more than can be said other than that this is contrary to the teachings of the Church and it should be reported to the local Bishop right away, even if you are not Catholic. It is not proper for someone to speak falsehoods about the Church since it causes scandal for all.

so how far back in tim edo you go as far as being a catholic traditionist? Back to the days when Popes started Crusades so they could afford their palaces and harems and orgies?

Having orgies was never Catholic doctrine.

Or just back to the days when the Pope was a woman?

Pope Joan was a myth, a fabrication.

Maybe back to the days when Popes claimed that jews and Muslims were children of satan and needed to be wipe out?

Back to the days when the priests said Latin and nobody was allowed to read the Bible?

Am I supposed to have a problem with those? I agree with both.

Back to the days when there were three or four popes at the same time, each declaring the other a heretic?

Again, not a matter of dogma.

Could be you date your catholicism back to the days when the popes declared all indiginous peoples of the Americas as Anthemas and said there were only two things to be done with them: enslavement and conversion or death.--that's my favorite catholic time period.

Again, am I supposed to have a problem with that?

Taht one really gives me a laugh. See, Hitler HATED you catholics.

Prove that.

As you can see from my post count verses my sign up, I am very much a lurker, though I RP a lot in International Incidents. I really left General and only come back to read when I am bored because of all the Christian bashing done here. But dude, I have been through this too many times before. I have a friend who is a priest in the Society of Saint Pius X and he is very much where you are at with your faith. You know, he is kind of a morally reprobate douche.

I am your worst nightmare, I am a Lutheran (Evangelical Catholic) that is studying towards his Doctorate in theology. Your logic is faulty, your understanding of your own faith is faulty, and you need to really do more reading. My basic dissertation is based on traditionalist Romish faith communities and these guys have hit you with every reason. If you were actually a man of your word, you would be doing one of two things:
1. Admitting that you are wrong, and begging for their forgiveness.
2. Denouncing your faith.

They got you, normally I don’t relish watching a Christian go down, but you are the walking reason why the rest of us get a bad name.

See ya all in a few years, when I make my next post.

Simul Isutis et Peccator!
WWJD
Amen.

Having orgies was never Catholic doctrine.



Pope Joan was a myth, a fabrication.



Am I supposed to have a problem with those? I agree with both.



Again, not a matter of dogma.



Again, am I supposed to have a problem with that?



Prove that.

Woah, what happened to the whole not wanting to kill people idea? You don't seem to be able to keep your ideas straight.

From a Father himself.

Source?

Source?

I think he made this pretty clear, but it was from "A Father".

Like... a priest. The guys who really would frown upon Nazism. You probably havn't seen a real one in a while.

I think he made this pretty clear, but it was from "A Father".

Like... a priest. The guys who really would frown upon Nazism. You probably havn't seen a real one in a while.

What father?

What father?

I don't think the name will mean anything unless you know the name of every priest in the world...

Source?

I had a priest helping me out over the phone. I called him and ask for guidance on his issue of you and your Nazism, and I typed what he stated.

I had a priest helping me out over the phone. I called him and ask for guidance on his issue of you and your Nazism, and I typed what he stated.

I was wrong. I'm sorry.

Having orgies was never Catholic doctrine.
Pope Joan was a myth, a fabrication.
Am I supposed to have a problem with those? I agree with both.
Again, not a matter of dogma.
Again, am I supposed to have a problem with that?
Prove that.

I've shown in other threads that I know Hitler's history fairly intimately. I have a degree in History with an emphasis on WWII. Hitler was anti catholic, trust me.

There is as much evidence that Pope Joan was real as there is that she wasn't. I tend to believe it because the Catholic Church is the father of all weird soap operas. If you can say it or make up a story about it, Catholics have believed it and tried it and thought of making it dogma.

Are you serious? You think Jews and Muslims are Satan's Imps and should be wiped out? Interesting. You are obviously aware that if you said this in a pubic place where someone could actually respond to it you would likely get your ass kicked. I tend to believe you are simply claiming this in order to get attention and aren't serious. Me, I think the Catholic Church and all devout Catholics should be required to make remunerations for all the people they have murdered in God's name, and that all decendants of Catholic murderers and theives and rapists should be put to death, in order to pay for their ancestors sins. Makes as much sense as your ideology, right?

And yes, having orgies was indeed Catholic Dogma, since it was the pope doing it and using church funds to pay for it, it was of course infallible==if he decided it was all good then it was. Nice being a tyrant ain't it?. But you never answered my question. To exactly what era do you pin you silly dogma?> I assume sometime before '62, since you don't seem to like Vatican II...just curious...

Wilgrove, you fool! You foolish fool! Didn't you learn your lesson from the last Nazi thread? Nazis + threads = a feeling akin to having your brains eaten by a grizzly bear. And no one on NSG wants that. WHY?

Eh, I have to defend my faith from ilks like him.

I was wrong. I'm sorry.

Please denounce your faith.

Please denounce your faith.

I renounce my anti semitic positions and my support of the holocaust. I'm sorry.

I renounce my anti semitic positions and my support of the holocaust. I'm sorry.

Thank you.

I renounce my anti semitic positions and my support of the holocaust. I'm sorry.

I think that we should all realise what a major step this is and accept it. You guys can take him task about the other stuff later.

WWJD
Amen.

Prove that.
Hitler’s private statements are more mixed. There are negative statements about Christianity reported by Hitler’s intimates, Goebbels, Speer, and Bormann.[10] Joseph Goebbels, for example, notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." Albert Speer reports a similar statement: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[11] In the Hossbach Memorandum Hitler is recorded as saying that "only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age" were responsible for the demise of the Roman empire.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

*sniffs air*


the smell of brimstone is gone...did he give up? :D

Some more (albeit very basic) stuff from Wikipedia. I have seen qoutes by him that were extremely negative towards the chruch--in particular el Pope.

Hitler already had plans for the Roman Catholic Church, according to which the church was supposed to "eat from the hands of the government." As a first step Hitler wanted to force German Catholics to abolish priestly celibacy and accept a nationalisation of all church property, as had happened in France in 1905. After the "Final Victory" of National Socialism, all monastic orders and religious congregations were to be dissolved, and even the smallest influence of the Catholic Church upon education of children was to be forbidden. Hitler proposed to reduce vocations to the priesthood by forbidding seminaries from receiving applicants before their 25th birthdays, hoping that these men would marry beforehand, during the time (18 - 25 years) in which they were obliged to work in military or labour service. Along with this process, the Church's sacraments would have to be revised and changed to so-called "Lebensfeiern", non-Christian celebrations of different periods of life.[30]

The aim was slowly to dismantle the institutions of the Catholic Church and fit the institution itself into a new National Socialist German state religion, because Hitler still firmly believed, that religion and belief in God was something "the simple people need." But since the "laws of evolution" - upon which a new religion would have to be founded - were not yet precisely researched, according to Hitler, it was decided to keep these changes and laws on hold, pending the final victory.[31] Hitler and Goebbels also recognised that such changes might create a third front of Catholics against their regime in Germany itself. Nevertheless in his diary Goebbels openly wrote about the "traitors of the Black International who again stabbed our glorious government in the back by their criticism", by which he meant the indirectly or actively resisting Catholic clergymen (who wore black cassocks). [32]

You are obviously aware that if you said this in a pubic place where someone could actually respond to it you would likely get your ass kicked.
Really, you're not supposed to be talking when your mouth is in a pubic place.

Me, I think the Cotholic Church
Never heard of this church before.

and all devout Catholics should be required to make remunerations for all the people they have murdered in God's name,
That would make... zero renumerations for me.
and that all decendants of Catholic murderedrs and theives and rapists should be put to death, in order to pay for their ancestors sins.
Then, really, we should carpet bomb all of Europe and America...
And take out the rest of the world, just to be sure. Them sneaky Catholics are everywhere.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12058399&postcount=146

SNIP

So, The Roman Catholic Church and the Second Vatican Council does not support your views on ANYTHING.

Now, since I have proven that your views are not accepted or supported by the Church, I humbly accept your denouncement.

SNIP.[/COLOR]

I just want to say a very good job of outlying everything here.
Even in the face of contradictions made to this by whoever (which I haven't read but I assume) this is a very thorough case by case analysis.

Congrats Wilgrove for bein mah hero :P

Really, you're not supposed to be talking when your mouth is in a pubic place.


Never heard of this church before.


That would make... zero renumerations for me.

Then, really, we should carpet bomb all of Europe and America...
And take out the rest of the world, just to be sure. Them sneaky Catholics are everywhere.

dangme dangme! take a rope and hang me! I have to start editing before I hit post! I am used to having a few seconds to go back and edit!

*guffaws*


Now, if we're going to nuke the whole western world, we should also get Latin and South central America. And large parts of asia. If we're at it, should we also get the former USSR, or is their version of Catholocism getting a break today? I just have to be sure, as I am sitting here typing coordinates and I don't want to get them wrong, ya see?:p

If it wasn't clear, I am not anti catholic or anti any religion. I am anti bigot, and was using sarcasm to make clear the silliness of his arguments...:fluffle:

I renounce my anti semitic positions and my support of the holocaust. I'm sorry.

