Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Racism as a Sin?
« Last post by mikemac on July 07, 2020, 03:40:33 PM »
Back in 1995 and 96 real estate agents here in Canada were warning people to buy real now before Hong Kong goes back to China in 1997, because as the real estate agents put, there will be millions coming to Canada from Hong Kong who will be fleeing the communism of China.  In 1997 the exact opposite happened, more left Canada for Hong Kong.  Since then it is Hong Kong Canadians, 300,000 of them that are living in Hong Kong that have kept Canadian real estate prices way too high, particularly in Vancouver and Toronto and the surrounding areas.

I'm not sure that's true. Some came over for a few years and then when they realised HK wasn't being ruined went back (happened to my HK friends friends) but now HK is being ruined I would guess most would move away from HK and at least a few (including my friend) will be coming to Canada.

Well that proves my point.  There were a lot of immigrants from Hong Kong to Canada in the years before 1997, but a lot went back.  That explains why there are 300,000 Chinese Canadians living in Hong Kong right now.  A lot of them bought real estate in Canada with laundered money so yeah I wouldn't doubt a lot of the Chinese will be moving back to Canada from Hong Kong, seeing China will be able to extradite them from Hong Kong to the Chinese mainland.  You know, that's the main reason why the Chinese in Hong Kong are protesting, because China wants to be able to extradite "Chinese" people from Hong Kong. 
92
General Catholic Discussion / AGT host Terry Crews attacked by left
« Last post by TradGranny on July 07, 2020, 03:25:35 PM »
“America’s Got Talent” host Terry Crews is defying the liberal entertainment industry to slam presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, doubling down on his previous warning against “black supremacy.”

While appearing on the CBS talk show “The Talk” on Tuesday, Crews fired back at Biden’s infamous comment when he said, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re voting for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

“The problem with that is, black people have different views,” Crews explained. “When you’re white, you can be Republican, Libertarian, Democrat. You can be anything. But if you’re black, you have to be one thing. Even Joe Biden said, ‘Hey man, if you don’t vote for me, you ain’t black.’”
More from LifeZette TV

The “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” star went on to warn against “gatekeepers” of blackness. “Blackness is always judged,” he said. “It’s always put up against this thing, and I’m going, ‘Wait a minute: That right there is a supremacist move. You have now put yourself above other black people.’”

“We have people who have decided who is going to be black and who’s not,” Crews continued. “And I simply —because I have a mixed-race wife [Rebecca King-Crews]— have been discounted from the conversation a lot of the time, by very, very militant movements, the Black power movement. I’ve been called all kinds of things —like an Uncle Tom— simply because I’m successful, simply because I’ve worked my way out of Flint, Michigan.”

Crews received heavy backlash from the Left earlier this month when he tweeted, “Defeating White supremacy without White people creates Black supremacy. Equality is the truth. Like it or not, we are all in this together.”

    Defeating White supremacy without White people creates Black supremacy. Equality is the truth.

    Like it or not, we are all in this together.

    — terry crews (@terrycrews) June 7, 2020

Despite the hate he has received for this tweet, Crews stood by it. “I can’t really regret it, because I really want the dialogue to come out,” Crews explained. “Maybe there’s another term that might be better — either ‘separatist’ or ‘elitist’ or something like that.”

“But the thing is, I’ve experienced supremacy even growing up,” he added. “I’ve had black people tell me that the white man is the devil. I’ve experienced whole organizations that…because of the suffering of black people, they have decided that now, we are not equal, we’re better. And I think that’s a mistake.”

Crews concluded by pointing out that supremacy in any form is a “spiritual problem,” explaining, “In your head, you can look at yourself and you can develop a dangerous self-righteousness that could really hurt what we’re trying to do right now. We have to include this white voice, this Hispanic voice, this Asian voice. We have to include it right now, because if we don’t, it’s going to slip into something we are really not prepared for.”
93
Traditional Catholic Discussion / Re: A Twisting of the Ten Commandments
« Last post by St.Justin on July 07, 2020, 03:24:21 PM »
They are from the top down. God First, family then neighbor. Did you ever hear of Onan's sin?

