Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
The excuse of every cult follower in history, who, following someone he perceives to have "Royal Blood", a superior intellect,  to have risen to power miraculously, blindly and faithfully follows orders.

This is not to say you are wrong (until you are ordered to do something objectively evil like rat out your jewish, gpysy, mentally handicapped neighbour), but the justification of I'm not capable is hard to distinguish from the thought process of a cult follower.

It seems to me that WHEN anyone would quit, given the Church continues on its current trajectory and becomes less and less credible, IS subjective and firmly on the individual to decide.   Given the weight of evidence.  For some it would be a new new mass with inclusive language and an apology for slavery, capitalism and the crusades included in the liturgh as a weekly mea cupla.

You don't have to be capable of telling God how to do his job.  You simply need to be able to look at contradictions in good conscience and rationalise that no just God is going to ask you to pretend something is his will when all of your rational senses tell you they are in opposition to His will 500, 1000, 1500 years ago.

Such a mercurial and capricious God who would expect you to disbelieve your lying eyes and rational brain would not be so good and deserving of your love, which lies at the very root of your faith.  The cornerstone of any justifiable judgement must be what you do know, not what you don't know.
12
Quote
Is this just a bunch of hype someone made up for his canonization or something?

Note I am a big critic of Pope St. John Paul II, The Great, Witch Doctor of the Church, Patron of Islam(TM), but give the guy his due.  Yes he participated in pagan rituals, wrote heresy, and protected pedophiles.  All true.  But he did work with Reagan, Thatcher, West Germany, and Solidarity to bring down the Soviet Union.  Though he didn't do it on his own.

I suspect part of it was that he was a Pole, and they really hate Russians.  He also wasn't a commie, though he seemed to lean left.  So give him his due.  For example, he ordered his plane to land in Poland when the commie government denied him landing rights.  So they had to shoot down the Pope's plane, or let him land.  Give him some credit on that.
13
It is an absurdity that he is a saint given his teachings and behavior as Pope.

If they declared Mick Jagger a saint would you say that was OK too?

'Declaring, that they are to be venerated'.  That is not flowery language.  Not optional.  And not language it is in any way just to use about an educated guess.


Well despite all that, that's what they do and I never said it was, "okay." I'm not okay with thousands of things that I can't change. I'm also not going to waste time fuming over it.  I'm not "okay" wearing a mask for the Covid fraud.  But I accept it so I can go into the store and buy the things I need to buy. 

I simply see canonization for what it is: fallible men in the fallible part of the Church doing things that are not infallible.  It seems to be a part of human nature to be given an inch and try to take a mile.  The same is true for the Divine protections given to the Church.  The men in power want more, the faithful want more guarantees to make up for a lack of faith.  God gives a Ferrari and the next day man has "pimped it out" since it wasn't good enough.  It has fuzzy dice, a chain link steering wheel, pink shag carpeting and has been jacked up in the back with purple lights on spinning rims and a flame thrower has been added to the tail pipe. "Look at what God has given us!" And the people cheer. 

And the fact is, it is merely an honor roll and they do use flowery language to puff it up and make it look dogmatic.  But it's not dogma. That's just reality.  I don't have time to take every flowery pronouncement literally.  There are so many canonized saints at this point that people can't even name much less "venerate" each on an individual level.  So it's meaningless, flowery language. To take it as a serious command is simply not feasible and can't have force in law and Justice.  Add to that the saints that were never canonized but simply made saints by proclamation and you have a nightmare.  Add the deathbed conversions with Baptisms and you have St. Dutch Schultz the gangster.  He's not a saint on paper but probably a saint in Heaven conversing with St. Dismas about last minute saves. 
 

The day someone can explain to me how Heaven has indisputably communicated how someone in the Post Apostolic era has passed through the judgement seat of God and at the same time logically tell me that Public Divine Revelation is still closed I'll eat my hat. 


As Bellarmine stated, absolutely certainty is impossible in this life.  I buy into that.  Some Pope canonizes someone.  It used to be a big deal.  It's not anymore.  It was never an infallible function and it never occurred until the Church was over a thousand years old. People who say otherwise simply haven't thought it through. This was because lay-people and local churches were canonizing willy nilly without a good inspection.  Now that same problem is in Rome.  Maybe Rome will put a stop to the saint factory when a good Pope gets in there and wants to clean things up.  That's only if he's willing to show the warts of Rome over history and wants to see who is still hanging around after the illusions of man are torn down.  Most Popes seem to want to only paper over the errors of their predecessors.  Take the best, forget the rest. 

Is John Paul II really in Heaven?  Who knows? Nobody on this side. Maybe he is. Or, he might be in Hell for lack of final perseverance and Mick Jagger might wind up in Heaven with a deathbed conversion and a perfect act of contrition and faith.  Do I think it's going to happen?  No, probably not.  Is it impossible?  I hope not. 