Evil has been defeated once again. And I am not reffering to TFHR as evil, because I don't believe he is. I was reffering to evil as the evil of bigotry and hatred. It has been pwnd. Good night and Good Luck.

Now, if we're going to nuke the whole western world, we should also get Latin and South central America. And large parts of asia. If we're at it, should we also get the former USSR, or is their version of Catholocism getting a break today? I just have to be sure, as I am sitting here typing coordinates and I don't want to get them wrong, ya see?:p
When I said America, I meant the continent, not the country. :D
Eastern Europe isn't Catholic, they're Eastern Orthodox.


If it wasn't clear, I am not anti catholic or anti any religion. I am anti bigot, and was using sarcasm to make clear the silliness of his arguments...:fluffle:

I know. :D

Please denounce your faith.
I renounce my anti semitic positions and my support of the holocaust. I'm sorry.
*emerges from the shadows*
*applauds*
*returns to the void from whence he came*

I renounce my anti semitic positions and my support of the holocaust. I'm sorry.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

It doesn't hurt to wait and see what happens from hereon out.

Does it really matter? I mean, is anybody goinfg to become so wounded by this thread that they can no longer function in life? Reich had some silly ideas, we corrected him. End of subject. He seems to enjoy taking flameinducing positions, and we seem to enjoy stomping the fires out. So, who looses?:D

Ok, I have Father Gray helping me here, I love him he rocks. Regarding the authority of The Second Vatican.
-snip-
May I just say that Catholicism is awesome. To make religion more complicated than tax law is quite an achievement. :D

If I believed in god, I'd go catholic.

:rolleyes: What happened to having fun with trolls, especially the good ones.

Articulate but controversial are always the best and we will have to wait a while before another comes up.

I am going to have to start a thread about hair colouring or favourite food to pass the time.

:rolleyes: What happened to having fun with trolls, especially the good ones.

Articulate but controversial are always the best and we will have to wait a while before another comes up.

I am going to have to start a thread about hair colouring or favourite food to pass the time.

You all could argue about abortion again. That hasn't been covered for fifteen or twenty minutes.

May I just say that Catholicism is awesome. To make religion more complicated than tax law is quite an achievement. :D

If I believed in god, I'd go catholic.
Oh you so should.
*Drinks the communal wine*
Who the fuck is this Reichy fellow? I live under a rock.
Patrick Starfish, is that you?

Is there really much more to Nazism besides killing people?


*Sorry for going a tad off topic*

Actually, yes. The Killing of the jews only became prominent after Hitler joined the party after it was formed.

In the strictest sense, the Nazi party is for massive nationalization of industry, the economy, and society. Notably, it is for extreme Nationalism, that although may not actually beleive they are better than other races, believes that the introduction of other races into the Nationalized society will hurt the structure and integrity of the Nation(Or, Xenophobia for short). Also, they may believe that earlier introduction of other nationalities/races into society has damaged the nation's integrity, and may propose removal of said nationalities and races(Deportation is the less extreme, Killing the more), or perhaps isolated them from other groups.

Basically, think of it as extreme Nationalism, where everything is nationalized.

May I just say that Catholicism is awesome. To make religion more complicated than tax law is quite an achievement. :D

If I believed in god, I'd go catholic.

LOL, You should, we have men in funny hats! :D

well we never be hearing from The Fourth Holy Reich again they upset the mods

I renounce my anti semitic positions and my support of the holocaust. I'm sorry.

what? why?

He was too blatant a troll, unfortunately. I tried to warn him.

what? why?

Because I proved to him that The Vatican does not support such ideas and by going against them he is going against the church which is grounds for excommunications.

He was too blatant a troll, unfortunately. I tried to warn him.

you did and he did not take you words

Fourth Holy who?

The Fourth Holy Reich??? The last I heard of that it was in it's third one and it was unforgivable. It's coming back? Sick....

Fourth Holy who?

He's a recent troll whom seems to be playing the part of a paleo-Catholic to the max, spewing bigotry and anti-semetism about. He seems to have given up on that in this thread, but I'm not so sure. I've asked him on numerous occasions why he calls him the "Fourth Holy Reich", as the "Third Reich" refers to Hitler's Germany, which was not Catholic. Of course, he never really said anything about it, but meh. Needless to say, he's more annoying(if you can believe it) and less convincing than MTAE was, and is rather poor when compared to other "christian trolls"(Jesussaves comes to mind). This makes me think he is probably someone who wanted to just be as trollish as possible, using Catholicism as a guise.

The Fourth Holy Reich??? The last I heard of that it was in it's third one and it was unforgivable. It's coming back? Sick....

No, it's not coming back, it's just the name of a member of the forums.

Wrong again, Look, I can keep this up all night long. The Second Vatican was an ecumenical Council.

Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, or Vatican II, was an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI in 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

Face it The Fourth Holy Reich, you lost, it's over, please just denounce your faith and be done with it.

Edit: Ah! Saw you giving up your hateful ways! Welcome to sanity, friend. (4th Reich, that is)

He's a recent troll whom seems to be playing the part of a paleo-Catholic to the max, spewing bigotry and anti-semetism about. He seems to have given up on that in this thread, but I'm not so sure. I've asked him on numerous occasions why he calls him the "Fourth Holy Reich", as the "Third Reich" refers to Hitler's Germany, which was not Catholic. Of course, he never really said anything about it, but meh. Needless to say, he's more annoying(if you can believe it) and less convincing than MTAE was, and is rather poor when compared to other "christian trolls"(Jesussaves comes to mind). This makes me think he is probably someone who wanted to just be as trollish as possible, using Catholicism as a guise.

I loved it when I proved him wrong by showing him what The Vatican stance is, thus removing his guise. :D That just totally rocked.

There is a whole thread dedicated to one poster on a day that isn’t there birthday that’s just sad, Wilgrove I suggest you find something to do

Yes this may have something to do with me finding anti-Semitic jokes amusing

I loved it when I proved him wrong by showing him what The Vatican stance is, thus removing his guise. :D That just totally rocked.

I loved the way you showed how infallibility works, as well. Quite funny, like a rat in a maze, with him as the rat, and you as the tester. But, the difference is, in this case, you had all dead ends, and no exits. Brava.

*slow claps*

There is a whole thread dedicated to one poster on a day that isn’t there birthday that’s just sad, Wilgrove I suggest you find something to do

Yes this may have something to do with me finding anti-Semitic jokes amusing

Hey, I take my Catholic faith very seriously, and I will not tolerate idiots like him to make a bad name for Catholics like me. I will defend my faith from ilks like him.

I loved the way you showed how infallibility works, as well. Quite funny, like a rat in a maze, with him as the rat, and you as the tester. But, the difference is, in this case, you had all dead ends, and no exits. Brava.

*slow claps*

Gotta love Cannon Laws. :D :)

I loved the way you showed how infallibility works, as well. Quite funny, like a rat in a maze, with him as the rat, and you as the tester. But, the difference is, in this case, you had all dead ends, and no exits. Brava.

*slow claps*

Gotta love Cannon Laws. :D :)

Hey, I take my Catholic faith very seriously

why may I ask?

because it says he is supposed to?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12059012&postcount=30

*throws streamers and balloons*
... or is this relatively old news?

why may I ask?

Because if you don't take your faith seriously, then you have no faith at all.

why may I ask?

Because I chose to? Catholicism may not be right for everyone, but it's right for me.

Hey, I take my Catholic faith very seriously, and I will not tolerate idiots like him to make a bad name for Catholics like me. I will defend my faith from ilks like him.

Ilks like him?

Peas in a pod if you ask me.

It amazes me how much Catholic doctrine and dogma you seem to be able to absorb, and yet, learn and practice none of it.
Every time you post you go on about handguns, and material possessions like planes and such.

Did you used to be StoneBridges?
If so, you once mentioned you were considering the Priesthood.
I find it very ironic that in a different thread you mentioned having no compunctions against killing an intruder.

Yet, here we have a perfect reason why I question your faith, even if you do not:

If anything, Christian, you should be encouraging him to re-engage his faith and Christ's message, not calling for him to renounce it.


Im sure you wont take this too personally, but I think you need to re-assess your own faith and values before you attack anyone elses.

Even a Nazi PoopHead.

B) Is the part on the Jews infallible? It seems to contradict an assload of tradition. I might be wrong. If I am, feel free to show how.
You must be talking about the fine human tradition of ignoring most of the Bible while claiming to believe in it.

what if he re-evaluates WHILE attacking the Nazi poophead?

what if he re-evaluates WHILE attacking the Nazi poophead?

Then I think he may have a genuine epiphany.


I dont get to use the word "epiphany" much.

It amazes me how much Catholic doctrine and dogma you seem to be able to absorb, and yet, learn and practice none of it.

Every time you post you go on about handguns, and material possessions like planes and such.
You have a point here, and I often make the point in all of his threads about said guns. Wilgrove seems to be unwilling to go beyond his cultural traditions that embrace violence.