Yes, I am aware of onanism/the sin of Onan.  What is your point?  It is strictly a conjugal affair.  I presume you mention this because I cited Aquinas on masturbation and rape.

Are you going to argue that a husband is incapable of masturbating once married?  Are you going to argue that a husband is incapable of raping his spouse?  Michael Cohen, trumps old lawyer insists that spousal rape isn't real.  Do you agree with him? 

Are you going to argue that rape is not rape if the man's seed is spilled?  Are you going to argue that masturbation is not masturbation if one has no thought of another in mind?

Onanism seems to be a lukewarm manifestation/mixing of both masturbation and rape, yet it is neither strictly speaking.  And, we know what Our Lord says about lukewarmness.  It is a something, and that something is not normal or upright moral behavior for a husband.  But, it is not masturbation, and it is not rape.  As a result, it may be worse.  I cannot judge, for I am not God.  But, it doesn't tell us anything about masturbation or rape strictly speaking.

(Footnote in Denzinger/cited in Vermeersch) In 1916 a cardinal answered/declared in a theological work that a wife can participate in an interrupted copulation(onanism) under the threat of death or grave injury(subjective/ambiguous?) with her husband.  But, she may by no means do so, not even for the sake of avoiding death, in a sodomitic copulation. 

What does this tell us?  Well, I think that it tells us that there is an order to the gravity/prohibition.  A wife may not infallibly know that her husband is going to spill his seed at the beginning of intercourse, hence the allowance.  Sure, there may be a history of its occurrence, but that is not an infallible indicator.  But, if the husband has a history of doing so, she may not at all tolerate spousal sodomy during the intercourse.  This is from 1916, and as much as I do not like to fill in the blank, it is quite obvious at this time that the church was in the early stages of tolerating spousal sodomy so long as it does not end in onanism/"pollution".  Which, is abominable.  For, if these churchmen were opposed to it, all that would be simply required is an across the board prohibition of the practice. 

If this teaching on onanism has any bearing on Aquinas' teaching on masturbation/rape, it tells me that rape is worse than masturbation, because just as sodomy within the context of onanism is worse and therefore totally forbidden, because it involves another person(the wife), so rape is worse than masturbation, because masturbation only involve the self, to the exclusion of others.  Which, should be obvious to all, just as it should be obvious to all that missing church on Sunday no matter what reason is never worse or even comparable to mass murder.  It should be obvious.  It is obvious.

What the H@ll are you raving about. I was merely pointing out that birth control in the eyes of what the scriptures say is a very serious sin.

You are a troll if there ever was one.
Have a nice day
94
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Racism as a Sin?
« Last post by TradGranny on July 07, 2020, 03:23:08 PM »

Quote
This is not an example of him defending Communists.  It is an example of you mistaking what he is saying for defending Communists.  Thanks for showing that I'm right.

Please explain how attacking legitimate Hong Kong protesters (who have been deprived of their God-given rights by the Chinese Communists renigging on their agreement of 1997) is anything other than defending Communists?

Perhaps his parroting of the ChiCom party line is just a coincidence?

If you have evidence that Davis is not who he says he is, then report it to the admin.  These sorts of public accusations are unfair and inappropriate.

Look at his posts, which parrot the Communist Party line. The facts speak for themselves. Pointing out a fact is neither "unfair" nor "inappropriate."
95
Traditional Catholic Discussion / Re: A Twisting of the Ten Commandments
« Last post by Philip G. on July 07, 2020, 03:22:51 PM »
They are from the top down. God First, family then neighbor. Did you ever hear of Onan's sin?

Yes, I am aware of onanism/the sin of Onan.  What is your point?  It is strictly a conjugal affair.  I presume you mention this because I cited Aquinas on masturbation and rape.

Are you going to argue that a husband is incapable of masturbating once married?  Are you going to argue that a husband is incapable of raping his spouse?  Michael Cohen, trumps old lawyer insists that spousal rape isn't real.  Do you agree with him? 

Are you going to argue that rape is not rape if the man's seed is spilled?  Are you going to argue that masturbation is not masturbation if one has no thought of another in mind?

