frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Christian Churches, remove your handicapped ramps and parking spaces now!

Debate Information


.

I can’t count the times that I have driven through the parking lots of many DIVISIONS of Christian churches, where I see ungodly handicapped parking spaces and ramps to the church, which is BLASPHEME to Jesus! If pseudo-christians actually read their primitive Bronze and Iron Age Bibles, instead of being “spoon fed” their doctrine on Sunday mornings, they would remove all handicapped entities now!


The churches in question are to follow this very simple pseudo-christian syllogism:

1. THE BIBLE STATES THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD IN JESUS:  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)

2. THE BIBLE STATES THAT EVERY WORD OF GOD IS TO BE FOLLOWED: “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” (Luke 4:4)

3. THEREFORE, JESUS AS THE ONE GOD OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH INSPIRED EVERY WORD WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE THAT IS TO BE FOLLOWED:  “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13)


Therefore, since Jesus is God and therefore INSPIRED the writings of the Old and New Testaments, then He wrote this revealing passage against the handicapped of His creation:

The Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed;  no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.’”” (Leviticus 21: 16-23) 

The blatant contradicting irony the pseudo-christian has to accept, is the biblical axiom that Jesus as God gave His creation “defects” in the first place!!!: “Who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?” (Exodus.4:11)


Following the above words stated by Jesus as being God, then ALL DIVISIONS of Christian churches are not to have any handicapped ramps, nor parking spaces, nor any hymnal books in braille, nor does it employ any person versed in sign language, because as the inspired word of Jesus stated above in Leviticus 21:16-21, the church IS NOT to cater to the handicapped sinners! 

Remember pseudo-christians that Jesus says to follow His words shown above: “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God.” (Luke 4:4) 



.

ProudToBeCatholicDreamerCatjust_sayinOakTownA
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  


                             Christian Churches, remove your handicapped ramps and parking spaces now!


                                             Where will you park if they do that?  
    Nomenclature
  • 21CenturyIconoclast21CenturyIconoclast 169 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @Dee

    Miss Dee!

    YOUR QUOTE IN POST #2 IN MAKING US LAUGH AT YOUR EXPENSE AGAIN!!!:  "Where will you park if they do that?"  



    OMG!!!  You out did yourself in making us laugh at your irrelevant quote to the topic at hand AGAIN!!!!  Do you write your own material, or do you get it from the equally dumbfounded as you, Nomenclature?  That quote was a real "Knee Slapper" for sure! LOL!

    Listen, we know that you are only known for not being able to engage in any thread topics as shown in this Religion Forum, but only to add your irrelevant statements to them, so keep it up dear, we laugh at your expense!!! 


    NEXT PSEUDO-ATHEIST LIKE "MISS DEE" THAT CANNOT ADDRESS THE FORUM'S TOPICS, OTHER THAN TO ADD IRRELEVANT STATEMENTS TO THEM, WILL BE ... ?
    CatProudToBeCatholic
  • 21CenturyIconoclast21CenturyIconoclast 169 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @Dee

    Miss Dee! I forgot to tell you, have you thought about being a comedy writer for Saturday Night Live Comedy show in the USA? Seriously, you have a gift for being funny, even though you can't address the topics of any threads within the forum. .
    CatProudToBeCatholic
  • ProudToBeCatholicProudToBeCatholic 117 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    Argument Topic: Why it is Not Wrong for Churches to Accommodate for Disabled Individuals.

    I'm not sure who posted this argument in the first place, but they are clearly misunderstanding a lot.

    1. The Bible does indeed state that there is only one God and that that God is Jesus. Any other God is a false God and the Bible says "For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens."-Psalm 95:5. 
    2-3. Correct again. The Bible also says: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."- 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth."- John 17:17 as well as a plethora of other verses. But was does this mean and not mean concerning Leviticus 21:16-23? I will get into that when I respond to your argument itself.

    "Therefore, since Jesus is God and therefore INSPIRED the writings of the Old and New Testaments, then He wrote this revealing passage against the handicapped of His creation:"
    I would like to clarify a point right off the bat. These Scriptures you are using are not in any way "against the handicapped of His creation". You have to understand why God said this and what He meant by it. God loves handicapped people. Jacob, one of the patriarchs of the faith, was handicapped. He became blind in his old age. Jacob, another patriarch of the faith, was handicapped; he had a permanent limp that was given to him by Jesus Himself when they wrestled at Peniel. Mephibosheth was disabled from his nurse dropping him on the ground when he was a little child. I could go on and on about great men and women of faith who had disabilities and defects but were still used by God for mighty things. So, God is not writing this passage "against" the handicapped of His creation but rather, with a specific idea and purpose in mind. God is all-loving and it would certainly not be loving for Him to discriminate against His own creation, as if they had chosen to be born handicapped. 

    So, onto the verses you quoted: The Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed;  no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.’”” (Leviticus 21: 16-23) " 
    Notice what the Lord is talking about here relative to the context of Israel at the time. A few key phrases to take out of the passage: "none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God", "No man who has any defect may come near", "[no man] who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord", "he must not come near to offer the food of his God", "he may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food", "because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary". 
    In that time in Jewish history, there was a specific temple, or tabernacle, where the priests would offer the "food of his God" on the altar to the Lord, as well as burnt offerings, wave offerings, etc. This passage is very obviously talking about the holy priesthood and the descendants of Aaron who were to become priests. If you would claim for some absurd reason that this is speaking of what our churches today are, then you would also have to say that only descendants of Aaron could go to church as well, which would exclude every single Gentile believer and completely annihilate St. Paul's mission to witness to the Gentiles. It would cause many contradictions in the New Testament. God specifically said that only descendants of Aaron were allowed to enter this same exact temple and eat of the bread (Lev. 6:16- "And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: with unleavened bread shall it be eaten in the holy place; in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation they shall eat it.", Exodus 29:32-33- "And Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram, and the bread that is in the basket by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy.", Leviticus 24:9- "It shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place.") So the first point that needs to be established is that this verse is specifically in reference to the descendants of Aaron and the Holy Priesthood.
    But in Catholicism (and a few other Christian denominations) we have a priesthood still. The priests still offer the bread(the Eucharist) on the altar to God the Father, and we have kept the sacrament of Holy Orders. But why on Earth are disabled people allowed to be priests? The answer is simple; in the Old Testament, everything written, every law given, was a picture of Christ; it all pointed to Him and the atonement He would make for us on the cross. That is no different in the case of this law. Why would God only allow someone who was "undefiled" by disability to serve in His temple? Because to have a handicapped person serving in the temple would ruin the picture of Christ, the spotless lamb of God. See, God also commanded that the sacrifices offered be spotless, without any blemish whatsoever. Any thing that ever entered the temple had to be completely holy and undefiled. And this all pointed to what Christ would do. Hebrews 9:12 says that "He(Jesus) entered the most holy place once for all, not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption". It all pointed to this 'once for all' sacrifice that Christ would make on the cross for us, when He entered into the most holy place and sacrificed Himself for us. Jesus fulfilled this and now the new preisthood is there to proclaim what Jesus did and present this sacrifice and so proclaim the sacrifice of Christ until our Lord comes. (Ephesians 11:25-26- "In the same way, after the supper He took the cup, saying, "This cup is the covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.")  Just like with every single other law in the OT, they all found their fulfillment in Christ (Matthew 5:17- "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.") When Jesus died on the cross and made atonement for sins, the curtain described in the verse you put forward split in two, symbolizing the barrier between God and man was gone. We no longer have to offer animal sacrifices for the forgiveness of sin, we no longer have to follow the 600 and something old Covenant laws. We are now under a new and better covenant. We are under a new priesthood, with Christ as high priest, the magisterial preists under him, set to guide the universal priesthood that constitutes all believers as "those who will give an account for their souls"- Hebrews 13;17. 
    So, what I am saying is this:
    1. We(Christians) are no longer under the Old Law because Christ fulfilled the law and it finds its fullness in two commandments, love your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 22:37-40- "Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”)
    2. Leviticus 21 is speaking of the Old Covenant priesthood and was a picture of the 'once for all' sacrifice of Christ when He entered the temple to make atonement for sins and split the curtain separating man from God in two. (Hebrews 9:12, Matthew 27:51)
    3. We are under a new priesthood, and are all cleansed by the blood of Christ, therefore any physical deformities mean nothing to our capacity to serve before the Lord and partake of the bread that makes us holy (the Eucharist). Deformity of the heart is what matters now. If we are living in a state of unrepentant mortal sin, we are not to partake of the bread and wine which is the body and blood of our Lord. (1 Cor. 11:27-30- "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.")
    4. The Lord has always and always will look at the heart above all else. He instituted laws and guidelines for Israel in order to (a) keep them separate from the Gentile nations and (b) to point to Christ and His sacrifice. (1 Sam. 16:7, Deut. 7:3-6, Matt 5:17-19)

    And I would like to respond to your other point really quick. You said "The blatant contradicting irony the pseudo-christian has to accept, is the biblical axiom that Jesus as God gave His creation “defects” in the first place!!!: “Who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?” (Exodus.4:11)"
    You are misreading this text, I believe. "Who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" Look at this carefully. Did God say, "Who maketh people to be dumb, or deaf, or to be seeing, or blind? have not I the Lord?" He most assuredly did not. What He is saying is that He created all people, whether dumb, deaf, blind, lame, seeing, or anybody with any other condition. He did not say He made them that way. Look at the context of the verse and that should become pretty clear. Moses is complaining to the Lord, saying he is slow of speech, or has a speech impediment and then God responds by telling him basically, "Yeah, I made you that way"? I would propose that He is simply saying He is all-powerful, He created everyone and therefore He can enable anyone He wants to carry out His purpose. But even if we took it the way you are saying, my argument still stands because I have already shown what that passage in Leviticus 21 is talking about.

    I hope I have demonstrated clearly why churches are not 'blaspheming' Jesus by having handicap ramps, parking spaces, hymnal books in braille, nor persons versed in sign language employed. God loves handicapped people and people with various ailments very much. He used four lepers to discover a deserted Aramean camp and save all of Israel with the food gathered there (2 Kings 7) He used Paul, who had a 'thorn in the flesh' many people believe was blindness to write most the New Testament and be the "missionary to the Gentiles" and Jesus told him "My grace is sufficient for thee" (2 Cor. 12:9). Jesus Himself healed the sick, raised the dead, gave the blind sight, cleansed the lepers, and His apostles did the same. God has no animosity towards disabled people at all, and He put that law in place simply as a picture of Christ, not as a law that was to be handed down through the Old Covenant and into the New.

    Cat
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @21CenturyIconoclast
    Well I think that may be you want to take in to considering that just because Jesus said those words and just because it is written in the bible it doesn't mean Christians are going to do those things because times change. It says in the Bible that if your wife is on the rags that she must live in another room away from the house but we dont do that nower days. In those days it made sents to those people to keep diseased and cripple people away from others because they might catch it. So thats why we have ramps at the church and any way at our church the kids like to do skatebored flips on it so its not just the quadros who use it.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot

    It says in the Bible that if your wife is on the rags that she must live in another room away from the house but we dont do that nower days


    My how very progressive of you 

      In those days it made sents to those people to keep diseased and cripple people away from others because they might catch it


    Ah right you were diseased if you were having a period or if you were handicapped and you could "catch it" ......What a truly
     d-mb beast you are 


  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @Dee ;Ah right you were diseased if you were having a period or if you were handicapped and you could "catch it" ......What a truly
     d-mb beast you are 

    I reckon you must be going in bed with that nomenclature guy to come up with that kind of dog spew that jumps conclusions all over the place. So was it good for you and did he write that down for you to copy and paste. And did any one say that being on the rags is a disease well no and did some one say that that is how they thought in those days yes some one did didn't they and did they think like that in those days yes they did so what do you have to say about that or are you going to ask your bed buddy about it.

    ProudToBeCatholic
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot

    Listen you barnyard beast you clearly said " it made cents in those days" so how did it make "cents"?
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @Dee ;Listen you barnyard beast you clearly said " it made cents in those days" so how did it make "cents"?

    I wasn't a round in those days so how can I possibly say how. All we know is is that that is what they did in those days because there ideas were pretty bogin when we compare today and they didn't know what was going on in straw berry week in those days because they didn't have the medical knowledge like we do now. So you can bet they were pretty sacred that the devil was doing it and they didn't want to catch it because you know what it means when blood starts coming out of your doolie But they still had plenty of warning because remember only the real rich people new about moon phases then. So the men would know that when there woman starts braking plates and getting real bichy then they better get the room ready.

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot

    I wasn't a round in those days so how can I possibly say how. All we know is is that that is what they did in those days because there ideas were pretty bogin when we compare today and they didn't know what was going on in straw berry week in those days because they didn't have the medical knowledge like we do now

    Right ,you weren't around in those days and admit you don't know 


    . So you can bet they were pretty sacred that the devil was doing it and they didn't want to catch it because you know what it means when blood starts coming out of your doolie But they still had plenty of warning because remember only the real rich people new about moon phases then. So the men would know that when there woman starts braking plates and getting real bichy then they better get the room ready

    Now you say you do know......wow!
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @Dee ;Now you say you do know......wow!

    How do you know anything that happened in the past. Any way since you are on this Adolf way of thinking let me ask you this Do you think that people were really much less educated 2000 years ago and do you think that may be they thought that handicapped people should be outcasts. And even though your trying to change what I say about aunty Flo women are the same as handicapped people dont you think that the men would have been scared of them in those days and treated them like handicapped people. So then dont you think that those sorts of things are not how we think nower days and thats why we have ramps in churches And we dont put women in rooms and treat them like handicapped or sick people nower days. And any way nower days you just need to look at the calendar on the frige to work out when to go on your fishing trips.

  • 21CenturyIconoclast21CenturyIconoclast 169 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @ProudToBeCatholic


    ProundToBeCathylick,

    Addressing your pitiful named moniker above, is like saying; “I am proud that my Cathylick church has pedophile priests that “buggered” innocent children that went against Jesus the Christ’s words within the scriptures!”


    Listen up Bible fool Cathylick, that hopefully wasn’t “buggered” as an innocent child by a priest in the past, understand what a period after the end of a sentence means!

    Therefore, this passage, in part, to Leviticus 21: 16-23, is grammatically separate from the descendants of Aaron: “No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed;  no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles.”  

    Therefore, my premise of the deformed of Jesus’ Jewish creation are NOT welcomed into any church of Jesus the Christ still holds true, understood Bible dolt?


    YOUR REALLY BIBLE QUOTE AS A HELL BOUND CATHYLICK: “1. We(Christians) are no longer under the Old Law because Christ fulfilled the law …”

    WRONG! Can you get any more Bible in conducting a LIE in your quote above? You are still under the laws of the Old Testament as shown below you Bible ignoramus:

    "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18).

    AGAIN, with these words in Matthew 5:18 above, Jesus likened the continuance of the 613 Mosaic Laws, to the permanence of heaven and earth, GET IT?

    Relative to Matthew 5:18 above, when will heaven and earth pass away so the Old Testament laws can no longer be followed?  When your serial killer Jesus returns as this verse explicitly states, to wit: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare” (2 Peter 3:10)  

    So, when Jesus said that not one jot or tittle will pass from the 613 Old Testament laws till heaven and earth pass away, as described in Matthew 5:18, and within 2 Peter 3:10, where the heavens and earth do pass away, which is a prerequisite to not having to follow the 613 Old Testament laws anymore, is with accordance of Jesus’ Second Coming! 2+2=4, oil and water don't mix, and YOU are a blatant Bible fool!


    Relative to this revealing passage that Jesus as God stated: “Who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?” (Exodus.4:11), whereas your reading comprehension goes severely wanting when you say that Jesus didn't say this passage!  You even admit that you are not sure with your quote that Jesus didn't say this passage by saying; "You are misreading this text, I believe," which is NOT an absolute! I suggest that you take an online reading comprehension class post haste to save you form further embarrassment!


    Now, take your child-like “Dog and Pony Show” back to your Satanic Cathylick church and go into hiding because of your outright Bible stupidity, understood? GO!


    NEXT BIBLE PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE “PROUDTOBECATHYLICK,” WILL BE … ?


    .

    ProudToBeCatholicCat
  • 21CenturyIconoclast21CenturyIconoclast 169 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @Barnardot


    BARNARDOT,

    Listen, I can only put up with a few Bible fools in my threads like you, and you are pushing it, understood?

    YOUR PITIFUL AND EMBARRASSING QUOTE IN BEING BIBLE DUMB: "Well I think that may be you want to take in to considering that just because Jesus said those words and just because it is written in the bible it doesn't mean Christians are going to do those things because times change."

    With showing us your complete Bible ineptness, then included in your child-like statement above, then the pseudo-christians do not have to follow the 10 Commandments as well! GET IT BIBLE FOOL?


    At your embarrassing ignorance and expense, pseudo-christians have to follow EVERY word of Jesus as God, period, and that includes Leviticus 21: 16-23 in my initial post, as the following passages so state:

    EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5). 

    And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” (Luke 4:4) 

    “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” (James 1:22)


    NEXT BIBLE FOOL LIKE "BARNARDOT" THAT SAYS YOU DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW JESUS' TRUE WORDS AS GOD IN THE BIBLE, WILL BE ... ?

    .


    CatProudToBeCatholic
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot

    What the f-ck you talking about boy
  • Argument Topic: @21CenturyIconoclast

    21CenturyIconoclast,

    Addressing your pitiful named moniker above, is like saying; “I am proud that my Cathylick church has pedophile priests that “buggered” innocent children that went against Jesus the Christ’s words within the scriptures!”

     

    First of all, I am going to defend the Catholic Church against your mischaracterizing lies. Saying I am proud to be Catholic is not at all like saying I am proud that there are pedophile priests within the Catholic Church.  You are making the mistake of addressing the sins of a minority(minority as in 2-4 percent of priests) in the Catholic Church as if it were representative of the entire Church. You admitted in your own statement that these priests “went against Jesus Christ’s words within the Scriptures!” So you admitted that they were not truly following the teachings of the Catholic Church. They do not represent Catholicism yet this is a common rhetoric a lot of atheists and unfortunately even some Protestants try to use as if it somehow diminishes the Church’s credibility because 2-4 percent of Catholic priests are pedophiles. You find wicked people in every single group of any kind so this is an illogical argument, you see. It is very unwise to smear the 1.3 billion member(and growing rapidly) Catholic Church because of about 7000 credibly accused pedophiles who have infiltrated and abused it.

     

    I will ignore the insults that you seem to so eagerly hand out to anyone who challenges your viewpoint and address the actual statements you have made.

     

    understand what a period after the end of a sentence means!

    Therefore, this passage, in part, to Leviticus 21: 16-23, is grammatically separate from the descendants of Aaron: “No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed;  no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles.” 