You have a point here, and I often make the point in all of his threads about said guns. Wilgrove seems to be unwilling to go beyond his cultural traditions that embrace violence.

I just find it a bit too hippocritical when anyone says "I want to be a Priest", and "I'd kill anyone who wrongs me" in the same breath.

In this particular thread, an avid Catholic is calling for the re-nouncement of anothers faith.


Seems wrong to me.

Ilks like him?

Peas in a pod if you ask me.

Yea, I'm right there alongside him advocating genocide and rape, generalize much?


It amazes me how much Catholic doctrine and dogma you seem to be able to absorb, and yet, learn and practice none of it.
Every time you post you go on about handguns, and material possessions like planes and such.

Aviation is my hobby, I enjoy flying, and I hope to own my own airplane someday, what's wrong with that? I have my passions Backwood, they're not illegal. As for the guns, well I believe in protecting myself, my family and love ones.


Did you used to be StoneBridges?
If so, you once mentioned you were considering the Priesthood.
I find it very ironic that in a different thread you mentioned having no compunctions against killing an intruder.

Yea, I did considered the priesthood, but I then decided to be an archivist. As to the second part, while I do not enjoy taking a life, if a person is threatening me with a gun or deadly force, I will strike back and I will kill him first if I have to. Thieves and murderers are not going to be happy with just killing me and letting my family go. Also, I have a right to protect my home.

If anything, Christian, you should be encouraging him to re-engage his faith and Christ's message, not calling for him to renounce it.

You are right, but sometimes people do believe that they are following the faith correctly, and no amount of talking about him re-engaging his faith will help, because he believes he is engaged in his faith. That's why I cited the Vatican, The Second Vatican council etc. To show that he was wrong. The end result in him being that he saw that he was wrong and denounced them.
.[/QUOTE]

Then I think he may have a genuine epiphany.


I dont get to use the word "epiphany" much.

it's a good word. I had one in the summer of 1998 while I was hiding in a sheep shed in Kosova. There were 122's landing on us and I was hiding under a dorr we had ripped off its hinges. And then it hit me:

WHY THE FUCK AM I IN THE ARMY?


I was a civilian 18 days later.

I just find it a bit too hippocritical when anyone says "I want to be a Priest", and "I'd kill anyone who wrongs me" in the same breath.

In this particular thread, an avid Catholic is calling for the re-nouncement of anothers faith.


Seems wrong to me.

To be fair, I never did say "kill those who wrong me". Once again you are generalizing. You really need to stop that. Will I protect myself, yes. Will I protect my family, yes. Will I protect what is mine, and what is my property, yes. Do I believe that the police will help, no. If confronted with a deadly force, will I use deadly force back to protect myself, my family, and my property? yes. Do I get an erection from it, no.

still not Catholic Priest Materiel. MAybe Episcipalian. I could see a Southern Baptist shooting a rapist looter who wanted his daughters. But honestly, if you're gonna be a christain, well, killing folks ain't christain, if you look at what Jebus said. WHich you guys never do. Ya'll seem to like the old testament better for some reason.

I just find it a bit too hippocritical when anyone says "I want to be a Priest", and "I'd kill anyone who wrongs me" in the same breath.

In this particular thread, an avid Catholic is calling for the re-nouncement of anothers faith.


Seems wrong to me.

Cannon laws states that if a person goes against The Vatican and does not believe that The Vatican has legit powers as well as the current Pope, then he is not Catholic. Since he advocated the genocide of the Jews, hatred of the Jews, and raping of spouse and abuse of spouse because it's his right to do so.

still not Catholic Priest Materiel. MAybe Episcipalian. I could see a Southern Baptist shooting a rapist looter who wanted his daughters. But honestly, if you're gonna be a christain, well, killing folks ain't christain, if you look at what Jebus said. WHich you guys never do. Ya'll seem to like the old testament better for some reason.

Yea, I'm sure that'll bring comfort to my family if I'm killed by an intruder. "yea, he had a gun, but didn't use it, if only he used it he would still be alive, and the bastard would be dead. No, they haven't caught him, no evidence, yea."

The Ten Commandments says Thou Shall not Murder, which is unlawful killing. Now defending myself, my loved ones, and my property seems to be alright.

To be fair, I never did say "kill those who wrong me". Once again you are generalizing. You really need to stop that. Will I protect myself, yes. Will I protect my family, yes. Will I protect what is mine, and what is my property, yes. Do I believe that the police will help, no. If confronted with a deadly force, will I use deadly force back to protect myself, my family, and my property? yes. Do I get an erection from it, no.

So, you think Jesus covered anything about such an action?

You thhink its perfectly acceptable to take the law into your own hands?

still not Catholic Priest Materiel. MAybe Episcipalian. I could see a Southern Baptist shooting a rapist looter who wanted his daughters. But honestly, if you're gonna be a christain, well, killing folks ain't christain, if you look at what Jebus said. WHich you guys never do. Ya'll seem to like the old testament better for some reason.

My parents wouldn't hesitate to drop a rapist in his tracks with one of our numerous guns, and let me assure you their faith is unquestionable. Jesus did indeed say turn the other cheek, so that makes us bad Christians I suppose, but that's what confession is for. I'd rather rot an extra millennium in purgatory than let someone invade my home and hurt my loved ones.

So, you think Jesus covered anything about such an action?

You thhink its perfectly acceptable to take the law into your own hands?

In cases of breaking and entering, shooting somebody is within the law.

So, you think Jesus covered anything about such an action?

You thhink its perfectly acceptable to take the law into your own hands?

In NC, you actually do have a right to take the law into your own hands if someone breaks and enters into your home without permission.

Cannon laws states that if a person goes against The Vatican and does not believe that The Vatican has legit powers as well as the current Pope, then he is not Catholic. Since he advocated the genocide of the Jews, hatred of the Jews, and raping of spouse and abuse of spouse because it's his right to do so.

Lovely.

And I tell you again, the idea is, that instead of ordering to him out the door, your faith tells you to offer guidance, doesnt it?

No, you called for him to "renouce his faith".

In NC, you actually do have a right to take the law into your own hands if someone breaks and enters into your home without permission.

Is that what Jesus would have done, ya think?

My parents wouldn't hesitate to drop a rapist in his tracks with one of our numerous guns, and let me assure you their faith is unquestionable. Jesus did indeed say turn the other cheek, so that makes us bad Christians I suppose, but that's what confession is for. I'd rather rot an extra millennium in purgatory than let someone invade my home and hurt my loved ones.

Ditto.

Lovely.

And I tell you again, the idea is, that instead of ordering to him out the door, your faith tells you to offer guidance, doesnt it?

No, you called for him to "renouce his faith".

Hey, he offered, I took him up on it.

Is that what Jesus would have done, ya think?

We're humans Backwood. We're fallible. Jesus is not fallible since he is the son of God. We make mistakes, we do stupid things, and we're going to keep on doing it. That's why we have forgiveness and confession.

I will still protect my family, and if that includes use of deadly forces, then so be it. It's not going to do my family any good if I don't protect them.

Hey man, I ain't saying you need to be letting him rape you ar anything. I am a retired grunt after all. But I suspect the Catholic church won't like it if you shoot him. And like I said, you folks DO seem to like the old testament better than that pussy Jebus stuff anyhow. turn the other cheeck! HAW!:mp5:

Hey, he offered, I took him up on it.

Let me ask you this:

Using you and this opinion as a typical one of a conservative-leaning catholic, is any wonder that an outsider to the faith, would have such reservations about it, or appalled at the inherent hippocracy within?

Catholics get hippos?

damn. I knew I was in the wrong line.:mad:

Hey man, I ain't saying you need to be letting him rape you ar anything. I am a retired grunt after all. But I suspect the Catholic church won't like it if you shoot him. And like I said, you folks DO seem to like the old testament better than that pussy Jebus stuff anyhow. turn the other cheeck! HAW!:mp5:

Turn the other cheek ain't just physical violence, you know.

I'm going to get into a long, stupid story to prove a point, and it makes me look good, so let me assure you I'm no saint nor do I toot my own horn by habit.

Anyway, I was sitting in my Play Analysis class waiting for it to begin. A girl, out of the blue, remarked how strange she thought it was that Arizona made the ruling on gay marriage that it did (it's late so it slips my mind which way it went) and some guy came in and started arguing against gay marriage.

Typical bullshit, Adam and Steve, what if they adopt kids (to which I mentioned research shows it doesn't matter, and he remarked that he didn't believe in research)

Someone came into the room and asked what we were talking about, and this guy says "Oh, they're just post-modernists." Like we were children for thinking people have rights.

I held my tongue when I could have called him a close-minded fundie. See? Here's one specific case where I am right. :D

Hey man, I ain't saying you need to be letting him rape you ar anything. I am a retired grunt after all. But I suspect the Catholic church won't like it if you shoot him. And like I said, you folks DO seem to like the old testament better than that pussy Jebus stuff anyhow. turn the other cheeck! HAW!:mp5:

Ok then, tell me, how is a guy that is 5'5 130 pounds, and is not very strong susspose to protect his family from a deadly force?