Onanism seems to be a lukewarm manifestation/mixing of both masturbation and rape, yet it is neither strictly speaking.  And, we know what Our Lord says about lukewarmness.  It is a something, and that something is not normal or upright moral behavior for a husband.  But, it is not masturbation, and it is not rape.  As a result, it may be worse.  I cannot judge, for I am not God.  But, it doesn't tell us anything about masturbation or rape strictly speaking.

(Footnote in Denzinger/cited in Vermeersch) In 1916 a cardinal answered/declared in a theological work that a wife can participate in an interrupted copulation(onanism) under the threat of death or grave injury(subjective/ambiguous?) with her husband.  But, she may by no means do so, not even for the sake of avoiding death, in a sodomitic copulation. 

What does this tell us?  Well, I think that it tells us that there is an order to the gravity/prohibition.  A wife may not infallibly know that her husband is going to spill his seed at the beginning of intercourse, hence the allowance.  Sure, there may be a history of its occurrence, but that is not an infallible indicator.  But, if the husband has a history of doing so, she may not at all tolerate spousal sodomy during the intercourse.  This is from 1916, and as much as I do not like to fill in the blank, it is quite obvious at this time that the church was in the early stages of tolerating spousal sodomy so long as it does not end in onanism/"pollution".  Which, is abominable.  For, if these churchmen were opposed to it, all that would be simply required is an across the board prohibition of the practice. 

If this teaching on onanism has any bearing on Aquinas' teaching on masturbation/rape, it tells me that rape is worse than masturbation, because just as sodomy within the context of onanism is worse and therefore totally forbidden, because it involves another person(the wife), so rape is worse than masturbation, because masturbation only involve the self, to the exclusion of others.  Which, should be obvious to all, just as it should be obvious to all that missing church on Sunday no matter what reason is never worse or even comparable to mass murder.  It should be obvious.  It is obvious.

What the H@ll are you raving about. I was merely pointing out that birth control in the eyes of what the scriptures say is a very serious sin.

You are a troll if there ever was one. 
96
Traditional Catholic Discussion / Re: A Twisting of the Ten Commandments
« Last post by St.Justin on July 07, 2020, 03:20:10 PM »
They are from the top down. God First, family then neighbor. Did you ever hear of Onan's sin?

Yes, I am aware of onanism/the sin of Onan.  What is your point?  It is strictly a conjugal affair.  I presume you mention this because I cited Aquinas on masturbation and rape.

Are you going to argue that a husband is incapable of masturbating once married?  Are you going to argue that a husband is incapable of raping his spouse?  Michael Cohen, trumps old lawyer insists that spousal rape isn't real.  Do you agree with him? 

Are you going to argue that rape is not rape if the man's seed is spilled?  Are you going to argue that masturbation is not masturbation if one has no thought of another in mind?

Onanism seems to be a lukewarm manifestation/mixing of both masturbation and rape, yet it is neither strictly speaking.  And, we know what Our Lord says about lukewarmness.  It is a something, and that something is not normal or upright moral behavior for a husband.  But, it is not masturbation, and it is not rape.  As a result, it may be worse.  I cannot judge, for I am not God.  But, it doesn't tell us anything about masturbation or rape strictly speaking.

(Footnote in Denzinger/cited in Vermeersch) In 1916 a cardinal answered/declared in a theological work that a wife can participate in an interrupted copulation(onanism) under the threat of death or grave injury(subjective/ambiguous?) with her husband.  But, she may by no means do so, not even for the sake of avoiding death, in a sodomitic copulation. 

What does this tell us?  Well, I think that it tells us that there is an order to the gravity/prohibition.  A wife may not infallibly know that her husband is going to spill his seed at the beginning of intercourse, hence the allowance.  Sure, there may be a history of its occurrence, but that is not an infallible indicator.  But, if the husband has a history of doing so, she may not at all tolerate spousal sodomy during the intercourse.  This is from 1916, and as much as I do not like to fill in the blank, it is quite obvious at this time that the church was in the early stages of tolerating spousal sodomy so long as it does not end in onanism/"pollution".  Which, is abominable.  For, if these churchmen were opposed to it, all that would be simply required is an across the board prohibition of the practice. 