    Therefore, my premise of the deformed of Jesus’ Jewish creation are NOT welcomed into any church of Jesus the Christ still holds true

    First of all, a period at the end of a sentence does not mean that the writer is abandoning a thought and moving on to a new topic at all. The only way you can tell if the writer is moving onto a new thought is by the context or by a new paragraph. This should be obvious to anyone who studies the English language. Here is the context: “[The first sentence in the chapter] And the LORD said unto Moses, speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them,” So the subject of whatever He is going to say next is the sons of Aaron, right? The priests, the sons of Aaron, are the ones to whom God is giving these laws. I hope you can at least see that.

    Now, the Lord goes through the laws, 1. The priests cannot defile themselves for the dead, except in the case of a relative. 2. They cannot shave their heads, beards, or cut themselves. 3. They cannot take a harlot or a divorced woman as a wife. 4. They(still the sons of Aaron, who are the priests) must sanctify themselves before offering the bread of his God. (Please do take note that the Bible is clear that only the ‘sons of Aaron’, the priests, were the ones who were allowed to offer the bread of the Lord on the altar, so this is still talking about the priests. If you don’t believe that, I can show you example after example in the Old Testament where the priest was the only one permitted to offer the bread of the Lord) 5. If the daughter of any priest(very clearly still speaking of the priesthood here) profane herself by playing the harlot, she is to be burned with fire because she has profaned her father. 6. The High priest(still talking about the priesthood, very clearly) is not to uncover his head or tear his clothes. 7. Nor shall he go near any dead body, not even his brother, sister, or any other relative.

    So, up until this point, and I think you would agree, God is talking about the priesthood, but then He says in verse 16: “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, saying whosoever he be of they seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken: No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

    So what is the subject of this chapter, specifically verses 16-23? If you are honest with the Scriptures and don’t cherry-pick verses to fit your agenda, you will have to admit that this is talking about the priesthood.  You claim that verses 16-23 are grammatically separate from the descendants of Aaron? Did you even read verse 17? Or verse 21 in it’s context? Verse 17 says: “Speak unto Aaron saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.” This verse, which is contained within what you claim is ‘grammatically separate from the descendants of Aaron’, specifically references the descendants of Aaron. What about verse 21? “No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.” Once again, the descendants of Aaron is specifically referenced. Again, in a verse contained within what you claim is ‘grammatically separate from the descendants of Aaron’. This passage is very obviously continuing off of everything before it. Therefore, your premise of the deformed of Jesus’ Jewish creation(which you never stated before. You simply saidIf pseudo-christians actually read their primitive Bronze and Iron Age Bibles, instead of being ‘spoon fed’ their doctrine on Sunday mornings, they would remove all handicapped entities now.) are NOT welcomed into any church of Jesus the Christ does not hold true.

     

    My first point: 1. We(Christians) are no longer under the Old Law because Christ fulfilled the law and it finds its fullness in two commandments, love your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 22:37-40- "Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”)

     

    Your response: You are still under the laws of the Old Testament as shown below you Bible ignoramus…

    Matthew 5:18 does indeed speak of the continuance of the 613 Mosaic Laws, and that they will not pass away until the heavens and earth pass away. I would agree with you on that. You are sadly mistaken though when you say Christians are still under those laws and are obliged to follow them. I just explained this to you in my last response. Once again, you are cherry-picking a verse and using it as a proof text for your argument when your conclusion is not supported by the whole of Sacred Scripture. Look at the verse before the one you quoted; verse 17: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

    Jesus told us that He came to fulfill the Law and this is echoed all throughout the New Testament. All the Law finds its fulfillment in Him and in two commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.-Matthew 22:37-40. So when a Christian follows Jesus and obeys those two commandments, he is fulfilling the entire law. Even the laws about animal sacrifices, not mixing different materials together, the whole disability issue we are ‘discussing’ now, is all fulfilled in Christ. This response would be quite lengthy if I were to go through every single one of these laws and how they find fulfillment in Christ but if needed, I will provide a couple of examples.

    I would like to give a couple of verses in support of the fact that we are no longer “under the law’. . St. Paul states in Galatians 3:23-26-“But before faith came, we were kept under the law, unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”

    The whole purpose of the law was to bring us to Christ, to show us our sin so we could understand our need for a Savior. Now that we are baptized into Christ we are no longer under that ‘schoolmaster’ the law. Paul makes this very clear. But is he saying that the Law has been done away with? Not at all! He is simply echoing exactly what Jesus says, that Christ fulfills the Law. When Christ says nothing in the Law, not one jot or tittle, will pass away until the end of the world, His statement is not in contradiction with Paul’s at all because they both come to the same conclusion: Christ came to fulfill the Law. Romans 13:10 also repeats this: “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” And Romans 10:4- “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes”.

    So Christians are not under the Old Testament Law, instead Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the Law and by surrendering our lives to Him, we are partaking in the fulfillment of that Law.

     

    Relative to this revealing passage that Jesus as God stated: “Who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?” (Exodus.4:11)…

    I never stated that Jesus didn’t say this passage. I said that I believe that you are misunderstanding, or misreading, it. But I said ‘I believe’ simply because either way we take the verse, it in no way adds or takes away from my argument. If God chooses people to be born deaf or blind, which I know He does at least on occasion(John 9:3) then that doesn’t ruin my argument. I explained what Leviticus is talking about already. It is not speaking of people being able to go into church who are handicapped, like you are trying to claim. It is speaking of the priesthood and it was a picture pointing to Christ. I think I have demonstrated this very plainly by now.

    Cat
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @21CenturyIconoclast ;At your embarrassing ignorance and expense, pseudo-christians have to follow EVERY word of Jesus as God, period

    Okay then Mr Hitler who says it is so period if thats a fact and you are so certain about it name one of those pseudo christians who have to follow every word or is it it just your 3 year old girlie assumption based on your sad prejudice and exstream way of thinking and trying to think big and put others down that you come up with such a dog mess..

  • @Barnardot


    YOUR PATHETIC QUOTE IN PART: "Okay then Mr Hitler who says it is so period if thats a fact and you are so certain about it name one of those pseudo christians who have to follow every word  ...."

    Take a deep breath, what part of the following pseudo-christian passages don't you understand regarding your feeble quote above?

    “EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5). 

    “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alonebut by every word of God.” (Luke 4:4) 

    “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” (James 1:22)


    When you get at least a grade-school education, then get back to me with the answer, okay? Thanks.


    .


    CatProudToBeCatholic
  • @ProudToBeCatholic


    ProudToBeCatholicApologistForPedophilePriests;

    YOUR OUTRIGHT DESPICABLE AND SICKENING QUOTE REGARDING YOUR PEDOPHILE PRIESTS: “They do not represent Catholicism yet this is a common rhetoric a lot of atheists and unfortunately even some Protestants try to use as if it somehow diminishes the Church’s credibility because 2-4 percent of Catholic priests are pedophiles.”

    I don’t give a god-damn if it is 1/1000 of the Hell Bound pedophile priests that screw innocent young children, BECAUSE, the parents were supposed to know that their kids are in the safety of Priests for their continued learning of your primitive faith, NOT TO GET SCREWED BY THEM!!!  Understood Kathylick Pedophile Priest Apologist?!



    YOUR QUOTE WHERE YOU CAN’T STAND THE TRUTH OF YOUR KATHYLICK CHURCH: “I will ignore the insults that you seem to so eagerly hand out to anyone who challenges your viewpoint and address the actual statements you have made.”

    In turn, I will ignore the FACT that you are an ungodly apologist for your Satanic PEDOPHILE PRIESTS as shown in your previous post! How ungodly can you get?



    YOUR QUOTE IN USING YOUR ABHORRED REASONING IN  BEING A HELL-BOUND KATHYLICK:  “You find wicked people in every single group of any kind so this is an illogical argument, you see.”

    NO, I don’t rationally see because you are a Kathylick church where parents trusted you in keeping their innocent children SAFE when left alone with the priests, especially if they were taken to the churches RECTORY, where they were not to be rammed in their little butts with a penis by some old smelly Kathylick Priest, do you understand you pathetic apologist for pedophile priests?





    YOUR IRRATIONAL THINKING THAT GOES AGAINST JESUS’ INSPIRED WORDS:  “It is very unwise to smear the 1.3 billion member(and growing rapidly) Catholic Church because of about 7000 credibly accused pedophiles who have infiltrated and abused it.”

    Unwise to smear 1.3 Billion blind sheep to the Kathylick religion, NOT! 

    Just think of the reparations the ungodly Kathylick Church paid out to hundreds of thousand of parents because their innocent kids were FU*KED by your old men priests, at last count, it was 3 BILLION DOLLARS!  https://www.saunderslawyers.com/catholic-church-settlements/

    Just think of that money in the BILLIONS that could have been spent upon medical and food needs for the poor around the world!  BLASPHEME!



    Most importantly, remember this logical notion, the Bronze and Iron Age thinking Catholics have no more right to claim ANY moral authority over anyone because of their disgusting pedophile priests, and the documented coverups of same, while remaining Catholics!   Think, WWJD? Seriously, how can anyone admit that they’re a Catholic in todays age? Mind numbing to say the least, yuck!




     



    Former Catholics, if you were “buggered in your butt” by your priest when you were a child, I am sure your serial killer Jesus would agree to contact the following organization:

    SURVIVORS NETWORK OF THOSE ABUSED BY PRIESTS:  http://www.snapnetwork.org 



    ProudToBeCatholicApologistForPedophilePriests, now, if you want to continue upon this topic, I haven’t even started on you yet relative your sickening Kathylick Church hiding pedophile priests since the 1960's and paying out reparations in the BILLIONS of dollars to parents where their innocent kids are ruined for life because of your disgusting Pedophile Priests sexually violating them, do you understand?


     



    NEXT HELL-BOUND KATHYLICK LIKE “PROUNDTOBECATHOLIC” THAT IS A SATANIC APOLOGIST FOR HIS CHURCHES PEDOPHILE PRIESTS, WILL BE … ?


    .


    ProudToBeCatholicCat
  • ProudToBeCatholicProudToBeCatholic 117 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    Argument Topic: @21CenturyIconoclast

    @21CenturyIconoclast


    21CenturyIconoclast,

    Your post: “I don’t give a god-damn if it is 1/1000 of the Hell Bound pedophile priests that screw innocent young children, BECAUSE, the parents were supposed to know that their kids are in the safety of Priests for their continued learning of your primitive faith, NOT TO GET SCREWED BY THEM!!!  Understood Kathylick Pedophile Priest Apologist?!”

     

    You should care very much about the statistics behind this. Think about it; you have 2-4% of priests in the Catholic Church abusing children, and I will mention that it is mostly male priests abusing male children, ie, homosexuals. Catholicism condemns homosexuality as defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2357: “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” But honestly consider the facts here. We are dealing with a very small minority of priests within the Catholic church, and the vast majority of this minority are made up of homosexuals. Homosexuality is a sin condemned by God and no true follower of God can be a homosexual. These priests are part of the wolves in sheep’s clothing Jesus speaks of in Matthew 7:15. They are coming into the church, yes even places of power and authority like the priesthood, and are using their authority to absolve sins to seduce little boys. It is despicable, disgusting, and abhorrent. These people are in terrible danger of hellfire if they do not repent and they have caused the Church to be seen in a bad light since the Middle Ages. Yet, you are taking these ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ false apostles who claim to be of Christ and are not and using them as a representative of the entire Catholic Church. That is not fair towards the Church nor any of its members. You are acting as if the church is only as good as its worst member and that is just not true. These pedophile priests are weeds that must be plucked out, but are in no way an indicator that the Church itself is spoiled by their deeds so long as it isn’t condoning them. See, if the Catholic church condemns something and somebody within the Catholic Church does said thing anyways, that person within the Catholic Church does not become a representative of the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church condemns the action of pedophilia and 4% of priests do so anyways, they do not become a representative of the Catholic Church. This is common sense.

     

    Your Post: “In turn, I will ignore the FACT that you are an ungodly apologist for your Satanic PEDOPHILE PRIESTS as shown in your previous post! How ungodly can you get?”

    I am not an apologist for the Satanic pedophile priests and if you would read my statements you would see that I condemned those priests who do those things. Let me summarize some points from my previous post: “You are making the mistake of addressing the sins of a minority” (notice I said it was a sin; does that sound like a defense to you?) “you admitted that they were not truly following the teachings of the Catholic Church. They do not represent Catholicism” (I agreed with you that they went against Christ’s own words in the Scriptures. Again, does that sound like I am defending pedophile priests to you?) “You find wicked people in every single group of any kind” (I called those pedophile priests wicked; definitely not defending them.) “7000 credibly accused pedophiles who have infiltrated and abused it” (I said they have infiltrated and abused their priestly position within the Catholic Church.) Now with all of this that I stated, please explain to me how I am an ‘ungodly’ apologist for ‘[my] Satanic pedophile priests as shown in [my] previous post’ I never once defended nor excused the actions of the priests who are involved in these acts and nor will I ever. When you are arguing against me, at least make sure you are bringing factual accusations.

     

    Your post: NO, I don’t rationally see because you are a Kathylick church where parents trusted you in keeping their innocent children SAFE when left alone with the priests, especially if they were taken to the churches RECTORY, where they were not to be rammed in their little butts with a penis by some old smelly Kathylick Priest, do you understand you pathetic apologist for pedophile priests?

    You did not answer my question. I asked if you see that it is an illogical argument to say the Catholic church is wicked because there are wicked people in it when there are wicked people in every single group of any kind. And you responded by listing in more graphic detail the wicked deeds I just spoke about. Let me provide you with a few statistics: “About 4 percent of Catholic clerics had credible or substantiated accusations of child sexual abuse of minors (both prepubescent children and postpubescent teens) during the last half of the 20th century (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2004, 2011). Research data, although from limited small scale studies, finds the prevalence of clerical abuse among non-Catholic religious communities consistent with the Catholics. If you review insurance claims against Church communities for sexual victimization perpetrated by their clerics, you’ll find that that there is no difference between Catholic and non-Catholic groups (Zech, 2011). Source: Psychologytoday.com”

    This is not something unique to Catholicism, this is consistent with Catholics and all other religious organizations. But this is not reason to throw all religion out because of the sins of 4% of people. Another statistic from psychologytoday found that: “A U.S. Department of Education study found that about 6 percent of public school teachers had credible or substantiated claims of sexual abuse of minor children under their charge (Shakeshaft, 2004a, 2004b) during the same timeframe as the Catholic clerical data was obtained. Furthermore, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) report that approximately 3 to 5 percent of men meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. These numbers increase significantly if you include men who sexually violate postpubescent teenagers, which is illegal in most jurisdictions, but not a diagnosable psychiatric disorder according to the DSM-5.”

    Once again we see that in the public school system 6% of teachers have claims of sexual abuse of minor children under their charge. That is more than the Catholic Church has! We should be able to trust that we can send our children to school without fear of them being molested by their own teacher, right? Why is the public school system still operating then? Why aren’t people protesting that nearly as much as they do the Catholic Church? This only serves to substantiate my claim that you find wicked people in every single group, religious or not. This is not a product of a bad organization or religion, it is a product of the wicked hearts of human beings who are naturally inclined to do evil. We should not condemn the public school system because there are pedophiles within it. Nor should we condemn the Catholic Church because there are pedophiles within it.

    Furthermore, the Church has been making huge steps towards protecting its youth and all confessors from potential pedophile priests. Pope Francis has changed canon law to explicitly condemn any form of sexual abuse in the Church whatsoever. He has lifted the secrecy priests used to be allowed to hide behind when asked about their actions during Confession, making it so they can no longer use it as a cloak to hide their wickedness. These, among many other actions that our previous and current Popes have taken, have drastically reduced the number of sexual abuses in the Catholic Church since the 1980s. Shortly after the reforms articulated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the number of new cases in the US averaged about a dozen each year and since 2014 only sees about one new case of abuse per year. Quite a contrast to the precious 660 new cases per year before the reforms. Furthermore, when the Pennsylvania grand jury reported on the clerical abuse in the state of Pennsylvania for the last 70 years, they found only two cases in the entire 21st century. The Church is expelling these wicked priests and banning them from the ministry for the rest of their lives.

     

    Your post: Unwise to smear 1.3 Billion blind sheep to the Kathylick religion, NOT!

    Just think of the reparations the ungodly Kathylick Church paid out to hundreds of thousand of parents because their innocent kids were FU*KED by your old men priests, at last count, it was 3 BILLION DOLLARS!  https://www.saunderslawyers.com/catholic-church-settlements/

    Just think of that money in the BILLIONS that could have been spent upon medical and food needs for the poor around the world!  BLASPHEME!

     

    It is a good thing that the Catholic Church paid reparations to the parents of those who were abused by wicked priests. In fact it would have been wrong for us not to pay them reparations. These priests did things under the guise of the Catholic Church, and as such, it is our moral obligation to do our best to right the wrongs done in the best way we can. No amount of money can take away what these children went through, but it is our display of goodwill towards them and our hope that we can give them a better future. It could have been used for medical and food needs for the poor around the world but that was not the correct purpose for that money. Wrongs were done by priests using the Catholic Church to fulfill their own ungodly sinful lusts and therefore the Catholic Church took it upon herself to pay the families of these people reparations for such. I see nothing wrong with that and it makes absolutely no sense to claim that this is somehow blasphemous.

     

    Your post: “Most importantly, remember this logical notion, the Bronze and Iron Age thinking Catholics have no more right to claim ANY moral authority over anyone because of their disgusting pedophile priests, and the documented coverups of same, while remaining Catholics!   Think, WWJD? Seriously, how can anyone admit that they’re a Catholic in todays age? Mind numbing to say the least, yuck!”

    On the contrary, the Catholic Church, as the Church Jesus founded, does have the right to promote the moral authority that Christ has placed in her hands. They are only to speak as Jesus would and of the morals He set forth, which, as you know, pedophilia is not one of them. I will repeat this because I think it is crucial to our discussion. When you have some evil people within an organization and that organization condemns the acts being done by those evil people, it is illogical to condemn the organization for the sins of those evil people. And on the topic of the coverups of these scandals, I believe it was very wrong that they covered them up, disgusting even. Our previous pope admitted that while he was a bishop he had overlooked certain things that he shouldn’t have and I think it is terrible that he did so. I know he repented and was very sorrowful about his actions. The Lord Jesus offers forgiveness from all sin if it is truly repented of. But these people who covered up and ignored these things, that is an individual sin. There have always been, since the Middle Ages, those men and women who do stand up and condemn the atrocities done by people within the Church. And there are some who will be too cowardly to speak out, afraid of ruining the reputation of the Church, etc. But please remember that these men and women who are behaving inappropriately by overlooking and even hiding these allegations are sinning, not the entire Church. Please remember that these wicked priests who are doing these things to innocent young children are sinning, not the entire Church. What would Jesus do? That question needs to be asked more. Unfortunately, it isn’t, but if people asked themselves that, they would not be doing a lot of the things they are. If I asked myself that every second of everyday and actually followed it consistently, I would live a perfectly holy life, unstained by sin. Unfortunately, I neglect to follow the very simple commandment of Christ, Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself, and each time I fall short I must confess my sins and “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” That phrase needs to come back, because it has faded out of the lives of many ‘Christians’.

