Echoes wrote:And re: pedophilia, I again have to boomerang the attack against the attackers. Documentate about the pedophilia apology trend in the 1970’s, among atheistic/liberal circles.
CheckMyPecs wrote:Two wrongs don't make a right.
Echoes wrote:The problem with this discussion is that it’s not a discussion. My contradictors have never intended to discuss the issue that I was raising – Brullnux, aside (have to say, the most decent poster of the pack, though he hates me) - , which is how the Left-wing paved the way for the capitalistic exploitation of the 19th century, via the ideas of the Enlightened philosophy, physiocracy and the French Revolution. They constantly dodged the debate. Maarten perfectly understood this (and I’m very grateful to him for his post, it was quite reassuring for me). Instead of proving me wrong on this issue, they would move to other topics such as first literacy/education while it’s absolutely disputable that the Church wished to keep the people uneducated quite on the contrary, then because I proved them wrong, they moved to science and the understanding of the world, while this still has nothing to do with liberalism/capitalism and it’s absolutely disputable if not completely wrong that the Church ever was “obscurantist” (indeed!) and then they moved to the conflict between Catholics & Protestants and now what are they bringing up, pedophilia! Still nothing to do with the topic.
Their goal has never been to prove me wrong on the economy because they cannot do it. They know that what I’m saying is right and they cannot accept it. That’s why their aim is simply to vilify me, to portray me as a villain, a bad guy, an obscurantist, a neo-fascist, etc, whatever. Thus someone who is not worthy of respect, not worthy of playing contradictory debate with. They believe that they are entitled to do that because they are on the “Good” side. They are so self-righteous, so proud, so sure of themselves.
I wouldn’t do that. If I did, their reaction would be even more disrespectful. I take the point they raised and bring up arguments. I’m too naïve, probably. That will be the end of me, perhaps. But I have the weakness to believe that a neutral honest reader of this “discussion” would have noticed their disgusting methods.
I don’t even encourage the reader to take all the points I’ve raised on face value. On the contrary, don’t do that. Rather check by yourself if there’s truth in what I’m saying. Documentate about the “Loi Le Chapelier”, about the French “Flour War”, about the “Tragedy of the Commons” (Grazing Lands vs Enclosure), about “Physiocracy”, about Turgot (not Sébastien, right? Lol), etc. This is mainly addressed at younger readers, who are not too much endoctrinated by the doxa (for the Charlies, I’m afraid it’s too late).
And re: pedophilia, I again have to boomerang the attack against the attackers. Documentate about the pedophilia apology trend in the 1970’s, among atheistic/liberal circles. It’s staggering. Edward Brongersma and the NVSH in the Netherlands, the “affaire du Coral” in France (1982), the North American Man/Boy Love Association, the Australian Paedophile Support Group. French Personalities such as Jean-Paul Sartre, Daniel Cohn-Bendit or Bernard Kouchner were apologists. I guess my contradictors have never heard about the Zandvoort Files nor of the Dutroux Affair, right? The Vatican II sect has sought to adapt what they considered the Church to the modern world, it’s said in the texts, I’m not making up anything. Pedophile “priests” achieved that. They rejected Christianity. Of course, there’s never been any pedophilia scandals around sedevacantist priests, which means real priests.
But now that I’ve again destroyed their attack, what else are they gonna find? Are they finally gonna address the first issue that I raised? I doubt that … They are too much of cowards for that …
Echoes wrote: Brullnux, aside (have to say, the most decent poster of the pack, though he hates me) - ,
Maxiton wrote:Echoes, I respect your opinion and your learning and find your positions fascinating. I confess I have some sympathy for them, and have been working up to a post that will engage them at some length.
In the meantime, though, I had to look up the term "sedevacantist" - coming from an Anglo-American, protestant upbringing, and a secular, agnostic, liberal-democratic outlook since childhood, my knowledge of the church, its history and issues, is nil. Having looked up the term, however, it seems obvious on its face that sedevacantism is underlined and justified by circular reasoning: I cannot agree with the doctrine of the current church; because I cannot agree, the doctrine is ipso facto wrong; the church cannot be wrong, therefore the church is not the church (or, the variant, I cannot agree with the doctrine, therefore the doctrine is wrong; the pope cannot be wrong, therefore the pope is not the pope).
According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their centre and crown.
(quote by Brullnux)Hate is a very strong word. I don't hate you, I disagree with your opinions, but I do respect you, very much. You strike me as a smart person and you write eloquently. However, I do disagree with your opinions.
Echoes wrote:Jspear wrote:Oh please, it was a joke! FYI I only eat bacon/pork a couple times a year. Self control is easy. The religious aspect of eating or not eating pork could be discussed in the religion thread.
We both understood it was a joke, I think.
However I don't see why I shouldn't bring the religious element here because in my opinion the Christian religion leads to an (at least) vegetarian diet if not vegan and besides you already did bring that element here:Animals are not humans (most would disagree with me on this point , But I would say it is because animals don't have souls. They are not made in the image of God.) Animals have been given to us to enjoy, to help us with work (in our modern society this reason is used far less), and to eat. There is nothing morally wrong with eating animals.
Where is it said that animals have been given us to enjoy and to eat? You are twisting the words of the Gospels to fit with your own habits and individual interests. It's atheism, darwinism and liberalism that promote meat eating. Some kind of a survival of the fittest. Christians mainly eat bread and believe that "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Likewise Vegans who trash the Christian religion are hypos, in my opinion.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guestsBack to top