Intended Catholic Dictatorship

Independent Individualist ^ | 8/27/10 | Reginald Firehammer

[1000 silverlings]

Pontificated, rabbit fur lined diplo-speak weasel words

well ok, just dont call the goddess a pet rabbit

[Quix]

LOL.

INDEED.

Thx.

[1000 silverlings]

the wailing that would ensue

[OLD REGGIE]

It appears the standard isn't so much what is being said, or even how it is being said. I appears to be more about who is saying it and even more about whom it is being said to. I just need to recalibrate. As a Catholic I don't expect fair treatment from the secular world or the so-called Christians. The anti-Catholic biases are so ingrained and institutionalized in our culture that many don't even realize they are guilty of it.

I realize that it is "bovine dung", but even the etymology of the modern cognate of that term contains an anti-Catholic slur. The word "bull" is a derogatory and offensive reference to Papal edicts.

Perhaps you should set up a "Crybaby Caucus" with your friend.

[1000 silverlings]

we can note how this indeed applies , using some people here and their own petards

The anti-Protestant biases are so ingrained and institutionalized in our Catholic culture that many don't even realize they are guilty of it.

[Jaded]

Nice font.

[Natural Law]

"Perhaps you should set up a "Crybaby Caucus""

Were I to allow you to drive me from the forum I would be granting you the powers of Sampson and be figuratively slain by the jawbone of an ass (KJV Judges 15:15).

[Quix]

THX THX.
.
I wish there was about a 1.5 size . . . maybe that would work. Let me see.
uuuhhhhhh NOPE. LOL
Still no at 1.0 How about a simple 1

Maybe that's large enough for most things.

[OLD REGGIE]

"Do not finesse the guidelines by using the same or similar language without a direct Biblical reference."

Since this is the Religion Forum and not the Christian Forum am I restricted to using only Christian scriptural references or am I permitted to use scriptural references from any major religion such as the following:

------------------------------------------

(I had a Philosophy Minor)

When is enough just plain enough?

[Mad Dawg]

The Shobogenzo, the Lankavatara Sutra, The Lotus Sutra? Can we party here?

[Mad Dawg]

When is enough just plain enough?

When we see Him as He is and not before.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Man up for petes sake

ROTFLOL!

RCs find much of the Bible offensive. Must be just another rationalization for them not to read the Bible.

QUIX: Pontificated, rabbit fur lined diplo-speak weasel words are more things to be validly allergic to, imho. I think Christ demonstrated a similar attitude--sometimes with his raw language.

LOLOL and AMEN!

Gone a litte while and I miss all the fun.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

well ok, just dont call the goddess a pet rabbit

LOL. How about just a pet? Something convenient to pull out when in need of comfort and not finding it in Jesus Christ alone.

Clearly, He is not sufficient for them.

[1000 silverlings]

Mary is like mommy, pure and virginal, if she had conjugal relations, it was one time to beget them

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Mary is like mommy, pure and virginal, if she had conjugal relations, it was one time to beget them

That statement is at the heart of why so many RCs are so sexually confused and angry.

Woman/Madonna/wife/mother/mistress/whore.

There's a reason Irish men marry late in life and why Italian men take mistresses.

Their concept of healthy human sexuality is screwed up by their church.

But that sexuality comes out, one way or another, with pederast priests and Roman Catholics believing Mary was "the spouse of the Holy Spirit" who had a bloodless delivery at Christ's birth.

Rome doesn't like women. Period.

I watched "Doubt" again the other day and there's that GREAT scene where Philip Seymour Hoffman is eating dinner with the other priests. They are eating with their hands, tearing the flesh off the bone, while telling nasty jokes about women.

What a great movie.

[1000 silverlings]

Period.

dont use language like that on this forum

[RnMomof7]

Does this mean that the beatitudes were some kind of practical joke Jesus was playing on the assembled masses

Jesus did not set forth his teaching to be taken in a legalistic sense—that by behaving this way, we will gain rewards from God.

The beatitudes instead are an introduction to a discourse that instead presents the “righteousness” of that Kingdom where jesus gives us a teaching that gives us actions and examples of the life of the one that is born again..

The beatitudes are not works but tell us the new state that is come with our new life in Christ and thus may be seen and practiced in a believer . If you notice this was not a teaching to the masses, but to His disciples

Mat 5;1And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: 2And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,........

. The Beatitudes are not works needed to be saved , instead they describe the new state that has now come, IN Jesus.

The beatitudes describe the Christian character, These virtues which are completely at odds with the world.The Beatitudes are nine statements from Jesus giving the attributes of His genuine disciples

He the goes on to preach to them how those virtues play out in their lives .

[Dr. Eckleburg]

lolol

[RnMomof7]

Period.
dont use language like that on this forum

I am tell you it is incredible to me that biological words cause offense to some virgin ears here

If they read the bible they would find words and circumstances that would make them blush..

[1000 silverlings]

lol, I just finished reading the story of Absalom, and yet David loved him and wept at his death. Lots of interesting material there to ponder