     

    Your Post: ProudToBeCatholicApologistForPedophilePriests, now, if you want to continue upon this topic, I haven’t even started on you yet relative your sickening Kathylick Church hiding pedophile priests since the 1960's and paying out reparations in the BILLIONS of dollars to parents where their innocent kids are ruined for life because of your disgusting Pedophile Priests sexually violating them, do you understand?

     

    I think we have covered this and have both provided our stances on the matter. If you wish to continue this topic, I would be happy to, but I would also like you to address my points made on the initial topic: Whether churches should remove all handicapped people from their churches and stop assisting them. I provided a rather lengthy response on that and was disappointed to see it completely ignored. If you so desire, I would appreciate your response to that.

    Cat
  • 21CenturyIconoclast21CenturyIconoclast 169 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @ProudToBeCatholic


    .
    ProudToBeCatholicApologistForPedophilePriests;

    YOUR PITIFUL QUOTE THAT YOU CAN’T EVEN REALIZE IS UNGODLY: “You should care very much about the statistics behind this. Think about it; you have 2-4% of priests in the Catholic Church abusing children, and I will mention that it is mostly male priests abusing male children, ie, homosexuals.”

    Bottom line, that is 2-4% too many of Hell-Bound priests screwing innocent children, understood Hell bound Kathylick?!



    YOUR QUOTE REGARDING YOUR PRIMITIVE AND SICKENING CHURCH: “Catholicism condemns homosexuality as defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2357:”

    To hell with what your disgusting pedophile infested Catholic church thinks, it is what Jesus’ inspired words think about priests that bugger little boys!

    "If a man also lie with mankind, As he lieth with a woman, Both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”  (Leviticus 20:13)

    https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEHTXMA



    YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE: “These people are in terrible danger of hellfire if they do not repent and they have caused the Church to be seen in a bad light since the Middle Ages”

    REPENT? No you Bible fool, they are to be sent to the sulfur lakes of Hell:

    "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins," (Hebrews 10:26)  

    But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

    https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEHTWRG



    YOUR SICKENING APOLOGETIC QUOTE POSITION TO YOUR PEDOPHILE PRIESTS: “If the Catholic Church condemns the action of pedophilia and 4% of priests do so anyways, they do not become a representative of the Catholic Church. This is common sense.”

    Condemns the action of Satanic Catholic Priests? Huh?  Instead of condemning these child rapest Priests, your primitive church formed COVER UPS of these Priests FU*KING little innocent boys as shown in only a few links of many below:  

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

    https://www.thebigq.org/2018/10/16/grim-history-how-did-the-catholic-church-cover-up-abuse/

    https://www.pennlive.com/news/erry-2018/08/f3ac386172219/catholic-coverup-how-pedophile.html

    https://www.vice.com/en/article/k78zqa/catholic-church-reinstated-priests-accused-of-sexual-abuse-michael-pfleger

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-scale-of-the-catholic-churchs-criminality-still-shocks/2018/08/14/779c5f38-a006-11e8-83d2-70203b8d7b44_story.html

    https://www.npr.org/2012/02/17/146983312/pa-priest-faces-trial-on-child-abuse-cover-up-charges

    http://blogs.shu.edu/thediplomaticenvoy/2018/08/21/transparency-unraveling-the-catholic-churchs-cover-up-of-clerical-sexual-abuse/

    https://www.axios.com/2018/08/14/shocking-claims-pennsylvanias-grand-jury-report-catholic-abuse-coverups

    https://www.ydr.com/story/news/watchdog/2018/08/16/pa-priest-abuse-how-catholic-church-covered-up-widespread-clergy-abuse-grand-jury-report-ag/1002107002/

    https://www.ncronline.org/news/guest-voices/francis-inherits-decades-abuse-cover

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-02/father-farrell-paedophile-church-cover-up/7372026

    https://www.simchafisher.com/2019/07/13/did-fulton-sheen-witness-and-cover-up-the-sexual-assault-of-a-child/



    YOUR ONCE AGAIN PATHETIC QUOTE REGARDING NOT BEING AN APOLOGIST TO PEDOPHILE PRIESTS: “I am not an apologist for the Satanic pedophile priests and if you would read my statements you would see that I condemned those priests who do those things.”

    APOLOGIST: someone who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something that is typically controversial, unpopular, or subject to criticism

    The problem for you, is the FACT that I did read your posts regarding you being an apologist in the defense of your pedophile priests, as explicitly shown in your revealing and substantiated quotes below:

    1. “You are making the mistake of addressing the sins of a minority(minority as in 2-4 percent of priests) in the Catholic Church as if it were representative of the entire Church.” (February 19)

    2. “It is very unwise to smear the 1.3 billion member(and growing rapidly) Catholic Church because of about 7000 credibly accused pedophiles who have infiltrated and abused it.”

    3. “You find wicked people in every single group of any kind so this is an illogical argument, you see.”

    4. “I asked if you see that it is an illogical argument to say the Catholic church is wicked because there are wicked people in it when there are wicked people in every single group of any kind.”



    YOUR ONCE AGAIN SICKENING QUOTE: “When you have some evil people within an organization and that organization condemns the acts being done by those evil people, it is illogical to condemn the organization for the sins of those evil people.”

    WRONG!  Reread the my proposition shown above in how the Satanic Catholic Church COVERUPED their priests sexual desire for innocent young boys in FU*KING them!

    https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEHTW13



    YOUR FURTHER SICKENING QUOTE: “The Lord Jesus offers forgiveness from all sin if it is truly repented of.”

    Do the simple math Hell bound Catholic, if sin is always forgiven, then there is NO INCENTIVE NOT TO SIN!  Therefore, your pedophile priests continued to sin under this godly forgiveness act! Your primitive thinking church obviously makes the entire world sick to their stomachs!



    YOUR WISHFUL THINKING QUOTE: “I think we have covered this and have both provided our stances on the matter.”

    NOT! Like I said before, what part of the fact that I haven’t even started upon your primitive thinking Catholic Church and it’s pedophile priests that they moved around to other churches to hide their misdeeds, as shown in the links herein, in covering up their RAPING of innocent children!  Do you understand?!


    .

    ProudToBeCatholicCat
  • 21CenturyIconoclast21CenturyIconoclast 169 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @ProudToBeCatholic



    ProudToBeCatholicApologistForPedophilePriests;

    To address Leviticus 21:16-23 for the LAST TIME because your Bible ineptness just doesn’t get it, do the simple math this time, understood?!

    To try and make it plainer for you to comprehend, and within the syntactical sentence structuring shown below that is separate of Aaron’s decedents at the end of said sentence, Christian churches are to remove ALL handicapped signs and entrances, period!


    “ …… No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed;  no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles ……. yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. (Leviticus 21: 18-20, 23) 


    Barring at the onset of this revealing passage prohibiting the “defected” of Jesus’ creation concerning Aaron’s descendants at the end of a sentence, but in Leviticus 18-20 it begins with a NEW SENTENCE that says that NO MAN, I repeat, NO MAN, that is irrelative to Aaron’s dependents, with the listed defects as shown, are to enter ANY Christian church to “DESECRATE GOD’S SANCTUARY, period! 2+2=4!



    The irony is the biblical axioms that Jesus formed these “defected of His creation at birth” as shown and implied in the following passages below!

    1. The psalm of David admits Jesus formed Him in the womb: For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.” (Psalm 139:13-14)

    2.But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable. (1 Corinthians 12:18-26)

    3. “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:10)

    4. Your hands have made and fashioned me; give me understanding that I may learn your commandments.” (Psalm 119:73)

    5. "Everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” (Isaiah 43:7)

    6.Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb:I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,” (Isaiah 44:24)



    Remember, Jesus as God formed these defects as shown in the Leviticus passage in question AT BIRTH, and at the same time, Jesus as God does not want them in His churches as shown again in said Leviticus passage! Huh?  But then again, why didn’t Jesus just heal these defected of His creation in the first place so they could enter His churches?

    JESUS' INSPIRED WORDS SAID: And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them.” (Matthew 21:14)

    Explain this biblical axiomatic anomaly proposition. BEGIN:



    The blatant contradicting irony the pseudo-christian Kathylick has to accept, is the biblical axioms that Jesus as God gave His creation “defects” in the first place!!!: “Who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?” (Exodus.4:11)  Yes Lord Jesus, you did!

    "As it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.” (Romans 11:8)


    In closing, be ready for me to address your continued Bible stupidity at your expense in front of the membership with your ever wanting pathetic and lengthy "War and Peace" refutations! Understood?


    .

    ProudToBeCatholicCat
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @21CenturyIconoclast ;Remember, Jesus as God formed these defects as shown in the Leviticus passage in question 

    I really think that your persistently forcible argument of "It says so in the Bible" falls flat on its face before it even gets off the ground. You have made a glaringly erroneous assumption that Christians follow every word of the Bible and even then, each and every passage can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Christians and Christian scholars (excuse the oxymoron) have always had a notorious reputation for cherry-picking from the Bible in quoting passages that sit well with their predisposed view of the world. I have never heard a Christian ever say that he or she lives by every phrase that is stated in the Bible.

    So, I suggest that by your cherry-picking phrases from the Bible to suit your unrestrained hatred of religion and complete lack of regard for handicapped people you are indeed as guilty as the people you are unsuccessfully trying to lambast.

    ProudToBeCatholicCat
  • Argument Topic: Addressing the Abuse Within the Catholic Church Argument

    @21CenturyIconoclast

    Your post: Bottom line, that is 2-4% too many of Hell-Bound priests screwing innocent children, understood Hell bound Kathylick?!

     

    I never denied that and I agree that even 1 priest who engages in this behavior is one too many. I don’t know where you got the notion that I was in any way diluting the fact that these priests who engage in this are in sin and if they do not repent, they will not enter the kingdom of God.

     

    Your post: To hell with what your disgusting pedophile infested Catholic church thinks, it is what Jesus’ inspired words think about priests that bugger little boys!

    "If a man also lie with mankind, As he lieth with a woman, Both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”  (Leviticus 20:13)

     

    Actually, what the Catholic Church teaches, not thinks, does matter very much, for they have been entrusted with (a) the interpretation of Sacred Scripture and (b) with the Sacred Tradition as handed down through apostolic succession beginning with St. Peter. And once again, you are quoting an Old Testament passage without bearing in mind the New Testament implications of the passage. Studying the Bible takes discernment and taking a verse or two from the Old Covenant as if the Old Covenant is no different than the New is not wise. As I have stated at least five times now; the Old Testament, or Old Covenant, finds fulfillment in the New Testament, or New Covenant. When you divorce somebody, you are no longer bound to that marriage covenant between you and said person. You are no longer obligated to fulfill those vows, nor under that marriage contract. God made the Old Covenant with the Jews and with the Jews alone. The Gentile nations were not under any laws except for the law that is written on the hearts of every man, ie, the moral law. (Romans 2:14-15- “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them.”) The word of God makes it extremely clear that the moral law, or the law that is written on every man’s heart is what the Gentiles were under. We have consciences. These consciences tell us it is wrong to steal, murder, cheat, commit adultery, etc. This is the moral law. Nobody has it built into them to feel guilty because they mixed different fabrics in their clothing, or many of the other laws the Jews were to keep. God instituted these laws for the Jewish people because they were His chosen people and He wanted them to be separate from the other nations and for their every custom to point to Christ.

    Now, with that in mind, the Jews went astray. They turned against God countless times (Ezekiel 33:11; Joshua 23:12-13; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Jeremiah 3:22; Jeremiah 2:25; Isaiah 30:15) God repeatedly tried to bring them back to Himself, but they were unwilling to come. So, God wrote them a certificate of divorce. (Isaiah 50:1- “Thus says the LORD: “Where is the certificate of your mother’s divorce, whom I have put away? Or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? For your iniquities you have sold yourselves, and for your transgressions your mother has been put away.” Jeremiah 3:6-10- The LORD said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: ‘Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot. And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘Return to Me’. But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. So it came to pass, through her casual harlotry, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and trees. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah has not turned to Me with her whole heart, but in pretense, “ says the Lord.” )

    God divorced Israel from His covenant and it should be obvious that when a divorce occurs, neither party is bound any longer by those rules. You may then quote the verse, “Man shall not live on bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”, but the fact that we are no longer under the Old Covenant in no way diminishes the implications of this verse. As I have stated before, all Old Testament laws find their fulfillment in Christ. This is one of the great mysteries of the faith, how God entwined the Old Covenant with the New in such a way that every single law in the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New, finding its culmination in Jesus Christ. So what is my point in saying this? These laws about killing people for breaking the sabbath, committing adultery, engaging in homosexual acts, etc. are all based on the Old Covenant and find their fulfillment in Christ. We no longer put to death homosexuals as commanded in the Old Covenant because that command is fulfilled in Christ. I cannot stress that point enough because it is crucial to understanding the Old Testament laws. Now, homosexuals are called to ‘die to themselves’(Galatians 2:20), to ‘take up their cross and follow Him’(Luke 9;23), to ‘count the old man as dead’(Romans 6:6-23), and to ‘present their bodies as living sacrifices to the Lord’(Romans 12:1). No longer are they physically required to die, for Christ has extended mercy to all men when He died on Calvary. No one is beyond His reach, and there is no one who can fall too far to where they can’t return. Paul emphasizes this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 which states- “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” We can now draw near to Christ with confidence that He will forgive us our sins, if we repent of them. ‘Such were some of us’. The Bible is clear that we now have mercy in Christ Jesus but this does not contradict the Old Law, for we are to ‘die to self’.

    Your post: Condemns the action of Satanic Catholic Priests? Huh?  Instead of condemning these child rapest Priests, your primitive church formed COVER UPS of these Priests FU*KING little innocent boys as shown in only a few links of many below: 

    You are making an illogical claim. I never said that every person within the Catholic Church condemn the action of Satanic Catholic Priests. I said the Catholic church condemns the action of Satanic pedophile priests.  The Catholic Church is not its members or even leaders. In fact, the Pope himself is not the Catholic Church, for he too can be led into error. The very first Pope, Pope Peter, sinned in refusing to eat with the Gentiles after God had already told him "Don’t call unclean what I have made clean.” St. Paul had to oppose him. Yes, he opposed the Pope himself! He said that Peter ‘stood condemned’ and that he ‘opposed him to his face’. (Galatians 2:11-14- “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the Gospel I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?””) We can see throughout history the Catholic Church has had quite a few wicked popes. One was a polygamist, another, a murderer. Did these people become the epitome of what the ‘Catholic church’ was? Not any more than Peter became the definition of what the Church was in his day. The church is not the pope, it is not the people, it is the institution established by Christ and the divine revelation He has revealed to the Church through his written and oral tradition. There is no new public revelation for the faith was ‘Once for all handed down to us’(Jude 1:3) That is what the Church is. And anybody, even the Pope himself, who contradicts this, is living in error and not according to the full truth as defined by Christ and the apostles under Him. The entire leadership of the Catholic church could cover up these scandals and that is not the Catholic church covering up the scandals for they are not walking in line with Christ’s commandments. We are commanded to not only not take part in wickedness but to expose it(Ephesians 5:11-13). And in fact, there were many Roman Catholics who were against the child abuse scandal from the beginning. Let me provide you a few names: Archbishop Calo Maria Viganò. He is a very very high-ranking member of the Catholic Church who wrote a letter to the Pope himself. This letter is what prompted the Pope to look into the matters of sexual abuse more closely and even led to him abolishing the pontifical secret in cases of sexual abuse accusations in 2019. I will post the letter here, and I apologize that is a bit lengthy.

    Before starting my writing, I would first of all like to give thanks and glory to God the Father for every situation and trial that He has prepared and will prepare for me during my life. As a priest and bishop of the holy Church, spouse of Christ, I am called like every baptized person to bear witness to the truth. By the gift of the Spirit who sustains me with joy on the path that I am called to travel, I intend to do so until the end of my days. Our only Lord has addressed also to me the invitation, “Follow me!”, and I intend to follow him with the help of his grace until the end of my days.

    “As long as I have life, I will sing to the Lord,

    I will sing praise to my God while I have being.

    May my song be pleasing to him;

    For I rejoice in the Lord.”

    (Psalm 103:33-34)

    It has been a month since I offered my testimony, solely for the good of the Church, regarding what occurred at the audience with Pope Francis on June 23, 2013 and regarding certain matters I was given to know in the assignments entrusted to me at the Secretariat of State and in Washington, in relation to those who bear responsibility for covering up the crimes committed by the former archbishop of that capital.

    My decision to reveal those grave facts was for me the most painful and serious decision that I have ever made in my life. I made it after long reflection and prayer, during months of profound suffering and anguish, during a crescendo of continual news of terrible events, with thousands of innocent victims destroyed and the vocations and lives of young priests and religious disturbed. The silence of the pastors who could have provided a remedy and prevented new victims became increasingly indefensible, a devastating crime for the Church. Well aware of the enormous consequences that my testimony could have, because what I was about to reveal involved the successor of Peter himself, I nonetheless chose to speak in order to protect the Church, and I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true. Christ died for the Church, and Peter, Servus servorum Dei, is the first one called to serve the spouse of Christ.

    Certainly, some of the facts that I was to reveal were covered by the pontifical secret that I had promised to observe and that I had faithfully observed from the beginning of my service to the Holy See. But the purpose of any secret, including the pontifical secret, is to protect the Church from her enemies, not to cover up and become complicit in crimes committed by some of her members. I was a witness, not by my choice, of shocking facts and, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states (par. 2491), the seal of secrecy is not binding when very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Only the seal of confession could have justified my silence.

    Neither the pope, nor any of the cardinals in Rome have denied the facts I asserted in my testimony. “Qui tacet consentit” surely applies here, for if they deny my testimony, they have only to say so, and provide documentation to support that denial. How can one avoid concluding that the reason they do not provide the documentation is that they know it confirms my testimony?

    The center of my testimony was that since at least June 23, 2013, the pope knew from me how perverse and evil McCarrick was in his intentions and actions, and instead of taking the measures that every good pastor would have taken, the pope made McCarrick one of his principal agents in governing the Church, in regard to the United States, the Curia, and even China, as we are seeing these days with great concern and anxiety for that martyr Church.

    Now, the pope’s reply to my testimony was: “I will not say a word!” But then, contradicting himself, he has compared his silence to that of Jesus in Nazareth and before Pilate, and compared me to the great accuser, Satan, who sows scandal and division in the Church — though without ever uttering my name. If he had said: “Viganò lied,” he would have challenged my credibility while trying to affirm his own. In so doing he would have intensified the demand of the people of God and the world for the documentation needed to determine who has told the truth. Instead, he put in place a subtle slander against me — slander being an offense he has often compared to the gravity of murder. Indeed, he did it repeatedly, in the context of the celebration of the most Holy Sacrament, the Eucharist, where he runs no risk of being challenged by journalists. When he did speak to journalists, he asked them to exercise their professional maturity and draw their own conclusions. But how can journalists discover and know the truth if those directly involved with a matter refuse to answer any questions or to release any documents? The pope’s unwillingness to respond to my charges and his deafness to the appeals by the faithful for accountability are hardly consistent with his calls for transparency and bridge building.

