BigMack
Posted on 10/22/2002 8:50:25 AM PDT by Polycarp
BigMack
So which is it?
Where is that great Aquina's logic?
All the RC's can do is mumble 'how dare you'!
Take your pick.
l'll fly or drive you to anywhere you choose to go.
Get in CHAMP!!!
What a whining crybaby you are Siobhan.
BigMack
Maybe Mack can post a picture of Tommy Flanagan, or Bill Clinnton ,receiving an award and the Calvies can salute it<>
Maybe Mack can post a picture of Tommy Flanagan, or Bill Clinton ,receiving an award and the Calvies can salute it<>
I am responsible for my own posts, and mine alone, not anyone else's. Just as you are responsible for what you say, and not for what any of the other Catholics post.
I do apologize if I have misunderstood your intent or the content of your posts here.
Thank you.
Hey, your a fast learner. :)
BigMack
It is!
Well, I did not see any contextual problem.
That should be pretty easy to prove, just bring up the document and point to the area where she left out that 'context'
Second, the first quote cited was never said by Mother Teresa.
I do not think that is true, since I have seen it attributed to her a number of places.
Third, the next quote cited originated in the Hindu press and was a deliberate attempt by the HIndus to twist Mother Teresa's teachings.
Again, some proof? Surely, you have a quote from her giving the Gospel of salvation?
Fourth, Catholic doctrine is not fossilized in any Conciliar document. The Magisterium is living and is interpreted by the living Vicar of Christ who is currently Pope John Paul II.
In other words, the curses of Trent are only in play when you feel like it?
Fifth, the misquotation of Mother Teresa originated with her stating that she wished to appeal to the better angels of human nature whether the person was Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist.
There are no 'better angels' when talking about salvation and someone who is unsaved.(Eph.2:2)
Sixth, Mother Teresa's teaching and apostolate (ministries) were Christocentric with the central teaching to serve the sick, the poor and the dying as if we were serving Jesus' himself. Et cetera.
Without the Gospel of the blood Atonement, every individual that Mother Teresa helped went straight to hell.
Isn't that the thrust of the Pope's message to the Social workers?
If you are going to post something, please bring some facts not assertions!
Aquinas must be rolling in his grave!
Unfortunatly you do not understand the difference between Justification and Righteousness...I have not changed my position at all..you just continue to not understand scripture..
Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
CG..every thing I do in my name for my glory or to be righteous is a filthy rag (kotex) to my Holy God..
So the Council of Trent was not issuing 'curses' as did Paul in Gal. 1:8?
I realize Trent was only speaking of baptized Catholics, but certanly Mother Teresa would qualify.
Maybe Mack can post a picture of Tommy Flanagan, or Bill Clinton ,receiving an award and the Calvies can salute it
I am not sure what you mean by this, but I do remember Clinton caused a stir by receiving Catholic communion.
He is such an enumenical guy!
6 And we are all become as one unclean, and all our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman: and we have all fallen as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
<> I will try this ONE more time. Isaias is referring to the ceremonies of the OT law when he refers to justices. Isaias is referring to those that will CONTINUE to engage in those O.T. ceremonies AFTER the Incarnation, Life, Ministry, Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus.
It does not refer to the adopted sons and daughters who have received the Laver of Regeneration, who have received into their souls the Salvific Grace of Our Lord and Saviour and retain Sanctifying Grace in their souls.
Now, you have repudiated Luther's lie about Grace not being efficacious. You have repudiated his SATANIC LIE that sin remains always and Grace is but a cloak that covers the sin (like dung being covered by snow). Don't stop there. Repudiate ALL The heretics of the 16th Century and ALL their monstrous abominations
You now recognise that it is an abomination to say it isn't true that when Jesus says His Grace washes away sin. DON"T STOP.
FLEE ALL THE LIES OF THE 16th CENTURY HERETICS.<>
Great job Siobhan, you have hit on just about all 25 Rules of Disinformation, there are too many to point out in your post, so I'll post all 25 rules and let the reader's deside.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: ALL Protestant's this is staight from the catholic playbook, their cover is blown!!!
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
BigMack
BigMack
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.