It should be noted that I do have a home security system, and that is the first line of defense. If that doesn't work, then I hide my family, second line of defense. After that if I have reasons to believe he is armed, I bring out my 12 gauge shotgun. Now normally when an intruder sees that a person is armed, he'll flee. Hell he would usually flee when the alarm goes off. However, if he doesn't and if he is feeling gutsy and wants to play who will shoot first, well I will shoot first. Last line of defense.

We're humans Backwood. We're fallible. Jesus is not fallible since he is the son of God. We make mistakes, we do stupid things, and we're going to keep on doing it. That's why we have forgiveness and confession.

I will still protect my family, and if that includes use of deadly forces, then so be it. It's not going to do my family any good if I don't protect them.


Yah, were humans.

My point is that how easy it is to go on about leading a proper christian life, and the eagerness to use lethal force.

Let me ask you this:

Using you and this opinion as a typical one of a conservative-leaning catholic, is any wonder that an outsider to the faith, would have such reservations about it, or appalled at the inherent hippocracy within?

Have you asked him about other aspects of his views or faith? If you only want to talk about the things that make us look bad, it sure makes us look hypocritical and intimidating, doesn't it?

Let me ask you this:

Using you and this opinion as a typical one of a conservative-leaning catholic, is any wonder that an outsider to the faith, would have such reservations about it, or appalled at the inherent hippocracy within?

Can you name one religion or faith that doesn't have hypocrites? Lets face it, the Roman Catholic Church and all organized religion are fallible. The Church and other religion will always have problems, always have criminals, always have hypocrites. I try to focus less on the inheritance flaw of the Church, and more on the message.

Yah, were humans.

My point is that how easy it is to go on about leading a proper christian life, and the eagerness to use lethal force.

Then please, tell me how you would protect your family. Lets say that you have a family of 4. A person break into your home, and has a gun. What would you do?

Has FHR been banned yet? The only kinda of Catholics who believe in what he believes are the Mel Gibson type. Doesn't Jesus say "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing? Luke 23:34

Has FHR been banned yet? The only kinda of Catholics who believe in what he believes are the Mel Gibson type. Doesn't Jesus say "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing? Luke 23:34

Yea he was banned.

Have you asked him about other aspects of his views or faith? If you only want to talk about the things that make us look bad, it sure makes us look hypocritical and intimidating, doesn't it?

I wouldnt know, really.

He doesnt go on about the positive aspects much.

Usually, its this sort of crap.

As for other positive views he has, Im afraid I cant do it objectively.
Hes a bit Conservative, and Im rather not.

I wouldnt know, really.

He doesnt go on about the positive aspects much.

Usually, its this sort of crap.

As for other positive views he has, Im afraid I cant do it objectively.
Hes a bit Conservative, and Im rather not.

Positive aspect:

Do unto you as you would've do unto you.

Love thy neighbor

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Jesus basically taught a live and let live philosophy and how having strong faith is important.

I try to focus less on the inheritance flaw of the Church, and more on the message.

Not if your so eager to blow off an intruders head you arent.

I wouldnt know, really.

He doesnt go on about the positive aspects much.

Usually, its this sort of crap.

As for other positive views he has, Im afraid I cant do it objectively.
Hes a bit Conservative, and Im rather not.

That's fine, but you're jumping on the judgment wagon before asking him about other things. I'm not saying I'm perfect and don't judge people, I'm just trying to be fair here. Part of being a Christian is to not go around yammering about why you're so awesome. We're discussing inflammatory topics online for a reason. If you'd like to start a thread about good things people have done lately for the purpose of helping people see some good in the world, please do so.

I'm so tired and I was drunk earlier, so be nice to my strange, long posts. :D

nobody laughed at my joke about hippos. *cries*


Look, guns are NOT the solution to home intrusion. Proper security IS. Dude, if a guy wants to do you, he's going to do you. He'll get in (I could get in your house within five minutes without an alarm, kill you and your family, kidnap the cute daughter, and be away in ten) and get you. Your job is not to imagine that you're going to wake up and shoot him (you won't) but to KEEP HIM OUT. Get a real security specialist to teach the real basics of keeping someone out.

But I don't really care what you do. Me, I keep a 16 gauge loaded with number 8 shot by my bed. It won't go through walls and kill a neighbor, and I can hit him in the face or throat and down him. But I sleep VERY lightly as a result of ten years in, and I am well trained. An average guy...shouldn't have a gun in the bedroom. Just my opnino, but it's the opinion of a guy who spent ten on the pointy end.

Positive aspect:

Do unto you as you would've do unto you.

Love thy neighbor

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Jesus basically taught a live and let live philosophy and how having strong faith is important.

Thats great.

Tell me...

Why does it have to inevitably get more complicated than this?

Not if your so eager to blow off an intruders head you arent.

If you'd checked his earlier posts, you'd have seen that his 4th line of defense was shooting someone, behind his home security system, hiding his family, and confronting the intruder.

Not if your so eager to blow off an intruders head you arent.

Then please, tell me how you would protect your family. Lets say that you have a family of 4. A person break into your home, and has a gun. What would you do?

Thats great.

Tell me...

Why does it have to inevitably get more complicated than this?

That's human nature.

As for the positive things that I do. I help out my church during Mass and when it needs help. I donate to St. Judes Hospital monthly, I also donate to The Kidney Foundations, Red Cross, and to the Holy Angel, which is a place for families to keep their physically or mentally challenged children that they can't take care of.

NEVER confront the intruder. He's going to shoot you if you do.

that's rule #1


Rule #2
you won't wake up in time to get your family out safley.


Rule # 3

keep him out in the first place. AND WORK AT IT. he should never be in a position to have to defend his family, and he won't ever get there if he is smart about it. If he isn't and this^ crap happens, he might as well shoot himslef in the mouth. Or one of his kids, which is likely in the form of an accident. Got it locked up? Great. Y&ou just wasted two minutes arguing with the wife and unlocking it instead of getting the wife and kids to safety, dummy.

No, forget thegun and learn the fine art of actually keeping them alive.

nobody laughed at my joke about hippos. *cries*


Look, guns are NOT the solution to home intrusion. Proper security IS. Dude, if a guy wants to do you, he's going to do you. He'll get in (I could get in your house within five minutes without an alarm, kill you and your family, kidnap the cute daughter, and be away in ten) and get you. Your job is not to imagine that you're going to wake up and shoot him (you won't) but to KEEP HIM OUT. Get a real security specialist to teach the real basics of keeping someone out.

But I don't really care what you do. Me, I keep a 16 gauge loaded with number 8 shot by my bed. It won't go through walls and kill a neighbor, and I can hit him in the face or throat and down him. But I sleep VERY lightly as a result of ten years in, and I am well trained. An average guy...shouldn't have a gun in the bedroom. Just my opnino, but it's the opinion of a guy who spent ten on the pointy end.

Small yippy dogs are a wonderful security investment, doncha know?

Yea he was banned.


Halleljueh (http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=Handel+-+messiah+-+44+hallelujah.ogg&wiki=en)!!!!!! :)


I have no problems with Roman Catholics. I do have a problem with Racists and Anti-semites.

Small yippy dogs are a wonderful security investment, doncha know?
Presumably he already has one, that's why he needs a shotgun. :D

NEVER confront the intruder. He's going to shoot you if you do.

that's rule #1


Rule #2
you won't wake up in time to get your family out safley.


Rule # 3

keep him out in the first place. AND WORK AT IT.

Have an alarm system that goes off if a door, or window open. 2 way voice comunication. Dead bolts on all outside doors. Dead bolt on my office, keep all of my most valuables and plus proof of purchase of every major stuff in my house in a bolted down safe. Like I said, using actual force is last resort.

Presumably he already has one, that's why he needs a shotgun. :D

ahhhhh, ok!

Presumably he already has one, that's why he needs a shotgun. :D

Golden Retriever actually, and a Siamese.

Golden Retriever actually, and a Siamese.

300 posts!

Golden Retrievers are nice dogs. I want a german shepherd. Good, strong dog that doesn't bark people.

Intruder breaks in, all quiet...
Eerie music...
Something runs past him in the dark, and gasps and turns around quickly, to see nothing...

THEN BAM! FUCKING GERMAN SHEPHERD DROPS ON HIM FROM THE CEILING IN A NINJA SUIT AND KILLS HIM!

That's how awesome those dogs are.

bars on windows? got a doggy door? ANYTHING around the house I can climb on to get to a window which I can break to get in, or to an attick dormer? An axe anywhere int he backyardf? Tools he can use to get in? A pile of wood near thehouse? I could walk through your yard and show you 20 ways to get i and bypass security. funny what you learn inthe army lol!

If you really want them safe forget he gun collection (which I am not opposed to you having if they stay locked and you have the combination) and pay a REAL security person a grand or two to look at the house. You'll cringe when he shows you all the crappy things you do.
it's human nature, eh?
Dogs? dogs suck. They bark once and then run over to get my treat. The I bonk them opn the head and hey! Presto I am off with your daughter again. Sometimes I let them out to poo if the ask. Nijas dogs are a joke too. They always trip on their damned cloaks.