    Moreover, the pope’s cover-up of McCarrick was clearly not an isolated mistake. Many more instances have recently been documented in the press, showing that Pope Francis has defended homosexual clergy who committed serious sexual abuses against minors or adults. These include his role in the case of Fr. Julio Grassi in Buenos Aires, his reinstatement of Fr. Mauro Inzoli after Pope Benedict had removed him from ministry (until he went to prison, at which point Pope Francis laicized him), and his halting of the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.

    In the meantime, a delegation of the USCCB, headed by its president Cardinal DiNardo, went to Rome asking for a Vatican investigation into McCarrick. Cardinal DiNardo and the other prelates should tell the Church in America and in the world: did the pope refuse to carry out a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s crimes and of those responsible for covering them up? The faithful deserve to know.

    I would like to make a special appeal to Cardinal Ouellet, because as nuncio I always worked in great harmony with him, and I have always had great esteem and affection towards him. He will remember when, at the end of my mission in Washington, he received me at his apartment in Rome in the evening for a long conversation. At the beginning of Pope Francis’ pontificate, he had maintained his dignity, as he had shown with courage when he was Archbishop of Québec. Later, however, when his work as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was being undermined because recommendations for episcopal appointments were being passed directly to Pope Francis by two homosexual “friends” of his dicastery, bypassing the Cardinal, he gave up. His long article in L’Osservatore Romano, in which he came out in favor of the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, represents his surrender. Your Eminence, before I left for Washington, you were the one who told me of Pope Benedict’s sanctions on McCarrick. You have at your complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups. Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth.

    Finally, I wish to encourage you, dear faithful, my brothers and sisters in Christ: never be despondent! Make your own the act of faith and complete confidence in Christ Jesus, our Savior, of Saint Paul in his second Letter to Timothy, Scio cui credidi, which I choose as my episcopal motto. This is a time of repentance, of conversion, of prayers, of grace, to prepare the Church, the bride of the Lamb, ready to fight and win with Mary the battle against the old dragon.

    “Scio Cui credidi” (2 Tim 1:12)

    In you, Jesus, my only Lord, I place all my trust.

    “Diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum” (Rom 8:28).

    To commemorate my episcopal ordination on April 26, 1992, conferred on me by St. John Paul II, I chose this image taken from a mosaic of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice. It represents the miracle of the calming of the storm. I was struck by the fact that in the boat of Peter, tossed by the water, the figure of Jesus is portrayed twice. Jesus is sound asleep in the bow, while Peter tries to wake him up: “Master, do you not care that we are about to die?” Meanwhile the apostles, terrified, look each in a different direction and do not realize that Jesus is standing behind them, blessing them and assuredly in command of the boat: “He awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Quiet! Be still,’ … then he said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?’” (Mk 4:38-40).

    The scene is very timely in portraying the tremendous storm the Church is passing through in this moment, but with a substantial difference: the successor of Peter not only fails to see the Lord in full control of the boat, it seems he does not even intend to awaken Jesus asleep in the bow.

    Has Christ perhaps become invisible to his vicar? Perhaps is he being tempted to try to act as a substitute of our only Master and Lord?

    The Lord is in full control of the boat!

    May Christ, the Truth, always be the light on our way!

    + Carlo Maria Viganò

    Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana

    Apostolic Nuncio

     

    Or what about Father Moreno? He collected evidence for 20 years about sexual assaults committed by clergy in the Buffalo, New York Diocese. This man was a strong Roman Catholic, but he discovered a very deep ring of corruption in this diocese of the Church and he felt the need to expose it. If you look into the matter, this diocese was involved in what I might say is on of the most disgusting case of sexual abuse and corruption among all the cases. But it was a Catholic who exposed the issues whilst remaining Catholic.

    What about Father David Nix? He discovered sexual misconduct among two different priests, one of whom was a fairly high-ranking priest in the church.

    And I could go on. I could provide you a long list of Catholic priests who have spoken out against the sexual abuse in the Catholic church, yet you are going to still propose that the Catholic Church is covering up the abuse of the priests? The more accurate response would be, “Certain high-ranking officers within the Catholic Church are covering up the disgusting actions of these Satanic priests.” You are smearing and spreading lies about the Catholic Church and that just shows your lack of integrity on this whole matter. I have provided you documented proof that some high-ranking officials within the Roman Catholic Church are indeed speaking out and trying to get to the bottom of this situation and you have provided me with documented proof that some high and low-ranking officials within the Catholic church are covering up the sexual abuse in the church. Where would you like to go from here? All you have proven is that there are some people in the Catholic church covering it up and I have proven that there are also many who are not. You should have the integrity to leave it at that. Instead, you are painting the entire Catholic church as (a) a pedophile church and (b) an organization that is covering up the abuse within the church. And I could also mention that since the majority of those articles you posted were written, the Pope has taken major steps and drastically reduced the number of sexual crime in the church to just a few a year. He can’t control every single person in the church but he has certainly taken steps to prevent these kinds of things. If you don’t see a problem here, I don’t know what to tell you. I will pray the Lord will open your eyes because I honestly feel like I am speaking to a wall right now.

    Your post: APOLOGIST: someone who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something that is typically controversial, unpopular, or subject to criticism

    The problem for you, is the FACT that I did read your posts regarding you being an apologist in the defense of your pedophile priests, as explicitly shown in your revealing and substantiated quotes below:

     

    Apologist: Someone who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something that is typically controversial, unpopular, or subject to criticism.

    The problem for you is the FACT that not one of those excerpts from my essay you just provided prove in any way that I was defending the pedophile priests but rather serve to substantiate my argument further that I was NOT defending them in any way. Let me go through the quotes you provided one by one since you are so quick to slander my character while putting forth ‘evidence’ that contradicts your own statement.

    1.       “You are making the mistake of addressing the sins of a minority(minority as in 2-4 percent of priests) in the Catholic Church as if it were representative of the entire church”

    Please explain to me how this means I was defending the pedophile priests. I said they are SINNING, that they are NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH.  What and whom did I defend with this statement? I condemned the pedophile priests while at the same time defending the Catholic Church and the innocent people within it that you keep on slandering. I do not understand how you cannot see that. I couldn’t have made it any more obvious if I tried.

    2.       It is very unwise to smear the 1.3 billion member(and growing rapidly) Catholic Church because of about 7000 credibly accused pedophiles who have infiltrated and abused it.”

    Now, I covered this in my last post. I suppose you missed it so I shall go over the very plain facts again. I said the pedophile priests have ‘infiltrated and abused’ the Catholic church. How is that a defense? Please explain to me how saying somebody infiltrated and abused the Catholic church is defending these pedophile priests. Rather, I, once again, condemned the pedophile priests while at the same time defending the 1.3 billion member Catholic Church you are so eager to slander.

    3.       “You find wicked people in every single group of any kind so this is an illogical argument, you see.”

    Please explain to me how calling the pedophile priests ‘wicked’ is a defense of pedophile priests. I will say this for the third time. I was condemning the pedophile priests while at the same time defending the Catholic church you love to slander.

    4.       “I asked if you see that it is an illogical argument to say the Catholic church is wicked because there are wicked people in it when there are wicked people in every single group of any kind”

    This is getting ridiculous. You are accusing me of being an apologist for the pedophile priests while providing quotes that state the opposite. You have slandered me four times in this one short excerpt from your essay and I was hoping we could have a grown up conversation with one another about the Catholic Church and whether or not churches should accommodate for disabled individuals and instead it has turned into this childish game of throwing around insults that are completely irrelevant and unsubstantiated. Let me go through this last point and I repeat: In putting forth this statement, I condemned the pedophile priests, calling them wicked, while defending the Catholic church. At the same time I defended other organizations such as the public school system, which has more pedophiles than are within the Catholic church. I said that it is illogical to pull the wicked from among a group and act as though they represent the group when the vast majority of the group is against it. And as I stated before, the Pope can and will sin, so when they engage in cover-ups, that is called sin. You are acting as though the pope is supposed to be perfect according to Catholicism when that is not true at all. He is a sinner like the rest of us, and far from perfect. Especially Pope Francis. You could probably give me a list of all of the things he has done wrong since holding pontifical office and I would probably agree with a majority of them. But guess what? The pope is not my God. Jesus is my God. I follow Him and I follow the Pope as he follows God. When he says something that does not line up with what God says, I do not follow what he says, but what God says. You seem to be under the impression that Catholics are blind sheep, following everything the Vatican or the Pope say regardless of whether it agrees with official Church teaching or not and that is just not true. Have you seen the amount of corruption in the Vatican? I am sure you have. We would be screwed if we just blindly followed their every whim, seriously. We would be the stupidest people on the planet. Jesus is Lord of the church; He has established a hierarchy to guide the church and to proclaim that Jesus is Lord, but that does not mean they are infallible. On the contrary, as I have shown, the very first pope in existence sinned. Not to mention the fact that he also denied the Lord three times and rebuked Jesus and was in turn referenced as ‘Satan’ by Jesus Himself. It would be illogical to assume that because Peter did these things, the entire church fell into that sin.

    Your post: Do the simple math Hell bound Catholic, if sin is always forgiven, then there is NO INCENTIVE NOT TO SIN!  Therefore, your pedophile priests continued to sin under this godly forgiveness act! Your primitive thinking church obviously makes the entire world sick to their stomachs!

    What are you talking about? Nobody said sin is always forgiven. I said that sin, if it is truly repented of, will be forgiven. That means that you must truly repent before God, who knows the heart of every man. He knows if you are just playing games, trying to take advantage of His forgiveness, and he doesn’t play that. He judges the heart and if someone is truly sorrowful and seeks reconciliation with God, they will (a) Not have the desire to do those wicked things any longer and (b) be forgiven by a merciful and compassionate God who is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth. So yes, there is incentive not to sin in Catholicism. When you sin you incur two things upon yourself, one of which may not be taken away upon repentance. (1) You incur the wrath of God upon yourself. “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3) and (2) You suffer whatever earthly consequences may befall you from your sin. You sleep around, you may get STDs. You steal, you may end up going to jail. You murder, you may be locked up or given the death penalty. There are still consequences for the things we do that will not be taken away simply by repenting. God may use these things as a punishment for us, just as a father punishes his child if he truly loves him. So no, you are unfortunately misunderstanding my point. Grace is not a license to sin. St. Paul warns against that very notion. That is the problem with a lot of Protestant denominations; the doctrine of Calvinism. They believe that you can do whatever you want and if you are one of God’s elect, you will go to heaven anyways and that creates a license to sin, not the Catholic viewpoint that only if you repent and recognize your sin before a righteous and holy God, coming before Him in sorrow for what you have done, you will be forgiven. The Calvinist heresy should make you sick to your stomach, not the Catholic and some other denominations’ correct viewpoint.

     

    Your post: NOT! Like I said before, what part of the fact that I haven’t even started upon your primitive thinking Catholic Church and it’s pedophile priests that they moved around to other churches to hide their misdeeds, as shown in the links herein, in covering up their RAPING of innocent children!  Do you understand?!

    First of all, it is not my wishful thinking that we stop this conversation. Notice that I said ‘but if you want to continue on this topic, I would be more than happy to.’ I am perfectly fine with continuing this line of dialogue but you are repeatedly beating a dead horse with a thin twig that is bound to snap sooner or later.

    I think I have addressed this topic very thoroughly and you are not providing any new information. On the contrary, you are slandering me repeatedly, as shown in my responses herein, and are accusing the Catholic Church of doing things it has not and cannot do, rather than attacking the actual people behind it, the priests and the ones covering things up. We are not like a company, where if the founder of that company messes something up, the entire company is accountable for it. No, we are a religious institution whose founder is Christ and unless you want to show me a place where Christ Himself messed up somehow and didn’t follow through with being perfect in His life here on earth (you’ll find yourself coming against God Himself if you even endeavor to prove such a thing) then you have no case because the Pope did not found the church, Jesus did, and Jesus is still alive and reigning over the church, and yes, over the Pope. Why is the church seeing so much corruption among its member today? Because Christ allows free will and men are naturally evil, but He has promised that the Holy Spirit would be with the church always and we have comfort in the fact that, even though the church is in turmoil right now, with a lot of corruption from high up leaders, we can know that the Lord will not allow anything to lead the body of Christ as a whole astray, and I can show you evidence that since the beginning, the Church has not been led astray. I would have to get into the nitty gritty details of the church for that though, how no Pope has ever declared something ‘ex-cathedra’ or binding on the hearts of every believer and the only pope that ever tried, to the best of my knowledge, was an anti-pope who tried to claim Jesus is not God as ex-cathedra and the Catholic people rose up, tore him off the chair of Peter, and dragged him outside the city. Christ will preserve His church and He will do so until the end of time. Controversy among the church and corruption is nothing new to the Faithful. Christ promised there would be trials and tribulations and throughout history, there have been indeed. But guess what? The church has always survived and still stands today. It will get through this period of scandal going on today and if the world continues for long enough, will survive and endure many more scandals. That is the beauty of Catholicism. Through difficult times, the church grows together. The more they endure, the stronger they become. Nothing has stopped us before and this crisis will not stop us now. But do not accuse me of being an apologist for these wicked priests. I condemn their actions and I would strongly reprove any who would have such a lack of integrity that they would cover these things up. It is a horrific sin, what some of these priests have done and I would never even begin to defend them, lest I partake in their wicked deeds in a way.

     

    And thank you for responding to the original topic. I will reply tomorrow.


  • 21CenturyIconoclast21CenturyIconoclast 169 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @Swolliw


    .
    Swolliw 

    YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTES: “You have made a glaringly erroneous assumption that Christians follow every word of the Bible and even then, each and every passage can be interpreted in a multitude of ways ……….  I have never heard a Christian ever say that he or she lives by every phrase that is stated in the Bible.”


    I will address your Bible ignorance and stupidity in the FACT that I have not made any erroneous assumptions that pseudo-christians that I mention should follow EVERY WORD of the Bible, because their serial killer Jesus’ inspired words says to do just that if they want to be a true Christian! GET IT?

    Are the pseudo-christians going to say that Jesus’ inspired passages within the scriptures to follow were wrong and/or they don’t need to follow all of them, NO THEY ARE NOT, because they do not know more than their God named Jesus in His following inspired passages, understood Bible fool? 


    “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” (Luke 4:4)  

    EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5).  

    “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” (James 1:22) 

    “The Lord Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35) 

    “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13)


    YOUR MISGUIDED QUOTES IN TRYING TO PROVE YOUR POINT:  "So, I suggest that by your cherry-picking phrases from the Bible to suit your unrestrained hatred of religion and complete lack of regard for handicapped people you are indeed as guilty as the people you are unsuccessfully trying to lambast."

    Listen up Bible fool, do the simple math, it is not "cherry picking" when these passages are present in the first place, do you understand this simple logical deduction, or do I need to go further for you to understand?!  I DO NOT have any lack of regard to handicapped people, BUT, as shown in the passages in question, the serial killer Jesus does!  Furthermore, I don't "try" and lambast the pseudo-christians, I fully and without fail, lambast them 100 percent of the time because of their Bronze and Iron Age thinking relative to their Bible!  


    Now, what you thought you knew, you in mortification didn’t, therefore you may leave this thread in embarrassment to save yourself further embarrassment. 


    NEXT BIBLE INEPT FOOL LIKE “SWOLLIW” THAT WAS EASILY BIBLE SLAPPED SILLY,®️ WILL BE … ?

    .

    ProudToBeCatholicCat
  • Argument Topic: Response to Catholic Priest Issue

    @21CenturyIconoclast

    21CenturyIconoclast,

    Your post: Bottom line, that is 2-4% too many of Hell-Bound priests screwing innocent children, understood Hell bound Kathylick?!

     

    I never denied that and I agree that even 1 priest who engages in this behavior is one too many. I don’t know where you got the notion that I was in any way diluting the fact that these priests who engage in this are in sin and if they do not repent, they will not enter the kingdom of God.

     

    Your post: To hell with what your disgusting pedophile infested Catholic church thinks, it is what Jesus’ inspired words think about priests that bugger little boys!

    "If a man also lie with mankind, As he lieth with a woman, Both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”  (Leviticus 20:13)

     

    Actually, what the Catholic Church teaches, not thinks, does matter very much, for they have been entrusted with (a) the interpretation of Sacred Scripture and (b) with the Sacred Tradition as handed down through apostolic succession beginning with St. Peter. And once again, you are quoting an Old Testament passage without bearing in mind the New Testament implications of the passage. Studying the Bible takes discernment and taking a verse or two from the Old Covenant as if the Old Covenant is no different than the New is not wise. As I have stated at least five times now; the Old Testament, or Old Covenant, finds fulfillment in the New Testament, or New Covenant. When you divorce somebody, you are no longer bound to that marriage covenant between you and said person. You are no longer obligated to fulfill those vows, nor under that marriage contract. God made the Old Covenant with the Jews and with the Jews alone. The Gentile nations were not under any laws except for the law that is written on the hearts of every man, ie, the moral law. (Romans 2:14-15- “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them.”) The word of God makes it extremely clear that the moral law, or the law that is written on every man’s heart is what the Gentiles were under. We have consciences. These consciences tell us it is wrong to steal, murder, cheat, commit adultery, etc. This is the moral law. Nobody has it built into them to feel guilty because they mixed different fabrics in their clothing, or many of the other laws the Jews were to keep. God instituted these laws for the Jewish people because they were His chosen people and He wanted them to be separate from the other nations and for their every custom to point to Christ.

    Now, with that in mind, the Jews went astray. They turned against God countless times (Ezekiel 33:11; Joshua 23:12-13; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Jeremiah 3:22; Jeremiah 2:25; Isaiah 30:15) God repeatedly tried to bring them back to Himself, but they were unwilling to come. So, God wrote them a certificate of divorce. (Isaiah 50:1- “Thus says the LORD: “Where is the certificate of your mother’s divorce, whom I have put away? Or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? For your iniquities you have sold yourselves, and for your transgressions your mother has been put away.” Jeremiah 3:6-10- The LORD said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: ‘Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot. And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘Return to Me’. But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. So it came to pass, through her casual harlotry, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and trees. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah has not turned to Me with her whole heart, but in pretense, “ says the Lord.” )

    God divorced Israel from His covenant and it should be obvious that when a divorce occurs, neither party is bound any longer by those rules. You may then quote the verse, “Man shall not live on bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”, but the fact that we are no longer under the Old Covenant in no way diminishes the implications of this verse. As I have stated before, all Old Testament laws find their fulfillment in Christ. This is one of the great mysteries of the faith, how God entwined the Old Covenant with the New in such a way that every single law in the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New, finding its culmination in Jesus Christ. So what is my point in saying this? These laws about killing people for breaking the sabbath, committing adultery, engaging in homosexual acts, etc. are all based on the Old Covenant and find their fulfillment in Christ. We no longer put to death homosexuals as commanded in the Old Covenant because that command is fulfilled in Christ. I cannot stress that point enough because it is crucial to understanding the Old Testament laws. Now, homosexuals are called to ‘die to themselves’(Galatians 2:20), to ‘take up their cross and follow Him’(Luke 9;23), to ‘count the old man as dead’(Romans 6:6-23), and to ‘present their bodies as living sacrifices to the Lord’(Romans 12:1). No longer are they physically required to die, for Christ has extended mercy to all men when He died on Calvary. No one is beyond His reach, and there is no one who can fall too far to where they can’t return. Paul emphasizes this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 which states- “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” We can now draw near to Christ with confidence that He will forgive us our sins, if we repent of them. ‘Such were some of us’. The Bible is clear that we now have mercy in Christ Jesus but this does not contradict the Old Law, for we are to ‘die to self’.