If this teaching on onanism has any bearing on Aquinas' teaching on masturbation/rape, it tells me that rape is worse than masturbation, because just as sodomy within the context of onanism is worse and therefore totally forbidden, because it involves another person(the wife), so rape is worse than masturbation, because masturbation only involve the self, to the exclusion of others.  Which, should be obvious to all, just as it should be obvious to all that missing church on Sunday no matter what reason is never worse or even comparable to mass murder.  It should be obvious.  It is obvious.

What the H@ll are you raving about. I was merely pointing out that birth control in the eyes of what the scriptures say is a very serious sin. Onanism is a sin against God and Rape is a sin against man. Hugh difference

97
Traditional Catholic Discussion / Re: A Twisting of the Ten Commandments
« Last post by Philip G. on July 07, 2020, 03:19:23 PM »
What worries me more than the stupid shit some trads come out with sometimes is the mushy mind that can convince itself of such nonsense.

You can see how Nazis rounded up mentally handicapped people and exterminated them when they were able to be convinced of utterly stupid and evil ideas.  Somepeople love being dictated to and following orders.  Others love feeling self-righteous.

The bullshit at Fisheaters really alerted me to the mind numbing lack of wisdom and utter perversity of a large minority of forum members.

I don't think that the priest in the video is a type of mushy mind.  The priest in the video is a type of what was traditionally referred to as a labyrinthine mind.  Same beast, but a different animal.  The more recent mushy mind likely has the Jesuits for a foundation on which to construct their pillar.  Think of the Jesuit missions, they are mushy/swampy just like today's amazon.  The Jesuit mushy mind is drowned in the amazon swamp. 

Whereas the traditional labyrinthine mind has the fathers(greek?) of the church for a foundation on which to construct their pillar.  The Labyrinth is an elaborate structure to house/trap a monster at its center.  But, it is a vast structure.  Such thought processes functions to enslave those within to the ruling elite(the monster?) by granting the elite permanence and the rest confusion(confusion aka "missing mass on sunday is worse than murder").  For, the ruling elite is the focus of their missionary efforts. 

This phenomenon of the failed catholic mind is characterized by trying to convert this world's Lords and this worlds slaves.  The lord's are the ruling elite, and the slaves are the natives of the swamp.  The failed catholic mind has preferred the society of lords and slaves to the society of servants and friends.  What ever happened to "grace builds on nature"? 

And, yes, it is worse than a prophecy(a crazy trad theory) that does not turn out to be true.  I think it was St. Paul who said, "do not scorn prophecies". 
98
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Racism as a Sin?
« Last post by Jayne on July 07, 2020, 03:04:31 PM »

Quote
This is not an example of him defending Communists.  It is an example of you mistaking what he is saying for defending Communists.  Thanks for showing that I'm right.

Please explain how attacking legitimate Hong Kong protesters (who have been deprived of their God-given rights by the Chinese Communists renigging on their agreement of 1997) is anything other than defending Communists?

Perhaps his parroting of the ChiCom party line is just a coincidence?

If you have evidence that Davis is not who he says he is, then report it to the admin.  These sorts of public accusations are unfair and inappropriate. 
99
The Coffee Pot / Re: YouTube You're watching
« Last post by Heinrich on July 07, 2020, 02:56:19 PM »
Italian-Americans express their opinion. Lots of profanity.

Those are the men who win wars.  Not armchair theologians.

Right attitude, but judging by the shape they are in, they won't be storming any high ground castles anytime soon.
100
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Racism as a Sin?
« Last post by Prayerful on July 07, 2020, 02:27:08 PM »
Quote
Those who truly love the Chinese people and their extinct culture which was destroyed
in Mao's murderous so-called "Great Cultural Revolution" realize that a huge distinction exists between:
1. the people themselves
and
2. the oppressive murderous totalitarian regime which oppresses them.

TradGranny,

Have you visited or lived in China before?  Do you speak Chinese?

I've been here for 11 years now.  I used to believe as you did before I spent enough time here and began researching Chinese history for myself.  The more I learn about ancient Chinese history the more continuity I see between China before the CCP and today (which continues to shock me even now - but my research will continue and I retain the right to adjust my understanding as I learn more).