Mind, this was me in the army, not me now. I really am a student working on a masters.

bars on windows? got a doggy door? ANYTHING around the house I can climb on to get to a window which I can break to get in, or to an attick dormer? An axe anywhere int he backyardf? Tools he can use to get in? A pile of wood near thehouse? I could walk through your yard and show you 20 ways to get i and bypass security. funny what you learn inthe army lol!

If you really want them safe forget he gun collection (which I am not opposed to you having if they stay locked and you have the combination) and pay a REAL security person a grand or two to look at the house. You'll cringe when he shows you all the crappy things you do.
it's human nature, eh?

The army taught you to be a criminal? My roommate spent time during OIF and he can barely find his way around town.

they taught me to get in and out of places quickly and easily without causing a ruckus so that I could take photos of bad things happening in places I went to prevent other people from doing more bad things. And no the Army didn't teach me.
I should explain. We had an ex junky on staff at 10th who taught B&E. simple as that. I use what he taught us tho. And I remember it. Your basic junky knows more tricks about getting things than your average humanwill learn in 20 years. They CRAVE getting stuff. ALl they ever think about is GETTING stuff. perfect teachers, ya see?

bars on windows? got a doggy door? ANYTHING around the house I can climb on to get to a window which I can break to get in, or to an attick dormer? An axe anywhere int he backyardf? Tools he can use to get in? A pile of wood near thehouse? I could walk through your yard and show you 20 ways to get i and bypass security. funny what you learn inthe army lol!

If you really want them safe forget he gun collection (which I am not opposed to you having if they stay locked and you have the combination) and pay a REAL security person a grand or two to look at the house. You'll cringe when he shows you all the crappy things you do.
it's human nature, eh?
Dogs? dogs suck. They bark once and then run over to get my treat. The I bonk them opn the head and hey! Presto I am off with your daughter again. Sometimes I let them out to poo if the ask. Nijas dogs are a joke too. They always trip on their damned cloaks.

Mind, this was me in the army, not me now. I really am a student working on a masters.

You've never met a protective dog.

bars on windows? got a doggy door? ANYTHING around the house I can climb on to get to a window which I can break to get in, or to an attick dormer? An axe anywhere int he backyardf? Tools he can use to get in? A pile of wood near thehouse? I could walk through your yard and show you 20 ways to get i and bypass security. funny what you learn inthe army lol!

Our house is a three story house, and a deck. The deck has a gate which is locked. We have a French doors out in the back, but the glass are those unbreakable glass, and once again dead bolts on the French doors. My house is hard to break into. Trust me I tried everytime I locked myself out. All windows have non breakable glass. All tools and ladders are kept in the basement behind the deadbolts and security system.

they taught me to get in and out of places quickly and easily without causing a ruckus so that I could take photos of bad things happening in places I went to prevent other people from doing more bad things. And no the Army didn't teach me.

So you're Special Forces?

Quit making your posts different! Every time I reply to one the freakin' post changes and my mind fractures a little more!

no. I worked WITH, but was not OF :)

You've never met a protective dog.

Heh, our Golden Retriever not only never stop barking if something comes up the driveway, but one time one of my friend was play fighting with me. My dog ran up to him and bit him HARD. Golden Retrievers are cute, but they can be mean too.

Then please, tell me how you would protect your family. Lets say that you have a family of 4. A person break into your home, and has a gun. What would you do?

Most importantly, I highly doubt either of us actually live in a neighborhood where such a thing is likely to happen.
Not that it doesnt ...its just unlikely.

Also important, some random crazed murder just happens to pick you, and is balls-out on a spree?

Youve been watching too many scary movies.

But, to be fair, I'll answer your question.

If someone were to break into my home with a gun, i would do what had to be done to protect the lives of my loved ones, BUT...
Ive never needed a gun to do that, and I dount I ever will.

Property can be replaced, and Im not going to kill anyone to keep it.

In the situation you describe your more likely to kill one of your own family members than the intruder.

However, by playing along with him, you can wait till you get a nice opportunity to smash his face in with the blunt object of your choice.
Works everytime.

no. I worked WITH, but was not OF :)

They wanted me to do Field Intelligence. I went to college instead, I regard this as the best decision I've ever made.

sorry! I post elsewhere andit's considered rude to double post he he

Golden retrievers are actuallypretty barky and bitey. But a good nibbly with some codine in it would prolly work. Not taht a junky would use good drugs to down a dog. He'd just shoot it. Gun in Bag, nose of gun in bottle, no noise. dead dog.

Most importantly, I highly doubt either of us actually live in a neighborhood where such a thing is likely to happen.
Not that it doesnt ...its just unlikely.

Also important, some random crazed murder just happens to pick you, and is balls-out on a spree?

Youve been watching too many scary movies.

But, to be fair, I'll answer your question.

If someone were to break into my home with a gun, i would do what had to be done to protect the lives of my loved ones, BUT...
Ive never needed a gun to do that, and I dount I ever will.

Property can be replaced, and Im not going to kill anyone to keep it.

In the situation you describe your more likely to kill one of your own family members than the intruder.

However, by playing along with him, you can wait till you get a nice opportunity to smash his face in with the blunt object of your choice.
Works everytime.

Unless the guy can take a hit, like a big strong muscle type guy. Then you just made him mad.

sorry! I post elsewhere andit's considered rude to double post he he

Golden retrievers are actuallypretty barky and bitey. But a good nibbly with some codine in it would prolly work. Not taht a junky would use good drugs to down a dog. He'd just shoot it. Gun in Bag, nose of gun in bottle, no noise. dead dog.

Yea but Serria does NOT shut up until we come downstairs to shut him up. So if he just shuts up all the sudden, then we know there's something wrong.

Our house is a three story house, and a deck. The deck has a gate which is locked. We have a French doors out in the back, but the glass are those unbreakable glass, and once again dead bolts on the French doors. My house is hard to break into. Trust me I tried everytime I locked myself out. All windows have non breakable glass. All tools and ladders are kept in the basement behind the deadbolts and security system.

your deck is an eccess point which also hides him. If you have furniture, a patio grill with tools, a water hose...an number of goodies tehre i could use. no window is unbreakable. trust me. Bulletproof glass maybe. but nothing yu can hang in your window without poaying too much for it. Want to try? they make window knockers with a rammer that will shatter it. if you in the house you'll here the galss hit the floor, unless there is a carpet under it.
DEad bolts on french doors? glass or slats? Slats are easy, glass is as well if I have time to deglaze them.

sorry! I post elsewhere andit's considered rude to double post he he

Golden retrievers are actuallypretty barky and bitey. But a good nibbly with some codine in it would prolly work. Not taht a junky would use good drugs to down a dog. He'd just shoot it. Gun in Bag, nose of gun in bottle, no noise. dead dog.

If you were security minded, I'm pretty sure you could train your dog not to take treats from strangers. They do so with seeing-eye dogs, why not security dogs?

Unless the guy can take a hit, like a big strong muscle type guy. Then you just made him mad.

Hardly.

Most things of a few pounds or more brought quickly over the head, and particularly across the bridge of the nose will drop just about anyone.

If Hulk Hogan breaks into your home, your fucked anyway.

and never just hit them once, and stop.

Hit him until he quits moving.

what the hell kind of dog name is that? Jim. There's a good dog name. So you're saying I couldn't walk up to the house a couple of times and try two or three techniques say, over a period of a week or two, and you would notice? eventually I would get him.

check OUTSIDE your house, dude. tehre's the place I would be working. Think like someone WHO IS GOING TO GET IN. I mean someone who really wants in, and isn't scared to do it. ANd will try anything, no matter how absyrd. Cause that's what he'll be doing. Stack four dinkky things on each other to get that third floor window cause it's open? fine, I just made 10 grabd by stealing yur crap. The safe is good tho.

your deck is an eccess point which also hides him.

Yea, except there's no place to hide. It's just a bare deck.


If you have furniture, a patio
Wheeled in and out when needed, put in the basement when not in use.

grill

Grill is left outside, but bolted to the ground. Tools are taken inside as well.

a water hose

locked in a box.

Hardly.

Most things of a few pounds or more brought quickly over the head, and particularly across the bridge of the nose will drop just about anyone.

If Hulk Hogan breaks into your home, your fucked anyway.

and never just hit them once, and stop.

Hit him until he quits moving.

OR....

Trap doors! Hilarious! INSTALL THEM TODAY!

I'm very tired.

best defensive weapon I ever had )hand to hadn I mean) was a crowbar. Short, heavy, with a wicked hook on it. not the big long bent kind, the kind that's two foot with a crook. You hit a guy in the head with THAT and he's gonna break. But I still say run first. Only fight if he corners you.

Hardly.

Most things of a few pounds or more brought quickly over the head, and particularly across the bridge of the nose will drop just about anyone.

If Hulk Hogan breaks into your home, your fucked anyway.

and never just hit them once, and stop.

Hit him until he quits moving.