    Your post: Condemns the action of Satanic Catholic Priests? Huh?  Instead of condemning these child rapest Priests, your primitive church formed COVER UPS of these Priests FU*KING little innocent boys as shown in only a few links of many below: 

    You are making an illogical claim. I never said that every person within the Catholic Church condemn the action of Satanic Catholic Priests. I said the Catholic church condemns the action of Satanic pedophile priests.  The Catholic Church is not its members or even leaders. In fact, the Pope himself is not the Catholic Church, for he too can be led into error. The very first Pope, Pope Peter, sinned in refusing to eat with the Gentiles after God had already told him "Don’t call unclean what I have made clean.” St. Paul had to oppose him. Yes, he opposed the Pope himself! He said that Peter ‘stood condemned’ and that he ‘opposed him to his face’. (Galatians 2:11-14- “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the Gospel I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?””) We can see throughout history the Catholic Church has had quite a few wicked popes. One was a polygamist, another, a murderer. Did these people become the epitome of what the ‘Catholic church’ was? Not any more than Peter became the definition of what the Church was in his day. The church is not the pope, it is not the people, it is the institution established by Christ and the divine revelation He has revealed to the Church through his written and oral tradition. There is no new public revelation for the faith was ‘Once for all handed down to us’(Jude 1:3) That is what the Church is. And anybody, even the Pope himself, who contradicts this, is living in error and not according to the full truth as defined by Christ and the apostles under Him. The entire leadership of the Catholic church could cover up these scandals and that is not the Catholic church covering up the scandals for they are not walking in line with Christ’s commandments. We are commanded to not only not take part in wickedness but to expose it(Ephesians 5:11-13). And in fact, there were many Roman Catholics who were against the child abuse scandal from the beginning. Let me provide you a few names: Archbishop Calo Maria Viganò. He is a very very high-ranking member of the Catholic Church who wrote a letter to the Pope himself. This letter is what prompted the Pope to look into the matters of sexual abuse more closely and even led to him abolishing the pontifical secret in cases of sexual abuse accusations in 2019. I will post the letter here, and I apologize that is a bit lengthy.

    Before starting my writing, I would first of all like to give thanks and glory to God the Father for every situation and trial that He has prepared and will prepare for me during my life. As a priest and bishop of the holy Church, spouse of Christ, I am called like every baptized person to bear witness to the truth. By the gift of the Spirit who sustains me with joy on the path that I am called to travel, I intend to do so until the end of my days. Our only Lord has addressed also to me the invitation, “Follow me!”, and I intend to follow him with the help of his grace until the end of my days.

    “As long as I have life, I will sing to the Lord,

    I will sing praise to my God while I have being.

    May my song be pleasing to him;

    For I rejoice in the Lord.”

    (Psalm 103:33-34)

    It has been a month since I offered my testimony, solely for the good of the Church, regarding what occurred at the audience with Pope Francis on June 23, 2013 and regarding certain matters I was given to know in the assignments entrusted to me at the Secretariat of State and in Washington, in relation to those who bear responsibility for covering up the crimes committed by the former archbishop of that capital.

    My decision to reveal those grave facts was for me the most painful and serious decision that I have ever made in my life. I made it after long reflection and prayer, during months of profound suffering and anguish, during a crescendo of continual news of terrible events, with thousands of innocent victims destroyed and the vocations and lives of young priests and religious disturbed. The silence of the pastors who could have provided a remedy and prevented new victims became increasingly indefensible, a devastating crime for the Church. Well aware of the enormous consequences that my testimony could have, because what I was about to reveal involved the successor of Peter himself, I nonetheless chose to speak in order to protect the Church, and I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true. Christ died for the Church, and Peter, Servus servorum Dei, is the first one called to serve the spouse of Christ.

    Certainly, some of the facts that I was to reveal were covered by the pontifical secret that I had promised to observe and that I had faithfully observed from the beginning of my service to the Holy See. But the purpose of any secret, including the pontifical secret, is to protect the Church from her enemies, not to cover up and become complicit in crimes committed by some of her members. I was a witness, not by my choice, of shocking facts and, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states (par. 2491), the seal of secrecy is not binding when very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Only the seal of confession could have justified my silence.

    Neither the pope, nor any of the cardinals in Rome have denied the facts I asserted in my testimony. “Qui tacet consentit” surely applies here, for if they deny my testimony, they have only to say so, and provide documentation to support that denial. How can one avoid concluding that the reason they do not provide the documentation is that they know it confirms my testimony?

    The center of my testimony was that since at least June 23, 2013, the pope knew from me how perverse and evil McCarrick was in his intentions and actions, and instead of taking the measures that every good pastor would have taken, the pope made McCarrick one of his principal agents in governing the Church, in regard to the United States, the Curia, and even China, as we are seeing these days with great concern and anxiety for that martyr Church.

    Now, the pope’s reply to my testimony was: “I will not say a word!” But then, contradicting himself, he has compared his silence to that of Jesus in Nazareth and before Pilate, and compared me to the great accuser, Satan, who sows scandal and division in the Church — though without ever uttering my name. If he had said: “Viganò lied,” he would have challenged my credibility while trying to affirm his own. In so doing he would have intensified the demand of the people of God and the world for the documentation needed to determine who has told the truth. Instead, he put in place a subtle slander against me — slander being an offense he has often compared to the gravity of murder. Indeed, he did it repeatedly, in the context of the celebration of the most Holy Sacrament, the Eucharist, where he runs no risk of being challenged by journalists. When he did speak to journalists, he asked them to exercise their professional maturity and draw their own conclusions. But how can journalists discover and know the truth if those directly involved with a matter refuse to answer any questions or to release any documents? The pope’s unwillingness to respond to my charges and his deafness to the appeals by the faithful for accountability are hardly consistent with his calls for transparency and bridge building.

    Moreover, the pope’s cover-up of McCarrick was clearly not an isolated mistake. Many more instances have recently been documented in the press, showing that Pope Francis has defended homosexual clergy who committed serious sexual abuses against minors or adults. These include his role in the case of Fr. Julio Grassi in Buenos Aires, his reinstatement of Fr. Mauro Inzoli after Pope Benedict had removed him from ministry (until he went to prison, at which point Pope Francis laicized him), and his halting of the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor.

    In the meantime, a delegation of the USCCB, headed by its president Cardinal DiNardo, went to Rome asking for a Vatican investigation into McCarrick. Cardinal DiNardo and the other prelates should tell the Church in America and in the world: did the pope refuse to carry out a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s crimes and of those responsible for covering them up? The faithful deserve to know.

    I would like to make a special appeal to Cardinal Ouellet, because as nuncio I always worked in great harmony with him, and I have always had great esteem and affection towards him. He will remember when, at the end of my mission in Washington, he received me at his apartment in Rome in the evening for a long conversation. At the beginning of Pope Francis’ pontificate, he had maintained his dignity, as he had shown with courage when he was Archbishop of Québec. Later, however, when his work as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was being undermined because recommendations for episcopal appointments were being passed directly to Pope Francis by two homosexual “friends” of his dicastery, bypassing the Cardinal, he gave up. His long article in L’Osservatore Romano, in which he came out in favor of the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, represents his surrender. Your Eminence, before I left for Washington, you were the one who told me of Pope Benedict’s sanctions on McCarrick. You have at your complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups. Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth.

    Finally, I wish to encourage you, dear faithful, my brothers and sisters in Christ: never be despondent! Make your own the act of faith and complete confidence in Christ Jesus, our Savior, of Saint Paul in his second Letter to Timothy, Scio cui credidi, which I choose as my episcopal motto. This is a time of repentance, of conversion, of prayers, of grace, to prepare the Church, the bride of the Lamb, ready to fight and win with Mary the battle against the old dragon.

    “Scio Cui credidi” (2 Tim 1:12)

    In you, Jesus, my only Lord, I place all my trust.

    “Diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum” (Rom 8:28).

    To commemorate my episcopal ordination on April 26, 1992, conferred on me by St. John Paul II, I chose this image taken from a mosaic of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice. It represents the miracle of the calming of the storm. I was struck by the fact that in the boat of Peter, tossed by the water, the figure of Jesus is portrayed twice. Jesus is sound asleep in the bow, while Peter tries to wake him up: “Master, do you not care that we are about to die?” Meanwhile the apostles, terrified, look each in a different direction and do not realize that Jesus is standing behind them, blessing them and assuredly in command of the boat: “He awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Quiet! Be still,’ … then he said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?’” (Mk 4:38-40).

    The scene is very timely in portraying the tremendous storm the Church is passing through in this moment, but with a substantial difference: the successor of Peter not only fails to see the Lord in full control of the boat, it seems he does not even intend to awaken Jesus asleep in the bow.

    Has Christ perhaps become invisible to his vicar? Perhaps is he being tempted to try to act as a substitute of our only Master and Lord?

    The Lord is in full control of the boat!

    May Christ, the Truth, always be the light on our way!

    + Carlo Maria Viganò

    Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana

    Apostolic Nuncio

     

    Or what about Father Moreno? He collected evidence for 20 years about sexual assaults committed by clergy in the Buffalo, New York Diocese. This man was a strong Roman Catholic, but he discovered a very deep ring of corruption in this diocese of the Church and he felt the need to expose it. If you look into the matter, this diocese was involved in what I might say is on of the most disgusting case of sexual abuse and corruption among all the cases. But it was a Catholic who exposed the issues whilst remaining Catholic.

    What about Father David Nix? He discovered sexual misconduct among two different priests, one of whom was a fairly high-ranking priest in the church.

    And I could go on. I could provide you a long list of Catholic priests who have spoken out against the sexual abuse in the Catholic church, yet you are going to still propose that the Catholic Church is covering up the abuse of the priests? The more accurate response would be, “Certain high-ranking officers within the Catholic Church are covering up the disgusting actions of these Satanic priests.” You are smearing and spreading lies about the Catholic Church and that just shows your lack of integrity on this whole matter. I have provided you documented proof that some high-ranking officials within the Roman Catholic Church are indeed speaking out and trying to get to the bottom of this situation and you have provided me with documented proof that some high and low-ranking officials within the Catholic church are covering up the sexual abuse in the church. Where would you like to go from here? All you have proven is that there are some people in the Catholic church covering it up and I have proven that there are also many who are not. You should have the integrity to leave it at that. Instead, you are painting the entire Catholic church as (a) a pedophile church and (b) an organization that is covering up the abuse within the church. And I could also mention that since the majority of those articles you posted were written, the Pope has taken major steps and drastically reduced the number of sexual crime in the church to just a few a year. He can’t control every single person in the church but he has certainly taken steps to prevent these kinds of things. If you don’t see a problem here, I don’t know what to tell you. I will pray the Lord will open your eyes because I honestly feel like I am speaking to a wall right now.

    Your post: APOLOGIST: someone who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something that is typically controversial, unpopular, or subject to criticism

    The problem for you, is the FACT that I did read your posts regarding you being an apologist in the defense of your pedophile priests, as explicitly shown in your revealing and substantiated quotes below:

     

    Apologist: Someone who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something that is typically controversial, unpopular, or subject to criticism.

    The problem for you is the FACT that not one of those excerpts from my essay you just provided prove in any way that I was defending the pedophile priests but rather serve to substantiate my argument further that I was NOT defending them in any way. Let me go through the quotes you provided one by one since you are so quick to slander my character while putting forth ‘evidence’ that contradicts your own statement.

    1.       “You are making the mistake of addressing the sins of a minority(minority as in 2-4 percent of priests) in the Catholic Church as if it were representative of the entire church”

    Please explain to me how this means I was defending the pedophile priests. I said they are SINNING, that they are NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH.  What and whom did I defend with this statement? I condemned the pedophile priests while at the same time defending the Catholic Church and the innocent people within it that you keep on slandering. I do not understand how you cannot see that. I couldn’t have made it any more obvious if I tried.

    2.       It is very unwise to smear the 1.3 billion member(and growing rapidly) Catholic Church because of about 7000 credibly accused pedophiles who have infiltrated and abused it.”

    Now, I covered this in my last post. I suppose you missed it so I shall go over the very plain facts again. I said the pedophile priests have ‘infiltrated and abused’ the Catholic church. How is that a defense? Please explain to me how saying somebody infiltrated and abused the Catholic church is defending these pedophile priests. Rather, I, once again, condemned the pedophile priests while at the same time defending the 1.3 billion member Catholic Church you are so eager to slander.

    3.       “You find wicked people in every single group of any kind so this is an illogical argument, you see.”

    Please explain to me how calling the pedophile priests ‘wicked’ is a defense of pedophile priests. I will say this for the third time. I was condemning the pedophile priests while at the same time defending the Catholic church you love to slander.

    4.       “I asked if you see that it is an illogical argument to say the Catholic church is wicked because there are wicked people in it when there are wicked people in every single group of any kind”

    This is getting ridiculous. You are accusing me of being an apologist for the pedophile priests while providing quotes that state the opposite. You have slandered me four times in this one short excerpt from your essay and I was hoping we could have a grown up conversation with one another about the Catholic Church and whether or not churches should accommodate for disabled individuals and instead it has turned into this childish game of throwing around insults that are completely irrelevant and unsubstantiated. Let me go through this last point and I repeat: In putting forth this statement, I condemned the pedophile priests, calling them wicked, while defending the Catholic church. At the same time I defended other organizations such as the public school system, which has more pedophiles than are within the Catholic church. I said that it is illogical to pull the wicked from among a group and act as though they represent the group when the vast majority of the group is against it. And as I stated before, the Pope can and will sin, so when they engage in cover-ups, that is called sin. You are acting as though the pope is supposed to be perfect according to Catholicism when that is not true at all. He is a sinner like the rest of us, and far from perfect. Especially Pope Francis. You could probably give me a list of all of the things he has done wrong since holding pontifical office and I would probably agree with a majority of them. But guess what? The pope is not my God. Jesus is my God. I follow Him and I follow the Pope as he follows God. When he says something that does not line up with what God says, I do not follow what he says, but what God says. You seem to be under the impression that Catholics are blind sheep, following everything the Vatican or the Pope say regardless of whether it agrees with official Church teaching or not and that is just not true. Have you seen the amount of corruption in the Vatican? I am sure you have. We would be screwed if we just blindly followed their every whim, seriously. We would be the stupidest people on the planet. Jesus is Lord of the church; He has established a hierarchy to guide the church and to proclaim that Jesus is Lord, but that does not mean they are infallible. On the contrary, as I have shown, the very first pope in existence sinned. Not to mention the fact that he also denied the Lord three times and rebuked Jesus and was in turn referenced as ‘Satan’ by Jesus Himself. It would be illogical to assume that because Peter did these things, the entire church fell into that sin.

    Your post: Do the simple math Hell bound Catholic, if sin is always forgiven, then there is NO INCENTIVE NOT TO SIN!  Therefore, your pedophile priests continued to sin under this godly forgiveness act! Your primitive thinking church obviously makes the entire world sick to their stomachs!

    What are you talking about? Nobody said sin is always forgiven. I said that sin, if it is truly repented of, will be forgiven. That means that you must truly repent before God, who knows the heart of every man. He knows if you are just playing games, trying to take advantage of His forgiveness, and he doesn’t play that. He judges the heart and if someone is truly sorrowful and seeks reconciliation with God, they will (a) Not have the desire to do those wicked things any longer and (b) be forgiven by a merciful and compassionate God who is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth. So yes, there is incentive not to sin in Catholicism. When you sin you incur two things upon yourself, one of which may not be taken away upon repentance. (1) You incur the wrath of God upon yourself. “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3) and (2) You suffer whatever earthly consequences may befall you from your sin. You sleep around, you may get STDs. You steal, you may end up going to jail. You murder, you may be locked up or given the death penalty. There are still consequences for the things we do that will not be taken away simply by repenting. God may use these things as a punishment for us, just as a father punishes his child if he truly loves him. So no, you are unfortunately misunderstanding my point. Grace is not a license to sin. St. Paul warns against that very notion. That is the problem with a lot of Protestant denominations; the doctrine of Calvinism. They believe that you can do whatever you want and if you are one of God’s elect, you will go to heaven anyways and that creates a license to sin, not the Catholic viewpoint that only if you repent and recognize your sin before a righteous and holy God, coming before Him in sorrow for what you have done, you will be forgiven. The Calvinist heresy should make you sick to your stomach, not the Catholic and some other denominations’ correct viewpoint.

     

    Your post: NOT! Like I said before, what part of the fact that I haven’t even started upon your primitive thinking Catholic Church and it’s pedophile priests that they moved around to other churches to hide their misdeeds, as shown in the links herein, in covering up their RAPING of innocent children!  Do you understand?!

    First of all, it is not my wishful thinking that we stop this conversation. Notice that I said ‘but if you want to continue on this topic, I would be more than happy to.’ I am perfectly fine with continuing this line of dialogue but you are repeatedly beating a dead horse with a thin twig that is bound to snap sooner or later.

    I think I have addressed this topic very thoroughly and you are not providing any new information. On the contrary, you are slandering me repeatedly, as shown in my responses herein, and are accusing the Catholic Church of doing things it has not and cannot do, rather than attacking the actual people behind it, the priests and the ones covering things up. We are not like a company, where if the founder of that company messes something up, the entire company is accountable for it. No, we are a religious institution whose founder is Christ and unless you want to show me a place where Christ Himself messed up somehow and didn’t follow through with being perfect in His life here on earth (you’ll find yourself coming against God Himself if you even endeavor to prove such a thing) then you have no case because the Pope did not found the church, Jesus did, and Jesus is still alive and reigning over the church, and yes, over the Pope. Why is the church seeing so much corruption among its member today? Because Christ allows free will and men are naturally evil, but He has promised that the Holy Spirit would be with the church always and we have comfort in the fact that, even though the church is in turmoil right now, with a lot of corruption from high up leaders, we can know that the Lord will not allow anything to lead the body of Christ as a whole astray, and I can show you evidence that since the beginning, the Church has not been led astray. I would have to get into the nitty gritty details of the church for that though, how no Pope has ever declared something ‘ex-cathedra’ or binding on the hearts of every believer and the only pope that ever tried, to the best of my knowledge, was an anti-pope who tried to claim Jesus is not God as ex-cathedra and the Catholic people rose up, tore him off the chair of Peter, and dragged him outside the city. Christ will preserve His church and He will do so until the end of time. Controversy among the church and corruption is nothing new to the Faithful. Christ promised there would be trials and tribulations and throughout history, there have been indeed. But guess what? The church has always survived and still stands today. It will get through this period of scandal going on today and if the world continues for long enough, will survive and endure many more scandals. That is the beauty of Catholicism. Through difficult times, the church grows together. The more they endure, the stronger they become. Nothing has stopped us before and this crisis will not stop us now. But do not accuse me of being an apologist for these wicked priests. I condemn their actions and I would strongly reprove any who would have such a lack of integrity that they would cover these things up. It is a horrific sin, what some of these priests have done and I would never even begin to defend them, lest I partake in their wicked deeds in a way.