In either case, we aren't going to be told on this side of life. 

In the end, it doesn't matter to me that much.  God's thoughts are not as ours, His "fair" is not our "fair" His Justice is not our "justice" same with His mercy and His love.  Do I really think I'm going to sort out exactly why He allows the horror shows on all levels of existence  to occur that He does even in his own Church? No, the power imbalance is simply too much. He is too inscrutable and I'm too human.  I'm not capable of telling Him how to do His job. 
14

Quote
Enough said.

Note I'm pro-union and pro-tariff, however you leave out some things.  First is the creation of the Great Society, Social Security, and Medicare, which bankrupted this country, along with the foreign wars.  None of that is capitalism, and in fact is closer to the Soviet system, which is why we got off the gold system (which is when we literally went bankrupt) and started printing money.  This caused inflation, so you ship production to slave labor countries to try to keep prices down.  It works until it doesn't, which is today.  And the unions had turned into mafia run criminal enterprises which also hurt things.

So while I'm a big fan of tariffs, you can't really use them when you have a big bankrupt welfare State.  If you have a small custodial State and let the Church take care of relief, tariffs make a lot of sense.
15


I always told you all the 501(c)3 charitable tax exemption meant the Church was nothing more than an NGO.

The Church, for all appearances, seems to no longer be visible.

Diocesan Catholicism is no different to the Chinese Patriotic Church
16
Communism doesnít work, so the edifice was going to come down eventually.  And itís not as if the Soviet Union in the late Ď70s was a flowering utopia.  They were already in decline before John Paul II came on the scene in Ď78.  Look up the Brezhnev era.  Itís literally called the time of stagnation.

The Soviets were also spending a ton of money on the military in the arms race with America, which further sapped their limited resources.

True.  But we in the U.S. also had something called 'Stagflation' at the exact same time.  As a matter of fact, during this time the G-7 started making their moves that sent textile mills from New England and West Germany to places like India and Pakistan.  Capitalism was also in decline simultaneously.  And that should not surprise anyone as the two systems always did work hand in glove.  The auto industry in the U.S. was also sacrificed to Japan during the era of Stagflation.  It used to be a real head scratcher to me when they handed over our auto industry to the people we had defeated just 30 years before.

The above developments are nothing short of desperate moves to keep the Ponzi scheme going.  And of course the objectives were typically American.  Just make sure that next quarter's earnings don't drop below the earnings the CEO's predecessor had during the same time in the prior year.

Enough said.   
This is one of the obvious downsides (from the perspective of the American working class) of free trade policies.  Without protective measures, youíre asking American workers to compete against men in the third world being payed a minuscule fraction of the American wage.

Good luck keeping industry in the West with that policy!
17
Communism doesnít work, so the edifice was going to come down eventually.  And itís not as if the Soviet Union in the late Ď70s was a flowering utopia.  They were already in decline before John Paul II came on the scene in Ď78.  Look up the Brezhnev era.  Itís literally called the time of stagnation.

The Soviets were also spending a ton of money on the military in the arms race with America, which further sapped their limited resources.

True.  But we in the U.S. also had something called 'Stagflation' at the exact same time.  As a matter of fact, during this time the G-7 started making their moves that sent textile mills from New England and West Germany to places like India and Pakistan.  Capitalism was also in decline simultaneously.  And that should not surprise anyone as the two systems always did work hand in glove.  The auto industry in the U.S. was also sacrificed to Japan during the era of Stagflation.  It used to be a real head scratcher to me when they handed over our auto industry to the people we had defeated just 30 years before.

The above developments are nothing short of desperate moves to keep the Ponzi scheme going.  And of course the objectives were typically American.  Just make sure that next quarter's earnings don't drop below the earnings the CEO's predecessor had during the same time in the prior year.

Enough said.   
18
The Geek Forum / Re: Is there a free way to remove the DRM from Audible books?
« Last post by Daniel on July 11, 2020, 08:50:26 PM »
I'm tempted to just ignore the Conditions and do it anyway. But I think that might constitute lying. (Clicking "I agree" when I don't actually agree...) I don't know. Guess I'll hold off on it for now.
19
Communism doesnít work, so the edifice was going to come down eventually.  And itís not as if the Soviet Union in the late Ď70s was a flowering utopia.  They were already in decline before John Paul II came on the scene in Ď78.  Look up the Brezhnev era.  Itís literally called the time of stagnation.

The Soviets were also spending a ton of money on the military in the arms race with America, which further sapped their limited resources.
20
General Catholic Discussion / Re: John Paul II and "taking down" the Soviet Union
« Last post by Amos on July 11, 2020, 07:34:24 PM »
Yes, that's exactly the kind of stuff I read. There's no substance to it and proves nothing, it's very bizarre.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10