Yea, but what if you killed him while hitting him? Wouldn't you be just like me though?

what the hell kind of dog name is that? Jim. There's a good dog name. So you're saying I couldn't walk up to the house a couple of times and try two or three techniques say, over a period of a week or two, and you would notice? eventually I would get him.

check OUTSIDE your house, dude. tehre's the place I would be working. Think like someone WHO IS GOING TO GET IN. I mean someone who really wants in, and isn't scared to do it. ANd will try anything, no matter how absyrd. Cause that's what he'll be doing. Stack four dinkky things on each other to get that third floor window cause it's open? fine, I just made 10 grabd by stealing yur crap. The safe is good tho.

Wouldn't the junky give up and go steal something easier?

The other side of this is to do the opposite of what other people do, and make it look like you've got nothing worth stealing.

i am too. I am gonna go have a scotch. Sounds like you really do think it ou. You're the exception tho. I broke into the embassy in Berlin once on a bet, walked all the way across it wearing tennis shorts and a tshirt during a berlin winter, and nobody stopped me. walked out the front door past guards who had never seen me and were busy staying warm anyway. security is usually the LAST thing people really are thinking.

Yea, but what if you killed him while hitting him? Wouldn't you be just like me though?

Im not a christian.

Im under no obligation to "turn the other cheek".

[QUOTE=Bookislvakia;12059644]Wouldn't the junky give up and go steal something easier?

[QUOTE]

ask your local cops and they'll tell you no.;)

Im not a christian.

Im under no obligation to "turn the other cheek".

Nice cop out.

i am too. I am gonna go have a scotch. Sounds like you really do think it ou. You're the exception tho. I broke into the embassy in Berlin once on a bet, walked all the way across it wearing tennis shorts and a tshirt during a berlin winter, and nobody stopped me. walked out the front door past guards who had never seen me and were busy staying warm anyway. security is usually the LAST thing people really are thinking.

I'm only going to buy your Berlin story because if I was a security guard and you walked across my compound nearly naked in winter, I'd probably laugh at you.

I can't drink the scotch, it belongs to my roommate. I ran out of beer earlier. Wicked good buzz, I don't think I've gotten for real drunk yet.

Nice cop out.

For real! What the hell? I have no idea what to say, but rest assured it would be very clever normally.

Nice cop out.

Its the truth.

Your religion requires you to adhere (ideally) to a mans vision of peace, and brotherhood, wherein the taking of life is strictly forbidden.
Killing in order to protect property is considered rather blasphemous.

I am not a Christian.

For real! What the hell? I have no idea what to say, but rest assured it would be very clever normally.

I know, I mean Backwoods is saying that I'm not Christian enough because I fall short of his glory that is Jesus Christ, and he/she expects me to be a better Christian, and yet he/she then turns around and say "Well I don't have to do that, because I'm not Christian."

yea, reeeealll smooth there Backwoods.

i am too. I am gonna go have a scotch. Sounds like you really do think it ou. You're the exception tho. I broke into the embassy in Berlin once on a bet, walked all the way across it wearing tennis shorts and a tshirt during a berlin winter, and nobody stopped me. walked out the front door past guards who had never seen me and were busy staying warm anyway. security is usually the LAST thing people really are thinking.

I'm only going to buy your Berlin story because if I was a security guard and you walked across my compound nearly naked in winter, I'd probably laugh at you.

I can't drink the scotch, it belongs to my roommate. I ran out of beer earlier. Wicked good buzz, I don't think I've gotten for real drunk yet.

I'm so confused. BTW, not to hijack the thread but what part of Chattanooga are you from? I lived in Hixson for 14 years before moving to Atlanta. I never would have thought I'd see a fellow Chattanoogan here.

Its the truth.

Your religion requires you to adhere (ideally) to a mans vision of peace, and brotherhood, wherein the taking of life is strictly forbidden.
Killing in order to protect property is considered rather blasphemous.

I am not a Christian.

It's still a cop out, you expect me to keep a higher standard, and yet you don't even ask the same of yourself.

I know, I mean Backwoods is saying that I'm not Christian enough because I fall short of his glory that is Jesus Christ, and he/she expects me to be a better Christian, and yet he/she then turns around and say "Well I don't have to do that, because I'm not Christian."

yea, reeeealll smooth there Backwoods.

Read above, chum.

I know, I mean Backwoods is saying that I'm not Christian enough because I fall short of his glory that is Jesus Christ, and he/she expects me to be a better Christian, and yet he/she then turns around and say "Well I don't have to do that, because I'm not Christian."

yea, reeeealll smooth there Backwoods.

It's like getting all pissed that someone's dog shat on his lawn but when his dog does it it's ok cuz "I don't believe in obedience school" or something.

Shit I'm tired.

Read above, chum.

It's still a cop out, you expect me to keep a higher standard, and yet you don't even ask the same of yourself.

It's still a cop out, you expect me to keep a higher standard, and yet you don't even ask the same of yourself.

You expect non-christians to adhere to your religious laws?

It's like getting all pissed that someone's dog shat on his lawn but when his dog does it it's ok cuz "I don't believe in obedience school" or something.

Shit I'm tired.

lol so am I but I can't sleep. NSG is addicting.

I'm so confused. BTW, not to hijack the thread but what part of Chattanooga are you from? I lived in Hixson for 14 years before moving to Atlanta. I never would have thought I'd see a fellow Chattanoogan here.

I live on McCallie, downtown area. Kinda near the Brainerd tunnel. That's pretty wild, to randomly show up on a forum and find people from the same area :D

I'm nominally from west Tennessee though. Just going to school at UTC.

You expect non-christians to adhere to your religious laws?

No, but if someone rides my ass because I don't follow my own religious law, then that person better be holding himself to the same standards that he set for other people.

You expect non-christians to adhere to your religious laws?

Nope! I expect you to adhere to whatever your beliefs happen to be, as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights.

I'm only going to buy your Berlin story because if I was a security guard and you walked across my compound nearly naked in winter, I'd probably laugh at you.

I can't drink the scotch, it belongs to my roommate. I ran out of beer earlier. Wicked good buzz, I don't think I've gotten for real drunk yet.

oh they noticed me, they just didn't give a shit. I was dressed like a well paid idiot carring a tennis raquet, at an embassy. I fit right in. plus I sort of jogged by them and said "coming through" so they would move. and they did. And I jumped in a car and drove away. It was truly a beautiful moment in world affairs. true story. If it started with "this is no shit" you would know it was a lie, see?

oh they noticed me, they just didn't give a shit. I was dressed like a well paid idiot carring a tennis raquet, at an embassy. I fit right in. plus I sort of jogged by them and said "coming through" so they would move. and they did. And I jumped in a car and drove away. It was truly a beautiful moment in world affairs. true story. If it started with "this is no shit" you would know it was a lie, see?

Oh of course, the utter absurdity of it makes it sound true to me. Plus, again, in that situation: you're obviously not dressed like someone who's up to something. Let me quip:

Can you tell me why little Suzy deserved to die?
Well, you know, I was thinking: 8 year old white girl, bunch of monsters running around, middle of the ghetto late at night with quantum physics books in her hands? She's about to start some shit, Z. Or do I owe her an apology?

Its the truth.

Your religion requires you to adhere (ideally) to a mans vision of peace, and brotherhood, wherein the taking of life is strictly forbidden.
Killing in order to protect property is considered rather blasphemous.

I am not a Christian.

This is not true. It depends on what sect/denomination you follow. For example, Antinomian Gnostics belived that before you could go to heaven you had to experience every kind of sin and vice imaginable.

No, but if someone rides my ass because I don't follow my own religious law, then that person better be holding himself to the same standards that he set for other people.

See, the standard set, is one that YOU set for yourself.
YOU chose to be a Catholic, did you not?

You chose, and regularly espouse the fath you have, therefore, when your actions, or words, are those certainly not befitting one who so regularly espouses those virtues, its YOU who "cop-out".

Im merely calling you on it.

When I said "I am not a Christian", that means that you chose these moral guidelines to live by.
I have not made such a choice.

Would it be equally wrong for me to kill an intruder?
Absolutely, but I do not claim to have any kind of moral religious values.

This is not true. It depends on what sect/denomination you follow. For example, Antinomian Gnostics belived that before you could go to heaven you had to experience every kind of sin and vice imaginable.

True, but rather irrelavant, dont you think?

They were all killed off about 1800 years ago.

I live on McCallie, downtown area. Kinda near the Brainerd tunnel. That's pretty wild, to randomly show up on a forum and find people from the same area :D

I'm nominally from west Tennessee though. Just going to school at UTC.

This is just a stab in the dark here, but you wouldnt happen to know someone by the name of Jason Parra? Short, portly, beard, glasses?

I know, I mean Backwoods is saying that I'm not Christian enough because I fall short of his glory that is Jesus Christ, and he/she expects me to be a better Christian, and yet he/she then turns around and say "Well I don't have to do that, because I'm not Christian."

yea, reeeealll smooth there Backwoods.

bit isn't this correct?
not regarding your level of christianity. But you classify yourself as a christian, so should you not follow the teachings of christ regardless of what your national laws allow? curious

Whereas backwoods is not a christian, nor does he claim to be one.

bit isn't this correct?
not regarding your level of christianity. But you classify yourself as a christian, so should you not follow the teachings of christ regardless of what your national laws allow? curious

Whereas backwoods is not a christian, nor does he claim to be one.