     

    And thank you for responding to the original topic. I will reply tomorrow.


    Cat
  • Argument Topic: Addressing the Leviticus 21 Argument

    @21CenturyIconoclast

    Your post: To address Leviticus 21:16-23 for the LAST TIME because your Bible ineptness just doesn’t get it, do the simple math this time, understood?!

     

    Actually I do understand exactly what you are saying but your points fall flat when taken in light of the WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE AND THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH. You are, as @Swolliw very wisely pointed out, cherry-picking verses from the Scripture and using them as ‘proof-texts’ for an argument that I honestly never thought would ever be presented. I have never seen a more ridiculous debate than the one we are having right now. But I shall address your points even though this argument you have just presented is near-identical to the original rebuttal you issued to my response.

     

    Your post: To try and make it plainer for you to comprehend, and within the syntactical sentence structuring shown below that is separate of Aaron’s decedents at the end of said sentence, Christian churches are to remove ALL handicapped signs and entrances, period!...

    Look, when God says no man, you must understand whom He is referencing. This is really not that difficult to understand but you are stretching to make the passage say something it clearly does not say. Let’s go through the passage, once again. The chapter starts off by saying “Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people” Notice what is said here. "There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people”. Please tell me whom this passage is representing. Because it says none, does that mean no one at all? Or does it mean no one from the priesthood of Aaron? What does the Scripture say? It says, “Speak unto the sons of Aaron” Therefore, we can without hesitation apply the none defined in this passage to who? The sons of Aaron. I present to you that this passage is not speaking of anyone in general, but of anyone of the priesthood of Aaron.

    Now, let’s look at the verse in question here, relative to its context. I’ll begin at verse 16. “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, saying, whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, or a man that is broken footed or brokenhanded, or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken: No man that hath blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the bread of his God.”

    Could God have made it any clearer if He tried? You have to play theological gymnastics to make the passage switch subjects based on the phrase: whosoever he be, or no man, and then suddenly resort back to the sons of Aaron in the very next verse. This explanation you are presenting directly violates the Israelite culture and the clear common sense reading of the text. The Lord tells Moses to speak to Aaron in verse one and in verse 16. He tells him to say the words that follow to whom? To Aaron the priest. Now, what does the Lord say? He says, “Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish…” This is who he is speaking of. Follow the flow and structure of the sentences and this will become clear. God establishes the parameters of who He is speaking to, and then uses whosoever or no one, depending on what translation you are referencing, to refer to the group He already specified. Would you argue that this whosoever is speaking of everybody? Obviously not. The direct object of this sentence is Aaron’s seed. Now, in the very next sentence, the Lord repeats that word. “For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish…” You may have an argument, a flimsy one at best, if we cut the verse off here, but guess what? The passage continues! There is no period at this point, so we must continue reading. “For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; no man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God”

    So, for what you are saying to be true you would have to argue that God is changing the subject of His words not only mid-chapter but mid-sentence. He ends the sentence with of the seed of Aaron and that makes it perfectly clear to whom this sentence is referring. I really hope you will not feel so inclined to argue that God would begin a topic with the sons of Aaron, switch mid-chapter with no sign of a break to everybody in general, and then change the object of His statement mid-sentence back to the original subject. I hope you realize how foolish that would be. Your reasoning with this verse makes no sense at all, defies the English language, and the only way to come to this conclusion is by twisting the Scripture to fit your own hateful bias towards God’s word and all religion in general, as your username implies. No one reading the Scripture would ever come to the conclusion you are presenting but someone who approaches it with an agenda of making it appear foolish and making God appear an illiterate monster who disdains handicapped people and cannot even clearly define what He means in His own Word that He wrote. Your argument on this topic has crumbled since I first challenged it and you are grasping for straws trying to say that this half-verse suddenly changes from the sons of Aaron to everybody in general and then switches back midsentence to the sons of Aaron once again with no clear sign of separation. You are being very dishonest with the Scripture in proposing a preposterous notion like this one, I’m sorry to say.

     

    And addressing your syntactical sentence structuring, you have made yet another fallacy. You skipped over some key parts of the passage, like the fact that in between the list of disabilities, the Lord provides and the result of those ailments, there is a statement made which says of the seed of Aaron. If you want to argue that God is suddenly speaking of everyone in general in verse 18, then you cannot argue that verse 23 is speaking of everyone still. These two verses are separated by of the seed of Aaron.

     

    Your post: The irony is the biblical axioms that Jesus formed these “defected of His creation at birth” as shown and implied in the following passages below!...

    For the purpose of this debate, as this point does not matter whatsoever in light of the common sense explanation of Leviticus 21, I will hypothetically agree with you that God does indeed create people with defects. I already stated previously that I know for a fact God creates some people with defects and that even Jesus Himself described why the man was born blind in Matthew, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life” (John 9:3) I could go into how sin caused the Fall and thus contributes to the corruption of babies in the womb and rant about that for 1000 words but that is a moot point. Let’s suppose God does create the people with the defects they are born with, that it is His intention to do so because He wants to fulfill His purpose through them, whatever that may be. As I have said before, your argument still falls flat. You are building this second phase of your argument on the fallacy that God is speaking of everybody in general at the beginning of a verse but suddenly switching back to the original topic of the entire speech God gave to Moses. You have proved your own argument wrong by bringing this second point in. If you know anything about God, if you know His character and holiness, you would know that He would never make somebody a certain way and then punish them for it. Nobody who knows who God is would ever say that. Nobody who knows the whole of Scripture would ever say such a despicable thing. God had a specific purpose in mind in Leviticus 21 and that was to keep the priests who were to enter the house of God and who were, in fact, the only ones allowed to enter the house of God to sacrifice, perfectly pure and whole so they would not ruin the picture of Christ, the spotless lamb of God. It was nothing against the people, it was merely to preserve the picture that would, once again, be fulfilled in Christ when He entered the temple ‘once for all’ to make atonement for sin.

     

    Your post: Remember, Jesus as God formed these defects as shown in the Leviticus passage in question AT BIRTH, and at the same time, Jesus as God does not want them in His churches as shown again in said Leviticus passage! Huh?  But then again, why didn’t Jesus just heal these defected of His creation in the first place so they could enter His churches?...

     

    You are once again presenting the fallacy that the ‘Old testament temple’ and ‘entering the house of God to offer the bread of God’ somehow equates to a church service or Mass today. I have explained how all things in the OT find their fulfillment in Christ. And I have gone into detail about how the priesthood finds its fulfillment in Christ and the New Priesthood, that anyone can enter the house of God now, regardless of being a descendant of Aaron or not. If you don’t remember any of that, I would encourage you to go back and reread my posts.

    The premise of this question supposes that Leviticus 21:18-20 is speaking of everybody in general; therefore, I won’t respond since I have shown that that is flawed reasoning.


    Cat
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @21CenturyIconoclast
     it is not "cherry picking" when these passages are present in the first place

    Wrong. That is exactly what cherry-picking is, taking passages from existing text for whatever reason. 

    The thrust of my argument is that regardless of what is written and regardless of whether or not those words should be followed, the fact is that those words were spoken two thousand years ago and applied to the particular political climate and conditions they were living in then. Certain foods were not allowed because people in those days became sick from eating them since they did not have the knowledge of overcoming that through hygiene practices.

    Therefore, since we now know that those with leprosy, and those who have handicaps are not going to infect others, we as well as those of faith, allow "ill" people into their places of worship.

    So therefore your argument that Christians should do everything that is written in the Bible is not only ill-founded, preposterous and unsupported, it is highly prejudiced and offensive to handicapped people. Your argument carries no legitimate weight whatsoever and is therefore invalid.

    ProudToBeCatholic
  • 21CenturyIconoclast21CenturyIconoclast 169 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @Swolliw

    YOUR DUMB QUOTE: "Wrong. That is exactly what cherry-picking is, taking passages from existing text for whatever reason."

    "Your honor, I was going to use some indisputable facts that prove my case against the accused murderer Mr. Smith, but the defense attorney Mr. Swolliw says that would be "cherry picking" and therefore I shouldn't use them."

    Swolliw, you do provide comedy in making us laugh in this forum, so I personally thank you! LOL!



    YOUR DUMB QUOTE #2: "the fact is that those words were spoken two thousand years ago and applied to the particular political climate and conditions they were living in then."

    Listen up Bible fool, the pseudo-christian accepts "those words," that were approximately written 3200 years ago, from their serial killer God Jesus, where they have NO AUTHORITY to usurp said words within the Holy Scriptures, do you understand? Maybe?

    "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)



    YOUR DUMB QUOTE #3: "Therefore, since we now know that those with leprosy, and those who have handicaps are not going to infect others, we as well as those of faith, allow "ill" people into their places of worship."

    You are insidiously taking another anachronistic position, where once again, YOU do not have the authority to usurp the pseudo-christians God named Jesus in the scriptures, when He said the contents of the Leviticus passage in question! Reread Revelation 22:18-19 AGAIN Bible fool!



    YOUR DUMB QUOTE #4: "So therefore your argument that Christians should do everything that is written in the Bible is not only ill-founded, preposterous and unsupported, it is highly prejudiced and offensive to handicapped people."

    You embarrassingly are not understanding the simple concept that the pseudo-christians have to follow the words and narratives as explained in the scriptures, because it is the word of their God Jesus!!!  You, as a shown Bible fool, DO NOT have the authority to rewrite the scriptures in the 21st century, period!

    Furthermore you Bible dolt, it is Jesus as God that wrote Leviticus against the handicapped, therefore it is Him that is prejudiced and offensive to His handicapped creation, GET IT? Huh? Maybe? Just a little bit? DUH!



    YOUR DUMB QUOTE #5:
    "Your argument carries no legitimate weight whatsoever and is therefore invalid."

    Only a simple-minded Bible fool like you could make a statement like you did above, because you don't understand the foundations of Christianity and their beliefs that they have to follow because it is the word of their serial killer Jesus God! Where the last thing they will follow is you being a Bible Atheist in essentially saying that their Christian Bible is wrong!  GET IT?

     “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God.” (Luke 4:4) 



    Now, take your Bible inept "Dog and Pony Show" to a children's Christian forum where you will be more at home with your complete Bible stupidity, okay? We thank you in advance.

    .
    NEXT BIBLE LIKE "SWOLLIW" THAT WANTS TO REWRITE THE EXISTING CHRISTIAN BIBLE TO HIS WAY OF THINKING, TO USURP JESUS' WORDS AS GOD, WILL BE ... ?



    ProudToBeCatholic
  • @ProudToBeCatholic ;


    ProudToBeCatholicApologistForPedophilePriests;

    Here is what you are going to do in "trying" to defend (Titus 1:9) your primitive Bronze and Iron Age Catholic faith with the topic at hand, in where you are going to refine your walls of text "War and Peace" dissertations in your February 24 and 25th posts to my statements, and reduce your jabberwocky to like the example I gave Swolliw at 9:30am today shown above, understood?

    I only have so much time to Bible Slap Silly®️ the pseudo-christians like you, therefore take your insidious debating ruse of lengthy walls of text and save them for when you discuss your pedophile priest infested Catholic church and coverups, with the equally Hell bound Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons, understood?! 

    BEGIN:

    .
    ProudToBeCatholicCat
  • Argument Topic: Really?

    @21CenturyIconoclast

    21 Century Iconoclast,
    I do not recall there being a limit on the amount of text I can post in my debate replies. If you consider my responses too lengthy, maybe you should start listening to common sense and admit you were wrong. There are plenty of more logical arguments you can make in support of your atheistic viewpoint that would actually make for a great discussion. Examples: The scientific possibility of Noah's Ark, Jesus' resurrection from the dead, the origin of the world, the existence of God, whether God being unable to do something refutes the notion that He is all-powerful, etc. etc. These are logical objections we could discuss but instead you are literally trying to debate whether a Being you do not even believe in wants handicapped people in His church and are using verses from the Old Covenant applied to Aaron and the priesthood to prove He forbids the very handicapped individuals He created from entering into His sanctuary. The irony of this is that the disabled from the line of Aaron did indeed enter the temple to eat the bread of the covenant (Lev. 21:22) They were permitted to enter the temple but were prohibited from entering the veil and approaching the altar (Lev. 21:21-23) Get it? 
    Your entire argument falls flat right here. You claim God does not want handicapped people in His churches when God never even forbade disabled individuals from entering His temple. He only prohibited them from going behind the veil and offering the bread of God on the altar. And once again, He is speaking of the sons of Aaron, for they are the only ones who could offer the bread of the Lord and eat of it anyways.

    Now, my Leviticus argument posted on February 25th is nearly identical in length to your flawed post to @Swolliw so if you are trying to avoid "walls of text" go ahead and answer that one. That was the topic of this debate, as shown by the title of the thread, and that is what our focus should be on. If you would like to further discuss the pedophile problem in the Catholic Church then you can create another debate thread and we can debate it there. I would be happy to shorten my lengthy response in that case. But until then, we will focus on the Leviticus 21 issue as defined by your original post. That is the topic of this debate; let's stick to it, understood?
    Cat
  • @21CenturyIconoclast

    21 Century Iconoclast,
    "Your honor, I was going to use some indisputable facts that prove my case against the accused murderer Mr. Smith, but the defense attorney Mr. Swolliw says that would be "cherry picking" and therefore I shouldn't use them."

    That is not what @Swolliw implied at all. Let me provide you with the definition of cherry-picking, as shown below:
    Cherry-picking: "The action or practice of choosing and taking only the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc., from what is available"
    That is exactly what you have done repeatedly. And I have shown you that. By taking certain verses out of a passage that suit your narrative and setting them apart from the rest of the passage, you have created a straw man of what God never said or meant. That is a classic definition of cherry picking.

    Listen up Bible fool, the pseudo-christian accepts "those words," that were approximately written 3200 years ago, from their serial killer God Jesus, where they have NO AUTHORITY to usurp said words within the Holy Scriptures, do you understand? Maybe?...

    I agree that no one has authority to usurp the Scriptures, but you are taking Revelation 22:18-19 out of context. A perfect example to back up the claim that you are cherry-picking verses from the Bible can be found in the same post where you defended against Swolliw's legitimate accusation. That passage in Revelation you quoted is simply talking about the book of Revelation. Look at the key words here: "heareth the words of the prophecy of this book"If any man shall add to these things" "If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy" "and from the things which are written in this book"
    Understand that the Bible is divided into 73 books, or 66 books for the Protestants. These books were not written at the same time or in the same place and were not compiled into one volume until much later, when the canon of Scripture was formally recognized by the Church. They were beforehand divided into multiple books. This passage speaks of the book of Revelation, for it says "this book". 
    Now, do Christians have the authority to take away from any book of the Bible? Not at all. But you seem to have a habit of cherry picking verses and twisting them to mean whatever you want them to say and that is not honest or discerning.
    Cat
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
    @21CenturyIconoclast
    You bring up some good questions.  Your conclusions are misguided, but the questions are good to ask.  First,  what's the point of Leviticus 21: 16-24 anyway?  The instructions apply only to Aaron's sons, who were charged with the religious duties in the tabernacle and later, the temple.  They alone were allowed to stand before God, and only once a year, and only after going through several purification rituals, in the holiest of holiest (think in the room with the ark of the covenant).  The imagery and lesson being communicated is that to be able to minister before God one must be perfect and without fault.  The lamb that was to be sacrificed was to be without blemish either.  Only a perfect offering was accepted for the forgiveness of sins. Many priests didn't meet the standards when they entered the holy of holies and were dragged out by a rope that was tied around their waist dead.  

    These are archetypes that pointed to the day when the Messiah would come.  Only he could be the perfect minister and offering to stand before God on our behalf.  The Bible is packed with this imagery and explanation.  Hebrews goes into great detail about Jesus is a better offering and minister than what was in the Old Testament.  

    Can handicapped and imperfect people come to God today?  Well, they could be forgiven, even in the Old Testament.  The prohibition only applied to the job of priest in the tabernacle or temple.  In the New Testament, God uses people with physical issues throughout.  Paul mentions that he prayed several times for what most scholars think was he bad eyesight:

    Three times I prayed to the Lord about this and asked him to take it away. But his answer was: “My grace is all you need, for my power is greatest when you are weak.” I am most happy, then, to be proud of my weaknesses, in order to feel the protection of Christ's power over me.  I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and difficulties for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong. - 2 Corinthians 12:8-10 GNT

    So instead of casting off people with disabilities, the New Testament emphasizes how God uses them to bring about His will.

    Another question asked is why does God allow people to have disabilities to start with?  First, if God is the creator, then He can create anyone anyway He wants.  Its His creation.  If He doesn't make it the way you think He should, know it wasn't your creation.  He can do with His creation as he sees fit.

    Jesus specifically answers this question:

    As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man who had been born blind.  His disciples asked him, “Teacher, whose sin caused him to be born blind? Was it his own or his parents' sin?”  Jesus answered, “His blindness has nothing to do with his sins or his parents' sins. He is blind so that God's power might be seen at work in him. - John 9:1-3

    Immediately after giving that answer, Jesus healed the man.  For truth deniers who would say Jesus never healed, know that only modern truth deniers make this claim.  Everyone in Jesus day - from his friends, his disciples, his enemies, and Roman historians all begin with the assumption that Jesus could heal.  That's the historical record.  Deny it if you want, but that is the historical record.

    Another question hinted at in the OPs remarks is the one about "why would God allow imperfection or suffering?"  I like philosopher's, Alvin Plantiga's response to this question.  He talks about the many worlds scenarios.  It is possible that God could have created a world without sin and suffering.  However, he points out, that this would be a world without free will, and have a very limited number of persons in it.  Any world with any sizeable number of free agents will eventually sin and introduce sin and suffering into he world.  Only a small world without free choice could do otherwise.  So, if love is the greatest good, and I think it is, then it can only exist in a world with free agents in it.  Compelled love is not real love.  So love can only exist, if the possibility of sin and suffering first exist.

    Since the Bible teaches that the soul will live forever, suffering is only temporary since it only applies to this physical world.  The promise is for an incorruptible body.  

    I understand you may not agree.  I never wrote this thinking you would, only to let you know how most Christians have understood the questions you brought up.