There are certainly changes such as going from one emperor to a party (which is basically just an emperor).  And from a change of guard based upon familial lines to one based upon inner party politics.  Also as far as I can tell the terrible one child policy is a new and tragic development (although I do note for the first half of its existence the Party was firmly large-families and the growth of Chinese population during that time far exceeded that of the West). But otherwise I see great continuity in in their governance.

The funny sounding "communist" departments, bureaus and what-not amusingly stem from ancient times in which they had the same things.  Kicking out and welcoming in foreign religions also has occurred several times before, including with Catholics being expelled centuries ago after having been welcomed long prior.  Oppression and promotion of Buddhism / Daoism / Confucianism / Legalism cycles depending upon the times and the emperors.  Sometimes the Middle Kingdom is open to global trade through Canton, other times they boot everybody out.

The Chinese families largely remain intact.  The veneration of ancestors, the filial piety, the obedience of ranks, the civil service exams, the love of wealth, the "eating bitterness", the hard work, the ancient festivals, the food, music and what not are all alive and well in China.  The respect (whether real or feigned) shown towards Mao or other Chinese leaders is similar to that shown towards the Emperor.

Also I've read writings by a British explorer who traveled China back in the early 1800s soon after it had been bust open by the British Opium War (the one in which Britain waged war on China so that they could legally sell their opium drugs into China).  He disparages the Chinese back then just as you all do today.  Nothing has changed.  People's hatred of the "evil communists" is in reality just their hatred for Chinese culture.  They didn't understand it centuries ago, they still do not understand it now.

Unsurprisingly, the Jesuit Catholics who evagenlized to the Chinese in the 1500s were exceptionally complimentary of the Chinese.  But it was the Protestant British who waged war on them, conquered their cities, burned down their palaces, and wrote disparaging remarks towards them.  Even in Robert Fortune's own writing he says the Jesuits were all wrong about the Chinese.  There is a most notable difference between how our Catholic ancestors spoke of foreign nations (such as China, Japan, India) vs how our Protestant overlords speak of them.

Amusingly Chinese culture is far more dead in Hong Kong than it is in mainland China.  Having been conquered by the British for 150 years many of them have internalized to hate being Chinese and pine to be English.  Even in the schools their tests are written with questions whose answers are negative Chinese pro Western.  It is sad.

As for China being totalitarian, I offer a few ancedotes.  Street hawking is illegal in China but it happens everywhere.  When the policeman strolls on by every hawker lifts up the carpet which encloses his wares and stands there, then after the policeman has walked past him the carpet is immediately back down and trade continues with the policeman literally just five feet away. 

When I first moved to China I was unaware that I must register with the police station my address within a day or two of taking up residence.  I showed up like 1-2 weeks later and the police lady told me that I had broken the rules, etc etc.  She told me to go across the street to have a photo taken and then bring the photo to her.  As soon as I stepped out of the police station she ran out after me and quietly said "go to the train station, find a used ticket on the ground and come back to me and tell me you just arrived off the train."  I did as she said and had no problems.

Another time I legitimately but accidentally overstayed my visa duration.  I will not go into details on this matter but I will say I should absolutely have been in serious trouble.  When I walked through immigration to leave China they pulled me aside and sat me down in an office.  They politely asked me why this happened and then warned me never to do it again for I could be in very big trouble for doing that.  Smiles and thank yous and that was the end of it.

Brother worked in China for a bit. After some conmen and a restaurant in Beijing left him with a fearsome bill, it was resolved quickly. Also he said Chinese can be indifferent to rules. However, as with many places like that, the law can be fearsome and fall on some like the proverbial ton of bricks. The Chinese Catholics betrayed by Bergoglio have found that. Some churches ignored, others either flattened or desecrated with pictures of Communist leaders. One big downside my Dad found was that even in the hotel he stayed in, he didn't feel certain about the food. It seemed all weirdly paste based. One thing that has to be respected is the large scale high speed rail network. Other Anglophone countries either have little, or they are just talking about it, hostages to NIMBYs or political dithering. Interesting.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]