Again, I'm almost entirely certain you can find scripture that allows for self-defense, and again, Wilgrove's first instincts are not to kill but to protect. He's said numerous times killing is a last resort, but he would not hesitate.

bit isn't this correct?
not regarding your level of christianity. But you classify yourself as a christian, so should you not follow the teachings of christ regardless of what your national laws allow? curious

Whereas backwoods is not a christian, nor does he claim to be one.

My point exactly.

Danke.

True, but rather irrelavant, dont you think?

They were all killed off about 1800 years ago.

True, but its not irrelavant. You're generalising here by saying all Christians must do 'x', when that isnt really the case.

This is just a stab in the dark here, but you wouldnt happen to know someone by the name of Jason Parra? Short, portly, beard, glasses?

I know someone of that description, but not that name. Eerie.

See, the standard set, is one that YOU set for yourself.
YOU chose to be a Catholic, did you not?

Yes

You chose, and regularly espouse the fath you have, therefore, when your actions, or words, are those certainly not befitting one who so regularly espouses those virtues, its YOU who "cop-out".

No, I am just doing what I need to do to protect myself and family. While I have a security system in place, and a procedure in place. If everything fails, I will have my 12 gauge ready.

Im merely calling you on it. and I am calling you on the fact that you are bitching about how I am not living up to my moral duties as a Catholic, and yet, you use "Well I'm not Christian" as an excuse to not set yourself to the same standards. You know what they call those people who say one thing, but don't follow it, a hypocrite.


When I said "I am not a Christian", that means that you chose these moral guidelines to live by.
I have not made such a choice.

Then what gave you the right to criticize me?

Would it be equally wrong for me to kill an intruder?
Absolutely, but I do not claim to have any kind of moral religious values.

Yea, but you said that if you killed the person, eh it wouldn't be the same because you're not Christian. I call bullshit on it.

True, but its not irrelavant. You're generalising here by saying all Christians must do 'x', when that isnt really the case.

Catholics then, since were talking about Christians who have at least been alive within the last millenium.

Its not really generalizing if its one of the "Big Ten" commandments is it?

Catholics then, since were talking about Christians who have at least been alive within the last millenium.

Its not really generalizing if its one of the "Big Ten" commandments is it?

Technically, that's Old Testament, while the sacrifice of Jesus was a New Covenant, voiding old law.

I'm not saying we can do whatever the hell we please, I'm saying that you could argue the Old Testament means very little.

Technically, that's Old Testament, while the sacrifice of Jesus was a New Covenant, voiding old law.

I'm not saying we can do whatever the hell we please, I'm saying that you could argue the Old Testament means very little.

Except for the part about gays, right? :p

Except for the part about gays, right? :p

Nope, Jesus said Love Thy Neighbor, not Love Anyone Who's Straight.

I have no problems with gays, gays getting married, or gays adopting.

Yes



No, I am just doing what I need to do to protect myself and family. While I have a security system in place, and a procedure in place. If everything fails, I will have my 12 gauge ready.

"Thou shalt not kill"

not "thou shalt not kill unless you really, really, need to".


and I am calling you on the fact that you are bitching about how I am not living up to my moral duties as a Catholic, and yet, you use "Well I'm not Christian" as an excuse to not set yourself to the same standards. You know what they call those people who say one thing, but don't follow it, a hypocrite.

Here you are missing the most important point of all:

YOU are the one who has imposed a high moral value system of religion on yourself.

I have no such system, and am not beholden to its laws.



Then what gave you the right to criticize me?

Again, you are the one who claims to be morally superior.
I am showing you are not.



Yea, but you said that if you killed the person, eh it wouldn't be the same because you're not Christian. I call bullshit on it.

Im not the one who wanted, at one point, to be a priest either.

Nope, Jesus said Love Thy Neighbor, not Love Anyone Who's Straight.

I have no problems with gays, gays getting married, or gays adopting.

Yay. Sane christianity is so unfashionable these days. :)

Catholics then, since were talking about Christians who have at least been alive within the last millenium.

Its not really generalizing if its one of the "Big Ten" commandments is it?

If you're talking about Catholics then say so. "Christianity" encompasses a very wide variety of faiths and people. And since you seem to be so big on the life of Jesus, its surprised me you haven't mentioned that Jesus advised his Disciples to buy swords if they didn't have one. He even said to sell your cloak and sandals if need be.

Except for the part about gays, right? :p

They love that Leviticus stuff.

Well, a part or two of it, anyway.

"Thou shalt not kill"

not "thou shalt not kill unless you really, really, need to".



Here you are missing the most important point of all:

YOU are the one who has imposed a high moral value system of religion on yourself.

I have no such system, and am not beholden to its laws.




Again, you are the one who claims to be morally superior.
I am showing you are not.




Im not the one who wanted, at one point, to be a priest either.

You're making irrelevant points now. How does he previous desire to be a priest affect anything? You're aware of ex-cons who become priests, yes?

He's also never claimed he was superior to you. When did he claim to be superior?

Again, I'm almost entirely certain you can find scripture that allows for self-defense, and again, Wilgrove's first instincts are not to kill but to protect. He's said numerous times killing is a last resort, but he would not hesitate.

i know little about scripture so i'm not going to argument too much.

But in theory even as a last resort should killing still be out of the question?

Yay. Sane christianity is so unfashionable these days. :)

I'm hella unpopular.

If you're talking about Catholics then say so. "Christianity"

I didnt think I had to worry about excluding a long-dead group of Gnostics.

Silly me.


encompasses a very wide variety of faiths and people. And since you seem to be so big on the life of Jesus, its surprised me you haven't mentioned that Jesus advised his Disciples to buy swords if they didn't have one. He even said to sell your cloak and sandals if need be.

Metaphor, much?

Swords to plowshares?

i know little about scripture so i'm not going to argument too much.

But in theory even as a last resort should killing still be out of the question?

We're not quite that pacifistic, but there are people who are that devout, and I envy them. I'd shoot someone in my house no problem.

You're making irrelevant points now. How does he previous desire to be a priest affect anything? You're aware of ex-cons who become priests, yes?

He seems a little eagerly bent to violence for the priesthood to me, but then again...


He's also never claimed he was superior to you. When did he claim to be superior?

He hasnt.

Its the moral value system he adheres to, rather than specifically him making any such claims.

He seems a little eagerly bent to violence for the priesthood to me, but then again...



He hasnt.

Its the moral value system he adheres to, rather than specifically him making any such claims.

I really don't see how saying: "I would not hesitate to protect my family at all costs" makes him eagerly bent for violence. I have not read every post and I realize by my post count and join time I'm not as experienced with as other posters here, so mayhaps you're speaking from wisdom I lack.

He's doing his best to adhere to his beliefs, and has never claimed to be perfect or above anyone. It just seems to me like you're calling him on being human.

I've had premarital sex on several occasions, use protection, and believe that the love between people of the same sex is as sacred as any I feel for a woman. On those things alone I could be removed from my church, but I still do my best.

I really don't see how saying: "I would not hesitate to protect my family at all costs" makes him eagerly bent for violence. I have not read every post and I realize by my post count and join time I'm not as experienced with as other posters here, so mayhaps you're speaking from wisdom I lack.

Its not merely this post.
Its many of his others, wherein he has espoused views that I wouldnt consider being acceptable for the cloth.
Mind you, Im not saying hes a raving lunatic, either.


He's doing his best to adhere to his beliefs, and has never claimed to be perfect or above anyone. It just seems to me like you're calling him on being human.

Reminding him that he is human, maybe.

Originally, this was all about him asking another christian (a douchebag of one, admittedly) to renounce his faith.

Something that seems out of character for any Christian, I would think.


I've had premarital sex on several occasions, use protection, and believe that the love between people of the same sex is as sacred as any I feel for a woman. On those things alone I could be removed from my church, but I still do my best.

Sounds to me like you need a new Church.
You know, the Unitarians will let anyone in the door.

Its not merely this post.
Its many of his others, wherein he has espoused views that I wouldnt consider being acceptable for the cloth.
Mind you, Im not saying hes a raving lunatic, either.



Reminding him that he is human, maybe.

Originally, this was all about him asking another christian (a douchebag of one, admittedly) to renounce his faith.

Something that seems out of character for any Christian, I would think.



Sounds to me like you need a new Church.
You know, the Unitarians will let anyone in the door.

Maybe I do need a new church, but it could also be the church needs to catch up with the message Jesus left behind a bit more.

I agree that calling another Christian to renounce his faith is wrong, but we might consider the idea that Fourth wasn't a Christian at all, and Wilgrove could have been expressing that belief.

I get to play devil's advocate! Yay!

We're not quite that pacifistic, but there are people who are that devout, and I envy them. I'd shoot someone in my house no problem.

you see that's the thing about this argument.

If he (or anyone else) claimed that this was the ideal, which a christian hope to live up too, but he does not think he would be able to live up to that standard, then i don't think anyone would have a problem with it.

Maybe I do need a new church, but it could also be the church needs to catch up with the message Jesus left behind a bit more.

Couldnt agree more, really.


I agree that calling another Christian to renounce his faith is wrong, but we might consider the idea that Fourth wasn't a Christian at all, and Wilgrove could have been expressing that belief.

I get to play devil's advocate! Yay!

To that I would say, whos Wilgrove to say anyone is, or is not a Christian?

you see that's the thing about this argument.

If he (or anyone else) claimed that this was the ideal, which a christian hope to live up too, but he does not think he would be able to live up to that standard, then i don't think anyone would have a problem with it.

Well, that's what I said, so it's Wilgrove's turn.

Imma duck out for a bit and play a game, I'll be back for this lively debate in a while. :D

Well, that's what I said, so it's Wilgrove's turn.

Imma duck out for a bit and play a game, I'll be back for this lively debate in a while. :D

it better not be a violent game!!!

it better not be a violent game!!!

Incredibly so, actually. :D

Incredibly so, actually. :D

yeah which one?

Yea, I did considered the priesthood, but I then decided to be an archivist. As to the second part, while I do not enjoy taking a life, if a person is threatening me with a gun or deadly force, I will strike back and I will kill him first if I have to.[/QUOTE]
You have even said you would shoot merely to protect your property.

Matthew 5:39

My parents wouldn't hesitate to drop a rapist in his tracks with one of our numerous guns, and let me assure you their faith is unquestionable. Jesus did indeed say turn the other cheek, so that makes us bad Christians I suppose, but that's what confession is for.
You can't just sin recklessly thinking of confession as an easy way out.

Yea, I'm sure that'll bring comfort to my family if I'm killed by an intruder.
They will be comforted by the knowledge that the kingdom of heaven is yours.

In cases of breaking and entering, shooting somebody is within the law.
To get back on topic, killing Jews was a legal action in Nazi Germany. Adultery is a legal action in America. The law doesn't mean shit in this discussion.

In NC, you actually do have a right to take the law into your own hands if someone breaks and enters into your home without permission.
You seem to so easily jump to secular justifications for your views, while using the faith as a tool to bash others for their views.

We're humans Backwood. We're fallible. Jesus is not fallible since he is the son of God. We make mistakes, we do stupid things, and we're going to keep on doing it. That's why we have forgiveness and confession.
There's a difference between making stupid mistakes, and intending to do such things (which means they're not mistakes at all).

Matthew 5:48

Using you and this opinion as a typical one of a conservative-leaning catholic, is any wonder that an outsider to the faith, would have such reservations about it, or appalled at the inherent hippocracy within?
Good question, but how is Catholicism inherently hypocritical?

I also disagree with allowing hypocrites to change one's own views. My faith is not shaken by Wilgrove's apparent hypocrisy, even though we are of the same religion.

Im not a christian.

Im under no obligation to "turn the other cheek".
You should, it's the right thing to do.

Would your solution be any better than using a gun, if Wilgrove was doing it?

This is why I love being an atheist. You really don't have to worry to much about this religion thing!

This is why I love being an atheist. You really don't have to worry to much about this religion thing!

I'm not atheist, but I believe religious bickering is quite silly to say the least.

i wouldnt like to seem like i'm siding with the 4h reich but.....

you could claim to be a catholic and still not go by every rule that the catholic church brings out. on the basis that the catholic church is involved with very uncatholic activities, example child molestation cover ups. with that in mind you could argue that the catholic church is no longer catholic due them breaking thier own and the bibles rules. thusly one could argue, that to be a true catholic, one has to follow the rules given by the initial set up of the church, be it pre or post reformation.

to make what i said clearer. paganism is an accient religion. there is a global organisation called the pagan federation., with the intention to unite all pagans. if they decided to bring a rule in paganism, call it "rule a". if a pagan doesnt faollow rule a, it then doesnt mean he isnt following pagan rules cause the origional rules have been set in place. note that the rules in paganism are very loose and are different in different countries. also i think the majority of the main members of the pagan feds are wicca so anything they is probably bollocks.

when you bring in new rules, you create a new religion. so if the 4h reich has evidence saying the origional rules of the church support his opinions, let him bring them forward. but i doubt they support him. hes an idiot.

Whooo, 16 pages while I sleep.

I am a Catholic Traditionalist and believe all the parts of National Socialism that do not expressedly contradict the Catholic Tradition.

i will test you on national socialism next time we're online at the same time.

Whooo, 16 pages while I sleep.

This is what you get for sleeping.

Hell, I didn't know they existed until now; don't Nazis and the KKK ilk they hang around with hate Catholics?

neo-nazis and especially the kkk hate catholics, them hung them. which is retard not only for the obvious reasons but hitler came from a catholic family.

neo-nazis and especially the kkk hate catholics, them hung them. which is retard not only for the obvious reasons but hitler came from a catholic family.

KKK would be better off going after scientologists then catholics. :p

To that I would say, whos Wilgrove to say anyone is, or is not a Christian?Reading through the OP, the issue seems to be whether FHR should renounce his faith as a catholic because he said he would if Wilgrove could prove that his racist beliefs weren't supported by the church.

Ain't it all a lil' beside the point by now, though? The Fourth Holy Whatsits got the proverbial axe (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12059012&postcount=30) last night, after all - with some pretty major attendant gloating (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12058293&postcount=15) thrown in to the mix as well, I must say.

KKK would be better off going after scientologists then catholics. :p

dont forget the creationists! they are really bad for our evolution.

*snip*

You can't just sin recklessly thinking of confession as an easy way out.


*snip*


To get back on topic, killing Jews was a legal action in Nazi Germany. Adultery is a legal action in America. The law doesn't mean shit in this discussion.

*snip*
[/QUOTE]

1. I never said to sin recklessly and get away with it through the sacrament of confession, ever. I said that we strive to be the best Christians we can, and confession is there for us when we fail. Following as many tenants as you possibly can is not sinning recklessly. I would not condone that type of behavior ever, because then you're acting like a protestant.

2. Systematically killing 12 million people is different than using any means in your power to protect your family.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12058399&postcount=146

You said, in another way that if I can prove that you are wrong in justifying your racist, sexist, bigoted views with your Catholic faith, you would publicly denounce your faith. Well my friend, I've just got done with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which outlines the Catholic faith, dogma, rules and regulations, and what we are susspose to believe in. This will be delicious.

The first one is Genocide (which the Holacaust was and is)

Paragraph 2313 of Catechism state



When it comes to Rape.

Paragraph 2345 of Catechism states



When it comes to the Jews

Paragraph 439



Paragraph 597



So, The Roman Catholic Church and the Second Vatican Council does not support your views on ANYTHING.

Now, since I have proven that your views are not accepted or supported by the Church, I humbly accept your denouncement.

To everyone else:
I know that the chances of him actually denouncing his Catholic Faith is slim, but I would just like to point out that the Catholic Church does not advocate what The Holy Fourth Reich is saying here on this forum. There are ALOT of sensible and normal Catholics out there.

Holy Fourth Riech, You have been,

PWNED

I have a few major points.

A) I am aware of that particular verse on rape. Is there, however, a verse on whether or not it is possible to rape one's spouse?

B) Is the part on the Jews infallible? It seems to contradict an assload of tradition. I might be wrong. If I am, feel free to show how.

A) Rape-"any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person." It said don't rape. Married or not.

B) The scripture came first. The traditions were developed by people who didn't read thoroughly or twisted the meaning.



To get back on topic, killing Jews was a legal action in Nazi Germany. Adultery is a legal action in America. The law doesn't mean shit in this discussion.

But not all of the Jews were from Germany. Many of them were taken from surrounding countries, and I believe that it is safe to assume that this was not legal in those countries.

Is this a post-DEAT wanking party or what.

Ain't it all a lil' beside the point by now, though? The Fourth Holy Whatsits got the proverbial axe (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12059012&postcount=30) last night, after all - with some pretty major attendant gloating (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12058293&postcount=15) thrown in to the mix as well, I must say.

The way people went about that really didn't sit well with me...

The way people went about that really didn't sit well with me...

Nor I; There's a little too much swagger in some quarters hereabouts for my comfort. I know what it's like to be ganged-up on in NSG. And I've been on the other side of the Moderation fence, too - and been wrist-slapped for gloating over the ban of another poster.

I'd like to point out, though that I never gloated when Eutrusca went the way of all things a couple of months back. And I hated that guy. No matter how much someone gets under your skin, it's better to keep your own counsel than to gloat publicly. If I were more of a junior hall-monitor wannabe I might even go so far to bring this up in Moderation - but frankly, I just don't care enough to bother.

Have some class, people. Let it go already.

There can be no justification to holocaust (or to other genodices), because nobody chooses their nationality, nor their "race". And forcing someone against their will to sex is crime and humiliation to the victim, leaving forever scars to their memory. You should learn to put yourself into situation of others, before justifying crimes against humanity, holy fourth reich.