    CatProudToBeCatholic
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @21CenturyIconoclast
    the pseudo-christian accepts "those words,"

    I have already successfully argued that point and you have made not one valid argument to back an extremely outrageous proposition. You have been defeated on every point you have tried to make.

    CatProudToBeCatholic
  • Argument Topic: Summary of Points from Previous Leviticus 21 Post

    @21CenturyIconoclast

    21 Century Iconoclast,

    Just in case what I wrote in my previous statement was a bit confusing and/or too lengthy, let me summarize it and I will summarize my Catholic argument in a new debate which I will create. But for now, I will go over my statement concerning Leviticus 21.

     

    When you take a look at Leviticus 21 as a whole, from beginning to end, you will find that there is no part in the entire passage that pertains to anyone other than the sons of Aaron. Let me put the verse in its context for you:

    Leviticus 21:1 states: “And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them..” The passage then goes on to list a long list of rules but I will focus on the very first law delivered unto Moses. “There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people” Just because it says none, does that mean no one at all? No, anybody can see this speaking of the sons of Aaron.

    Now, let’s look at the passages in question in this debate: Leviticus 16-23- “And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Speak unto Aaron, saying, whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken: no man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. He shall eat the bread of the most holy and of the holy, only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.”

    So you are proposing that verse 18-23 is grammatically separate from the rest of the passage. You quoted verse 18, then skipped the rest of the passage all the way down to verse 23 in your response. Well, the problem with this is, if you read what is in between those two verses, it is impossible to come to that conclusion. In verse 21, the Lord references the sons of Aaron once again. That would mean you could only claim verses 18-20 are somehow ‘grammatically separate’ from the rest of the text. That is not logical in the slightest, simply because the verse does not end with a period there. Notice the colon in between 20 and 21. The sentence continues. So this verse must be taken as a whole. In the middle of the sentence, the Lord once again references the sons of Aaron, therefore it is illogical to claim that 18-23 are somehow ‘separate’ from the rest of the passage. The entire chapter is referencing a continuous thought process: laws for the sons of Aaron. Look at the chapter after as well; it is still speaking of the sons of Aaron, the priests. Look at the beginning and end of Leviticus 21; they both reference the sons of Aaron. Verse One: “Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron”. Verse Twenty-One: “Of the seed of Aaron”. This passage is clear. It is speaking of the sons of Aaron only and when you understand (a) the culture of Israel and the fact that only the priests were allowed to offer the bread of the Lord, approach the altar, or go behind the curtain, and (b) the basic grammatical flow of the passage, it will become exceedingly clear. I would advise you to look at some historical commentaries on this verse and learn the culture of the Israelite people based on the laws God had given them. If the Jews didn’t take this passage the way you are, then why should we? They were given the Old Covenant and the Old Covenant priesthood, I think they would know more about this than you.

    And finally, as I already said, God never forbade disabled sons of Aaron from entering His temple. He simply forbade them from going behind the curtain, where the altar was; in the holiest place of the temple. The bread of the Lord was forbidden to leave the temple and therefore in order for these disabled priests to eat of it, they would have had to be in the temple (Lev. 21:22) Reread the passage and you will see they were only forbidden to offer the offerings of the Lord and to enter behind the vail, or curtain. It all points to Christ and if you read the OT through the eyes of it all being fulfilled in Christ in the New, you will be shocked by how perfectly everything fits together.

    Cat
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @ProudToBeCatholic @21CenturyIconoclst
    What your got to realize is that you can go through all the ins and outs of what it says in the Bible and about what this meens and that meens but when you analize it in the end just because it says some thing it doesn’t meen you have to do it For example if my misses is on the rags it doesn’t meen I can’t do her just because it says you can’t in the Bible. So I’m a Christian and who said I have to do every thing in the Bible no one that’s who except for dufis boy who says you can’t have ramps for spazos just because he says so So if I or other Christians don’t do some thing that’s in the Bible we’re certainly not going to do what some angry boss boy wanna be says just because his mom didn’t give him breast milk when he was a  little kid like yesterday.
    CatProudToBeCatholic
  • @Swolliw

    YOUR QUOTE IN THE ASSUMPTION THAT YOU ARE INTELLIGENT, NOT!  : "I have already successfully argued that point and you have made not one valid argument to back an extremely outrageous proposition. You have been defeated on every point you have tried to make."

    In your mentally challenged mind you "think" you've successfully argued the point, but you RAN AWAY from the 5 entities that I addressed to your complete Bible stupidity and are still in HIDING to them!

    Run along, there is no need that I make you the continued Bible fool again, understood? Yeah, you do.

    NEXT PERSON LIKE "SWOLLIW" THAT RUNS FROM THE EMBARRASSING CONTENT OF POSTS TO HIM IN MAKING HIM THE FOOL, WILL BE ... ?

    .

    ProudToBeCatholicCat
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @21CenturyIconoclast
    In whole truth the argument you pick to make may be over language, handicapped parking and handicapped ramps might otherwise mean to a Christian or Cathlic
    " though some choices come at a cost to inconvienace, ourselves, a VIP status in parking and rise is given to who so chose to wait on behalf of others and the priority of thier sufferege." 
    ProudToBeCatholic
  • 21CenturyIconoclast21CenturyIconoclast 169 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @ProudToBeCatholic

    ProudToBeCatholic, whose mantra is; "Do not cherry-pick biblical passages, even though they are inspired by Jesus, that totally embarrasses me and my primitive thinking Bronze and Iron Age Catholic Religion,”


    1. When the serial killer Jesus, as the one only true God, prevents Aaron’s deformed Levite decendents to enter the church to offer food to Himself, and since Aaron is a Levite, that means even MOSES, His brother (Exodus 4:14), and other notable decendants of Aaron being a Levite includes, Miriam, Samuel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Ezra, and Malachi COULD NOT enter the Temple under the preconceived conditions in Leviticus 21:16-17!  !

    How does this logically pan out, think, even Moses too could not offer food to Jesus as God, was this an oversight by the serial killer Jesus?

    EXPLAIN:


    2YOUR QUOTE OF SEEING THE TRUTH: “That would mean you could only claim verses 18-20 are somehow ‘grammatically separate’ from the rest of the text.”

    YES!  It was already taken for granted that Aaron’s Levite decendants that had a defect were not to enter the church under the specific condition in Leviticus 21:16-17.  Then, in chronological order, in Leviticus 21:18-20, Jesus' words separates Aaron’s decendants, as in addition too, whereas these men of mention heretofore are adding to Aaron's descendants, priestly or not,  in not being able to enter Jesus' Temple with defects, key words NO MAN: NO MAN who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed;  NO MAN with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles.” (Leviticus 21:18-20). 2+2=4.


    3. In Leviticus 21:21, where Jesus reiterates that Aaron’s decedents are not to enter His Temple under the same conditions as Leviticus 21:16-17 why did the brutal serial killer Jesus have to repeat himself twice?

    EXPLAIN:


    4. WAIT!  What about the decedants of Aaron’s women-folk that have defects, whereas Jesus didn’t mention them, then are they allowed to enter the Temple in not being priests with defects? 

    EXPLAIN:


    In explaining the above numbered propositions, use ONLY biblical axioms to either try to support them, or to try and deny them, and not your ungodly subjective opinions, and to save you further embarrassment, keep your wanting refutations refined and short to the point! 


    .

    ProudToBeCatholic
  • 21CenturyIconoclast21CenturyIconoclast 169 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @ProudToBeCatholic


    ProudToBeCatholic, whose mantra is "Do not cherry-pick biblical passages, even though they are inspired by Jesus, that totally embarrasses me and my primitive thinking Bronze and Iron Age Catholic Religion,”


    In your post on February 26 in allegedly refuting my post on February 26th as well, I had two bibilcal passages within said post of mine to the Bible ignorant and Swalliw, therefore, why are you “CHERRY PICKING” the Revelation 22:18-19 passage, and not addressing my Luke 4:4 passage in the same post that puts every pseudo-christian like YOU on the hot seat for obvious reasons:  "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God.” (Luke 4:4) 

    “In essense, you are what you are against in you “cherry picking” as shown above!  H-E-L-L-O? LOL!


    EXPLAIN:


    .

    ProudToBeCatholic
  • 21CenturyIconoclast21CenturyIconoclast 169 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @ProudToBeCatholic ;


    ProudToBeCatholic, whose mantra is: "Do not cherry-pick biblical passages, even though they are inspired by Jesus, that totally embarrasses me and my primitive thinking Bronze and Iron Age Catholic Religion,”


    YOUR QUOTE REGARDING MY PRESENTATION OF REVELATION 22:18-19: “I agree that no one has authority to usurp the Scriptures, but you are taking Revelation 22:18-19 out of context.” 

    Okay, how about these few of many brutal Revelation passages of Jesus' horrific 2ND COMING that are in context, YIKES!:  

    Jesus is gonna put those Hollywood monster-movie producers to shame when He returns because His ghoulish creations joining Him will be a bunch of horse-like locusts with human heads, women’s hair, lion’s teeth, and scorpion’s tails. They’re gonna be stinging unbelievers and pseudo-christians straight for a whole 5 months, OUCH! (Rev 9:7-10)

    Then the ALLEGED loving and forgiving Jesus will send four blessed angels with an army of 200 million to MURDER a third of the earth’s population with horses with lions heads that spit sulfur and fire in 3 great plagues. Way to go loving and forgiving Jesus! (Rev 9:15-19)

    Jesus’ non loving and forgiving nature will have people killed by fire, plagues, and beasts. There will be dead bodies rotting and unburied everywhere, praise the loving Jesus' revenge!   Those that are not killed by Jesus as God because they are true Christians, will “rejoice over them (non christians) and make merry, and shall send gifts to one another. (Rev 11: 5-10)  


    ProudToBeCatholic, when pseudo-christians like you IN HAVING TO ACCEPT the above FUTURE brutal murders by the serial killer Jesus upon His 2nd Coming, then this is when I know that I can sell them the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge again, and again, and again! But, I offer them low interest rate loans!

    Awaiting a cogent reply, thank you. 


    .

    ProudToBeCatholic
  • 21CenturyIconoclast21CenturyIconoclast 169 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @Barnardot


    YOUR QUOTE THAT MAKES YOU THE CONTINUED BIBLE FOOL: "What your got to realize is that you can go through all the ins and outs of what it says in the Bible and about what this meens and that meens but when you analize it in the end just because it says some thing it doesn’t meen you have to do it"

    Jesus' inspired words stated the following to Bible ignorant and pseudo-christians like YOU in not following His words:

    “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” (James 1:22)

    EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5)

    “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a .” (Proverbs 30:5-6)  


    Barnardot, you will certainly pay upon Jesus' Judgment Day when you will experience HIs revenge upon you in NOT following His inspired words within the scriptures, praise Jesus' revenge upon the Bible inept pseudo-christians like you!

    .
    ProudToBeCatholic
  • @21CenturyIconoclast

    21 Century Iconoclast,

     

    I will keep this straight to the point and this is the last time I am going to address this topic. You are clearly grasping for straws with the flimsy argumentation of yours and I have done my best to show you the truth of the passage. I will give you my final thoughts and you can do what you want with it. I have spent hours and hours writing out lengthy responses to try and explain to you in as much detail as I can your misunderstanding, and you refuse to see the very obvious truth. You want to be right so badly that you will go to any length of illogical thinking, as shown by this argument you have now posted.

     

    1.       You have made such a blaringly erroneous statement here. A couple of points I would like to make:

    (a)    Notice that it says multiple times descendants, or sons, of Aaron. Was Moses Aaron’s son or even a descendant of him? Was Miriam Aaron’s son, or a descendant of him? I will touch on the rest of the figures you have mentioned in my next point.

    (b)    You are presenting the fallacy that every Levite was a priest. God never commanded that every Levite become a priest and that is very evident by the fact that Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Ezra, and Malachi were not priests. The Levites were a priestly line, but that does not mean every Levite was a priest. Every priest was a Levite, but every Levite was not a priest. Read Leviticus 21 once again and you will see that it is speaking of the priesthood, who are the descendants of Aaron.

    (c)     Moses could not offer the food to Jesus as God because every Levite was not automatically a priest. Being a Levite was a requirement to become a priest, that was it. Once again, every Levite was not a priest, but every priest was a Levite. You are getting the cart before the horse here, thinking that just because an individual was from the tribe of Levi, they were all of the sudden a priest. Moses could not offer the bread of his God because he was not a priest. Also, it is important to take note that Moses did act as temporary high priest during the Inauguration Week. He had to demonstrate to Aaron what to do as priest immediately following God’s commands for the priesthood and thus served as priest as an example to Aaron and the priests under Aaron. After this, Moses no longer retained the priestly duties and it was given to Aaron and his sons. All throughout the Old Testament, when the priest died, his sons became priests in his place. Even when Aaron died, the position of High Priest was given to his son Eleazar. (Numbers 20:23-28)

    (d)    It makes no sense that this would be an oversight by Jesus when Moses was not even a priest; he only acted the role as an example to Aaron as to what he and his descendants were to do. Not to mention the fact that ‘stuttering’ would not be a ‘blemish’ that would ‘disqualify’ someone from the priesthood. That is in no way related to any of the conditions God listed in Leviticus chapter twenty one.

    2.       That was not a quote in me seeing the truth but rather me pointing out the flaw in your logical reasoning, or lack thereof.

    (a)    For all the reasons I stated before, this is not what the text is implying at all. You are reading into it to come to a conclusion that no Jew would have come to reading this.

    (b)    If you want to know how the Jews, to whom this command was given, understood this passage, read this article and you will see their mindset behind it. Vayikra - Leviticus - Chapter 21 (Parshah Emor) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible (chabad.org)

    3.       God repeats Himself all the time. In Genesis 41:32, Joseph even says that if God states something twice, you can know for sure that it has been firmly decided by God. Read your New Testament and you will read Jesus repeating Himself over and over again. Paul repeats himself and even explains why he does so. Repetition is God’s way of getting it into our heads either His commandments or important things we must remember. Making an argument from, “He repeated himself” is no argument at all.

    4.       Women were not allowed to be priests in general which you would understand if you knew your Bible.

    Regarding your second post:

    I did not cherry-pick anything you said because I presented it in its full context. I did not make you say something you did not. I didn’t mention Luke 4:4 because you didn’t take it out of context. I addressed Revelation 22:18-19 because you did take it out of context. UNDERSTOOD?

     

    Regarding your third post:

    The book of Revelation is largely symbolic. You need to understand imagery and what these different ‘strange horrifying creatures’ resemble in how they are used throughout the Bible, especially the book of Daniel. Now, yes Jesus will destroy all who reject Him when He returns and that in no way takes away from the fact that He is loving and merciful. He has given everybody on Earth the chance in their lifetime to cry out to Him and it is nobody’s fault but their own if they do not. God is not just a graceful God. He is a God of wrath, of vengeance on those who will reject Him and spit in His face, much like you seem to enjoy doing so much. He is gentle, loving and merciful, but He is also a just God who will punish and destroy those who rise against Him. No one can claim God unjustly punished them for God is (a) their creator and (b) only gives them what they deserve by rejecting His call. I am not afraid to tell you that at all. Those who reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior will go to hell. I accept it because God says it very clearly, both in those passages you provided and in many other places in Scripture.

     

    Thank you for the debate, 21 Century Iconoclast. I enjoyed the discussion, even if it was a bit unpleasant at times. I hope you will at the very least consider what I am saying.

    Thanks and God bless.

    Cat
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @21CenturyIconoclast
    Barnardot, you will certainly pay upon Jesus' Judgment Day when you will experience HIs revenge upon you in NOT following His inspired words within the scriptures, praise Jesus' revenge upon the Bible inept pseudo-christians like you!

    Well I didn’t know that and I don’t remember reading that that would happen if I don’t do every thing that Jesus says so I guess that since your the big boss man you must know that that is what will happen So it makes sents really because I have to do every thing and believe every thing tat you say so it must be true and I must do what you say o holly master big boss man.

    Cat
  • @ProudToBeCatholic

    ProudToBeCatholic, whose mantra is; "Do not cherry-pick biblical passages, even though they are inspired by Jesus, that totally embarrasses me and my primitive thinking Bronze and Iron Age Catholic Religion,”


    YOUR BIBLE AND IGNORANT QUOTE: “Moses could not offer the bread of his God because he was not a priest.”

    WRONG! Are you calling Jesus’ inspired words forthwith as a LIE, in where He specifically states Moses was a priest: “Moses and Aaron were among his priests, Samuel was among those who called on his name; they called on the Lord and he answered them.” (Psalm 99:6)

    Therefore, Moses, the number 1 representative of Jesus as God,  COULD NOT enter the Temple under the guise of Leviticus 21:16-17 and give food to the serial killer Jesus, GET IT?!  

    I suggest that you continue your Bible studies so you won’t get caught again in being Bible in front of the membership.



    YOUR QUOTE: You are presenting the fallacy that every Levite was a priest” 

    You are correct, my bad. :(

    BUT, I can understand that you have to “try” and counter an embarrassing situation relating to Leviticus 21:16-23 that applies to all subsequent churches to this day. Whereas, you are having a hard time in accepting that when Jesus’ inspired words specifically state; “NO MAN,” that is defined as no person, nobody, which therefore specifically states is the rest of men that are not Aaron’s decendants, whether being priestly or not, are not to enter the Temple with defects!  If it was good enough for Jesus to not allow defects from Aaron’s decendants, then logically, non decendants of Aaron’s are not permitted to have defects in general to enter Jesus’ Temples today as well!

    This passage stands alone: “NO MAN who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed;  NO MAN with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles.” (Leviticus 21:18-20)


    Seriously, you have to laugh at the above Levitical passages because of the biblical axiom that Jesus, as God, made defects upon his creation in the first place, and then denied them access to His Temples, what a SOB Jesus was!!! LOL!

    “Who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?” (Exodus.4:11)  Yes Lord Jesus, you did!

    "As it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.” (Romans 11:8)



    YOUR QUOTE IN ADMITTING THAT YOUR SERIAL KILLER JESUS REPEATS HIMSELF, WHICH IS WEAKNESS: “God repeats Himself all the time.”

    He is God for Christ’s sake (no pun intended), therefore His creation will take his first utterance to a topic at hand as the word of God, whereas it is weak if He has to repeat himself because as the passage below states, He will NOT change his mind in the first place, GET IT?!

    God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Numbers 23:19)


    .

    CatProudToBeCatholic
  • @ProudToBeCatholic

    ProudToBeCatholic, whose mantra is; "Do not cherry-pick biblical passages, even though they are inspired by Jesus, that totally embarrasses me and my primitive thinking Bronze and Iron Age Catholic Religion,”


    YOUR CONTRADICTING QUOTE REGARDING THE BOOK OF REVELATION AND JESUS’ 2ND COMING: “The book of Revelation is largely symbolic. You need to understand imagery and what these different ‘strange horrifying creatures’ resemble in how they are used throughout the Bible, especially the book of Daniel. Now, yes Jesus will destroy all who reject Him when He returns and that in no way takes away from the fact that He is loving and merciful.“

    The ONLY thing that anyone needs to understand is that Jesus’ inspired words have shown Him returning to earth with horrific creatures that He as God obviously produced, to brutally murder a part of his creation, period!  

    Furthermore, you step out of logical reasoning when you have the audacity to accept that Jesus as a brutal, bloody, abhorred, sickening serial killer as shown throughout the Bible, then you say He is also loving and merciful which is the true definition of this situation in being OXYMORONIC!  Understood irrational thinking Hell Bound Catholic?!


    YOUR QUOTE RELATING TO THE 2ND CLASS WOMEN AS JESUS HAS SHOWN THROUGHOUT THE BIBLE: “Women were not allowed to be priests in general which you would understand if you knew your Bible.”

    Yes, I understood this biblical axiom, furthermore, the irony is that women couldn’t speak in church in the first place in being biblically 2nd class to the superior man: "The women should keep silent in the churchesFor they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

    Question, in your primitive Catholic Church, do you follow Jesus’ inspired words in the passage above and make  women STFU in church?



    YOUR QUOTE AGREEING IN LUKE 4:4: “I didn’t mention Luke 4:4 because you didn’t take it out of context”

    How refreshing in you agreeing with Luke 4:4, thus in following this Lukan passage, and with just only one example so as not to make you too embarrassed about your faith, I present this combination:

    JESUS’ INSPIRED WORDS STATE: ”Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou BEATEST him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt BEAT HIM with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs.23:13-14)

    "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God.” (Luke 4:4) 

    Since Jesus in Luke 4:4 says you are to BEAT a child with a rod that has gotten out of line, and you are to live by EVERY WORD of God, have you ever had to perform this godly act?  And if not, in seeing a child that needs a beating with a rod, why didn't you beat them as Jesus commanded you to do? 



    YOUR QUOTE IN HOPEFULLY NOT RUNNING AWAY FROM ME WITH FURTHER DISCUSSION UPON THE HORIZON, YES?: “Thank you for the debate, 21 Century Iconoclast. I enjoyed the discussion, even if it was a bit unpleasant at times. I hope you will at the very least consider what I am saying.”

    Yes, I as well REALLY enjoyed our discussion, whereas I hope that you wlll not RUN AWAY from my refutations within this post.

    As you stated before, I look forward to you initiating a thread where I will most certainly be there to challenge your primitive Bronze and Iron Age thinking Catholic faith!  What will be your first topic, and when will you post it, waiting anxiously!

    .

    CatProudToBeCatholic
  • @Barnardot

    YOUR PATHETIC QUOTE IN NOT FOLLOWING JESUS' DIRECT WORDS IN THE BIBLE: "Well I didn’t know that and I don’t remember reading that that would happen if I don’t do every thing that Jesus says so I guess that since your the big boss man you must know that that is what will happen So it makes sents really because I have to do every thing and believe every thing tat you say so it must be true and I must do what you say o holly master big boss man."

    Like I have said before in presenting the direct words of Jesus as god, in that you are to follow ALL, I repeat, ALL of his commands! 
    He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” (Luke 11:28)

    You will know when your life upon earth will be short-lived, is when you start smelling sulfur, as shown below where you are destined for HELL upon your demise because you do not follow Jesus' doctrine:  “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,” (Hebrews 10:26) 

    .

    Cat
  • @21CenturyIconoclast

    21 Century Iconoclast,

    You actually bring up a good point and this is actually a very logical conclusion you came to here. However, you need to dig a little deeper into this verse. The Hebrew word used for the priesthood throughout the Old Testament is “Kohen”. This word means literally, ‘a member of the priestly class’. However, the Hebrew word used in Psalm 99:6 is ‘Kohanav’ which means ‘one who is chosen to serve in a public position’. Now, as I stated before, Moses did indeed ‘act’ as high priest for a little while in order to demonstrate to Aaron his duties but he was never an official high priest. There were ceremonies that needed to be done in order to establish someone as priest, but Moses did not undergo these ceremonies and was thus not a ‘true’ priest. Once again, look at Jewish history and how they understand this verse and you will know exactly how it is to be taken. The Bible is Jewish and the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, as Paul says in Romans 3:2. These commands were given to the Jews so you need to approach the Scripture with a Jewish mindset. Also keep in mind that there was both a magisterial and a universal priesthood in the Old Testament, just as there is in the new. God told the entire nation of Israel, “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” (Exodus 19:6) The entire nation of Israel was a universal priesthood of believers, and the descendants of Aaron were the magisterial priesthood. In Catholic churches today, as well as some other denominations, the same thing exists. All Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5-9) But there is also a magisterial priesthood just as there was in the Old Testament. Without getting into it too much, Christ gave the apostles and their successors the power to ‘bind and loose’ and to ‘forgive sins’ (Matthew 18:18; John 20:23) So I was not at all incorrect in stating Moses was not a priest in the sense of the magisterial priesthood, the ones who would enter the temple. However, concerning the universal priesthood of all Jews, Moses was indeed a priest. This is an easy and completely understandable mistake to make, but it is important to distinguish between the universal and magisterial priesthood in the Old Testament.

    Here is a commentary on the verse that may help you understand it a little better and provide a similar perspective to the one I gave. This is from Coffman’s commentary on the Bible: “Moses and Aaron among his priests. Moses, though not called a priest in the Pentateuch, performed many priestly acts, such as sprinkling the blood of the covenant at Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:6-8), setting in order the tabernacle (Exodus 40:18-33), consecrating Aaron and his sons (Leviticus 8:6-30), interceding for the people (Exodus 32:30-32; Numbers 14:13-19), etc. He is therefore, not improperly, here included among God's priests. And Samuel among them that call upon his Name. Samuel was not a priest, but a simple Levite (1 Chronicles 6:16-28). He was, however, a powerful intercessor with God, a righteous man whose effectual fervent prayer availed much. He is united with Moses by Jeremiah, as having weight with God through his prayers (Jeremiah 15:1; see also 1 Samuel 12:19-22). They called upon the Lord, and he answered them (see Deuteronomy 11:19; Deuteronomy 10:10; 1 Samuel 12:17, etc.).”

     

    In conclusion, I argue that Psalm 99:6, basing my argument on (a) Jewish history, (b) the Hebrew words and their meanings and (c) the difference between the magisterial and universal priesthoods, is speaking of (1.) the priestly duties he performed in establishing the priesthood and instructing Aaron and (2.) the fact that he was a member of the universal priesthood of all Jews.

     

    Your quote: He is God for Christ’s sake (no pun intended), therefore His creation will take his first utterance to a topic at hand as the word of God, whereas it is weak…

    Repeating yourself does not illustrate weakness. Rather it enforces the message the speaker is attempting to convey. Paul repeated himself by saying ‘Rejoice in the Lord always and again I say rejoice’ and said it was so they would remember what he was saying (Phil. 3:1). He also repeated himself in 2 Corinthians 11:16. Jesus asked Peter the same question three times and it was to get to the heart of the matter, which was actually quite effective (John 21:15-17). God repeats Himself, not for His sake, but for ours. Take into consideration your parents. When you were a child they no doubt repeated themselves over and over again. Does that show weakness because they said the same thing more than once? No, not at all. They are repeating themselves to make sure you remember what they are saying. Repetition in no way shows weakness and it is illogical to claim it does. Paul even said that it was no trouble for him to say the same things again (Phil. 3:1). That wasn’t weakness in any way. It is because we are prone to forget or cast aside commands given to us and for that reason, the Lord and even us human beings repeat ourselves.


    Cat
  • @21CenturyIconoclast

    21 Century Iconoclast,

     

    I apologize that this post is so long, but you asked me a few questions in your reply and I tried to answer them as concisely as possible. I hope you will be patient in reading over this response I have provided.

     

    Your Post: The ONLY thing that anyone needs to understand is that Jesus’ inspired words have shown Him returning to earth with horrific creatures that He as God obviously produced, to brutally murder a part of his creation, period!

     

    No, it is important to understand what these creatures represent as well, as that will provide a clear picture of what is going to happen in the future. But yes, the most important thing to get from the passage is that Jesus Christ will return and destroy all His enemies gathered on the great day of Armageddon, with the sword of His mouth, and will throw them into the lake of fire, where they will be forever in torment.

    It is not in any way stepping out of logical reasoning for me to say that Christ is both just and merciful. Remember (A)We are the ones who rejected God and even crucified Christ. We are rotten miserable sinners who deserve hell.(We are wicked) (B)Jesus came to Earth as a man and died for the sins of everybody (mercy) (C) He extends the offer of salvation to anyone who is willing to receive it, no matter who they may be (mercy) (D) We have a choice; to accept or reject the salvation offered to us.(Free will) (E) If reject the free gift, it is nobody’s fault but our own, for it is available to all people (Free will). (F) Those who reject Christ, refuse to accept His free gift, and live lives hostile to Him will be punished, for God is our creator and we are required to follow Him. (Justice) (G) Anybody who goes to hell goes there of their volition, for it is exactly what every human being deserves. (Justice)

    That is perfectly logical, just as you have the free will choice to obey or disobey a police officer and thus either live a life at peace with the law or live with whatever penalty fits the crime you commit. God created the laws we are to follow and if we reject and live a life of disobedience to Him and His laws, He has told us the penalty. It is up to us if we will accept the perfect sacrifice of Christ or accept an eternity in hell.

     

    Your post: Yes, I understood this biblical axiom, furthermore, the irony is that women couldn’t speak in church in the first place in being biblically 2nd class to the superior man:…

     

    This passage is relative to teaching. Women are not to teach in the church. If the verse were truly saying women can’t even say a word in church, Paul would be contradicting himself when he states in 1 Corinthians 11:5 that a woman can pray and prophesy in the context of Christian worship i.e. a church service. There is a parallel passage to this that makes it more clear what St. Paul is saying. In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul says: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet”. Paul is prohibiting women in pastoral positions or any other ministry-related position that would give them authority over a man. Also, relative to the passage you provided in 1 Cor 14, he commands the women to speak to their husbands and not approach the pastor with their questions, for ‘If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home.” This is the way this passage has always been understood and although some Christians try and discount this verse, acting as though it is merely cultural and doesn’t apply today, that is not what the verse implies. As you always quote, “Man shall not live on bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” This verse does indeed apply today, and the Catholic church does not permit women to read homilies in the church, be priests, or have any other ministry role that would put them in authority over a man.(Paragraph 1577 of the CCC: The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.”) But does this make women second class citizens? Not at all. Paul says there is no difference between male or female in Christ, meaning they are equal. (Galatians 3:28) There are however distinct roles. Women are to be under the authority of the husband, but the husband is under the authority of Christ. (1 Cor. 11:3) There are things men can do that women are not to do and there are things women can do that men are not to do. They are equal, but with distinct roles. Because speaking in church is an authoritative position in Christian worship, it is reserved for men, for they are to be the ones in authority, as Christ Himself is in authority over the entire church.

     

    Your post: How refreshing in you agreeing with Luke 4:4, thus in following this Lukan passage…

     

    This post is getting a bit long but you have asked me quite a few questions and I am doing my best to answer them all as concisely as I possibly can.

    Now, a couple of points. (A) This verse in question is speaking of parents punishing their own children. It is not saying you are to go and start beating every child you see who is out of line. (B) The word beat in Hebrew means ‘to strike’ or ‘punish’ with the rod. In fact, many translations of the Scriptures do translate them as either of those two words. (C) The word rod means ‘a staff’ or ‘stick’ and can be taken to mean something with which to strike. (D) Notice it says if you ‘beat’ him with the rod, he will not die. This is implying boundaries. Solomon was not in saying if you ‘beat’ him he won’t die when someone could very well die from being ‘beaten’; he is, on the contrary, implying that you should be careful when ‘beating’ your child with the rod so he will not die. God does not want us to cause serious bodily harm to our children, but rather says we are to correct them firmly but gently. Solomon did indeed say to spank, ‘beat’, strike, whatever word you want to use, our children with the rod when they are disobedient but when coupled with the rest of Scripture we see that we are not to go overboard and into the realm of child abuse. (Proverbs 19:18; Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:21; Titus 2:4). We are to love our children and the reason we are to spank, strike, or ‘beat’ them is to correct them, not to cause bodily harm. (Proverbs 13:24; Proverbs 22:15; Proverbs 22:6) This is a very sensitive topic, even among Christians, but if I take the Scripture at face value, for what it says, we are to discipline our children with the rod of correction. Growing up, this was the way I was punished, and it is a form of legitimate discipline, as defined by Scripture itself.

     

    Your post: Yes, I as well REALLY enjoyed our discussion, whereas I hope that you wlll not RUN AWAY from my refutations within this post.

    I am not running away from your ‘refutations’ but I can see that this conversation is going nowhere and for that reason decided to move on to another topic. We both provided our views and I believe I very clearly refuted YOUR posts and that you are searching for anything you can possibly use to justify your standpoint on this issue now that I have shown the error in many of your points.

    I will post my first topic shortly, so keep an eye out for it. Understand I am currently in college and have been turning in late assignments just so I can debate you so if I take a week or so to post my topic, that is why.


  • Argument Topic: Response to Second Post

    @21CenturyIconoclast

    21 Century Iconoclast,

     

    I apologize that this post is long, but you asked me a few questions in your reply and I tried to answer them as concisely as possible. I hope you will be patient in reading over this response I have provided.

     

    Your Post: The ONLY thing that anyone needs to understand is that Jesus’ inspired words have shown Him returning to earth with horrific creatures that He as God obviously produced, to brutally murder a part of his creation, period!

     

    No, it is important to understand what these creatures represent as well, as that will provide a clear picture of what is going to happen in the future. But yes, the most important thing to get from the passage is that Jesus Christ will return and destroy all His enemies gathered on the great day of Armageddon, with the sword of His mouth, and will throw them into the lake of fire, where they will be forever in torment.

    It is not in any way stepping out of logical reasoning for me to say that Christ is both just and merciful. Remember (A)We are the ones who rejected God and even crucified Christ. We are rotten miserable sinners who deserve hell.(We are wicked) (B)Jesus came to Earth as a man and died for the sins of everybody (mercy) (C) He extends the offer of salvation to anyone who is willing to receive it, no matter who they may be (mercy) (D) We have a choice; to accept or reject the salvation offered to us.(Free will) (E) If reject the free gift, it is nobody’s fault but our own, for it is available to all people (Free will). (F) Those who reject Christ, refuse to accept His free gift, and live lives hostile to Him will be punished, for God is our creator and we are required to follow Him. (Justice) (G) Anybody who goes to hell goes there of their volition, for it is exactly what every human being deserves. (Justice)

    That is perfectly logical, just as you have the free will choice to obey or disobey a police officer and thus either live a life at peace with the law or live with whatever penalty fits the crime you commit. God created the laws we are to follow and if we reject and live a life of disobedience to Him and His laws, He has told us the penalty. It is up to us if we will accept the perfect sacrifice of Christ or accept an eternity in hell.

     

    Your post: Yes, I understood this biblical axiom, furthermore, the irony is that women couldn’t speak in church in the first place in being biblically 2nd class to the superior man:…

     

    This passage is relative to teaching. Women are not to teach in the church. If the verse were truly saying women can’t even say a word in church, Paul would be contradicting himself when he states in 1 Corinthians 11:5 that a woman can pray and prophesy in the context of Christian worship i.e. a church service. There is a parallel passage to this that makes it more clear what St. Paul is saying. In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul says: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet”. Paul is prohibiting women in pastoral positions or any other ministry-related position that would give them authority over a man. Also, relative to the passage you provided in 1 Cor 14, he commands the women to speak to their husbands and not approach the pastor with their questions, for ‘If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home.” This is the way this passage has always been understood and although some Christians try and discount this verse, acting as though it is merely cultural and doesn’t apply today, that is not what the verse implies. As you always quote, “Man shall not live on bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” This verse does indeed apply today, and the Catholic church does not permit women to read homilies in the church, be priests, or have any other ministry role that would put them in authority over a man.(Paragraph 1577 of the CCC: The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.”) But does this make women second class citizens? Not at all. Paul says there is no difference between male or female in Christ, meaning they are equal. (Galatians 3:28) There are however distinct roles. Women are to be under the authority of the husband, but the husband is under the authority of Christ. (1 Cor. 11:3) There are things men can do that women are not to do and there are things women can do that men are not to do. They are equal, but with distinct roles. Because speaking in church is an authoritative position in Christian worship, it is reserved for men, for they are to be the ones in authority, as Christ Himself is in authority over the entire church.

     

    Your post: How refreshing in you agreeing with Luke 4:4, thus in following this Lukan passage…

     

    This post is getting a bit long but you have asked me quite a few questions and I am doing my best to answer them all as concisely as I possibly can.

    Now, a couple of points. (A) This verse in question is speaking of parents punishing their own children. It is not saying you are to go and start beating every child you see who is out of line. (B) The word beat in Hebrew means ‘to strike’ or ‘punish’ with the rod. In fact, many translations of the Scriptures do translate them as either of those two words. (C) The word rod means ‘a staff’ or ‘stick’ and can be taken to mean something with which to strike. (D) Notice it says if you ‘beat’ him with the rod, he will not die. This is implying boundaries. Solomon was not in saying if you ‘beat’ him he won’t die when someone could very well die from being ‘beaten’; he is, on the contrary, implying that you should be careful when ‘beating’ your child with the rod so he will not die. God does not want us to cause serious bodily harm to our children, but rather says we are to correct them firmly but gently. Solomon did indeed say to spank, ‘beat’, strike, whatever word you want to use, our children with the rod when they are disobedient but when coupled with the rest of Scripture we see that we are not to go overboard and into the realm of child abuse. (Proverbs 19:18; Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:21; Titus 2:4). We are to love our children and the reason we are to spank, strike, or ‘beat’ them is to correct them, not to cause bodily harm. (Proverbs 13:24; Proverbs 22:15; Proverbs 22:6) This is a very sensitive topic, even among Christians, but if I take the Scripture at face value, for what it says, we are to discipline our children with the rod of correction. Growing up, this was the way I was punished, and it is a form of legitimate discipline, as defined by Scripture itself.

     

    Your post: Yes, I as well REALLY enjoyed our discussion, whereas I hope that you wlll not RUN AWAY from my refutations within this post.

    I am not running away from your ‘refutations’ but I can see that this conversation is going nowhere and for that reason decided to move on to another topic. We both provided our views and I believe I very clearly refuted YOUR posts and that you are searching for anything you can possibly use to justify your standpoint on this issue now that I have shown the error in many of your points.

    I will post my first topic shortly, so keep an eye out for it. Understand I am currently in college and have been turning in late assignments just so I can debate you so if I take a week or so to post my topic, that is why

    Cat
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @21CenturyIconoclast ;that you are to follow ALL, I repeat, ALL of his commands! 

    And as I gently told you before but not so genitly now you can go follow ALL I repeat ALL your doodoo s in your behind but you’ll do a lot better if you pull your head out of it one day and stop dictating what other people should do.

    Cat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch