Research on Belief in God

Page 106 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: God and Religion

For one poster, it's indeed a show of "historical" knowledge or rather knowledge of the history revised by Enlightenment propaganda, historical knowledge for its own sake, for bragging in a way. For the other, well for me, it's proving the point that I made when I responded to you:

It's the Enlightenment, which means the Left-wing that implemented libertarianism and hence the capitalist exploitation of the proletariate. Not the Right-wing

He's of course never addressed that issue. Even other posters on this thread who have ideas closer to him made him realise that he was missing the point. Each time I raised my point, he kicked into touch and moved to another topic that he thinks he can handle but even then he's only saying more historical untruths. It's tedious in the end.

I prove that the Left-Winged Enlightenment was instrumental in the advent of capitalism because they advocated and eventually gained the suppression of the workingmen's guilds. I could have added all the village communities and the French "compagnons". The Enlightenment destroyed all the associative, communitarian life that had existed for centuries Under the Old regime, so I'm laughing with the back of my head when I see that some leftists call themselves "socialists".

I'm encouraging those who don't take my words on face value to documentate about the workingmen's guild of the Middle Ages and how they ended. It's fascinating.

But I could give much more evidence that the Enlightenment paved the way for the capitalist system. I've already showed how Turgot implemented the liberalisation of grain price. Until the Enlightenment the King was indeed the Feeding Father of his people, even Louis XIV! The old regime had the "Royal Grain Police" to make sure that no baker are selling their bread above the price fixed by the monarchy in order to make sure that bread is affordable to anyone, such was the scare of a famine. Despite all the fastuousness of the Versailles Court, the Sun King has NEVER suppressed the grain police, so yes he was still the Feeding Father of his people.

Physiocrat Quesnay attempted the liberalization by 1763 but was readily dismissed by King Louis XV when the King realised the damage done. Same for Louis XVI after Turgot's reform in 1774 but that was very harmful. The monarchies had had grain reserved in any towns in case of shortage, Turgot had them emptied in order to reduce the price. Once the reserve are emptied, of course, price went up again and there was no reserve. The people were starving, it's the start of a revolt known as the Flour War

I could add other arguments such as Turgot's pleed for the legalisation of usury (you all know that the Church as well Islam condemned usury as a mortal sin, money is not a good like any other, just like bread is not a good like any other).

I also could refer to the Tragedy of Commons which started in England with the Anglican Revolution, at the expense of Catholics. Saint Thomas More referred to it many times in his Utopia (which he printed in Belgium, by the way). But two centuries later, the Physiocrats (which I remind you is a branch of the Enlightenment) took the idea back and advocated for the right of Enclosure at the expense of the Grazing Lands. For centuries the Grazing right had enabled the poorest peasants to feed their beasts on common AND private lands after the crop season was over. Ethis de Noveant was one such libertarian/physiocrat who considered grazing rights as barbaric rights “which could only come from centuries of ignorance” (1767). So these progressives considered those deeply rooted social traditions as barbaric! The working class was “conservative”.

I can also point to the Enlightenment's support for the Slave Trade (Voltaire made a fortune out of it), I could point to the new Republican calendar which divided the calendar in 10-day weeks instead of 7-day, which means one day off in 10, instead of one day off in 7. I could generally speaking point to their hatred to the Church for guaranteeing 85 days of annual leave and another 70 days of halftime work. That was the Church's major crime in their view.

If by Capitalism you mean the unlimited reign of money, then it definitely comes from Left-winged circles, more precisely from the Enlightenment matrix. They destroyed all the traditional obstacles to market determinism: the Church, the Family, the Patriarchal society, the medieval guilds, the village communities, etc. It's not even disputable when you study history in an honest way.

With regards to literacy, I see that my point that the Jesuits (and other Catholic orders) had enhanced free education for centuries is no longer disputed. However the stereotype that the Enlightenment have a Monopoly on good understanding is so childish that I find it again tedious to even discuss it. The Jesuits had observatories across Europe, their missionaries spread new discoveries all over to China, they translated Confucius' book into Western languages and most of all they welcomed Johannes Kepler in one of their uni, when Kepler was persecuted by the Lutheran clergy. Kepler remained a Protestant and worked along with Jesuits in order to state his Three Laws and in particular the one about the elliptic orbit of planets while the idiot Galileo (that present-day atheists still revere as a hero for defying the Church) still believe in the circular orbits of planets. Needless to say, the Jesuits all believe that the Sun was at the centre but none could prove it. Even Pope Urban VIII said it multiple times that he thought the Sun was at the centre.

That's all part of the whole Enlightenment lie. A guy lie kept on lying. His biggest lie might be the Man in the Iron Mask. How can anyone believe that he was a Louis XIV brother.

Also needless to say, Henri IV sincerely converted to Catholicism and respected the old tradition of the French monarchy. Queen Mum Catherine of Medici was the main driving force behind the religious peace. The Peace of Saint-Germain was her success (beside marrying her daughter to the future Henri IV). Of course rebels did not accept it and that led to St Bartolomew, where the situation went out of hand but she only ordered to eliminate the leaders of the rebellion, not 30,000.

Also, it's quite striking that the poster above there, defends the Jansenists and Protestants against the Jesuits. Though I won't claim that all Protestants are bad.
The main difference between Catholics and Lutherians or Calvinists is the predestination, right? It's the same that distinguish Catholics/Jesuits and Jansenists. So it speaks volume about that poster that he defends those people.

What do Judaites, Anglicans, Calvinists, Puritans, Jansenists and the Enlightenment (so atheists) have in common? They all believe that wealth makes you a good man. If you are rich, that means you are good. ANd you should never help the poor because thereby you encourage them to laze. It's all in their ideologies. The whole dirty reputation of the Jesuit order came from their propagandist activities, in particular that of the Jansenists who were very well represented in the French tribunals (the so-called Parliaments, nothing to do with present-day Parliaments) and had their minds constantly occupied with religious things while they were laymen. It's a violation of the traditional Christian distinction between the Temporal and the Spiritual. The greatest Jansenist achievement is the Civil Constitution of the Clergy on July 12 1790 when Church & State were not separated but the former got subordinated to the latter. In any French region where the Jansenists were strong, the priests massively took the oath to the Constitution. Where they were not, priests were refractory.
 
The only tedious thing is that in a thread about religion, we have to submit to the litany of Echoes' lugubrious posts about the demise of the ancien regime. Get over it chap. The clergy and the king lost their stranglehold over society. Christianity didn't invent it, though. It's roots are to be found in the state alimentarius and collegii of ancient Rome.

At any rate, what began as a bourgiose revolution under the effects of capitalist industrialization required a new socio-political dialectic, which Marx provided. The left-right dichotomy of today has its origins in the new Marxian language, not before.

Cheers

PS: It does seem urgent in today's world for the communal impulses of which Echoes is trying to describe as religious based morality, while disregarding the worst excesses of power that came with it, should be rethought. Beginning with their rationalisation. Not being an economist, in my worst flights of mind, I imagine a State which determines the market where providing for the collective is concerned by making the costs conform to the budget. In effect, we need two economies.
 
Jul 16, 2011
1,551
0
0
Re: God and Religion

Echoes said:
... That is how Enlightenment's Turgot came up with the brilliant idea to send children to factory to work,
Sorry for the interuption, but how will Turgot do in PR :eek: :D
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
thought.....is life crucial to the existence of the universe..........or something which came about through opportunity Mark L
 
Re: God and Religion

Tank Engine said:
Echoes said:
... That is how Enlightenment's Turgot came up with the brilliant idea to send children to factory to work,
Sorry for the interuption, but how will Turgot do in PR :eek: :D
In light of all the recent press the pedophile scandals are receiving lately, maybe sending the children to the factories was the best thing for them, as long as the factories weren't managed by catholic priests that is.
 
Re: God and Religion

Atheist Frogs (& Germans for that matter) should rather shut the f*ck up about pedophilia because they are the first to approve of it! Only when the Vatican II sect (which they are stupid enough to confuse with the Catholic Church) is involved they start opposing to it but fact is, liberals in the seventies overtly approved of pedophilia.

In the 18th century the Church was the only institution trying to do something against the massive child traffic inside the “Hôpital general”, a kind of orphanage in Paris, held by secularists, of course.

Christophobes really have no culture.
 
Re: God and Religion

Echoes said:
Atheist Frogs (& Germans for that matter) should rather shut the f*ck up about pedophilia because they are the first to approve of it! Only when the Vatican II sect (which they are stupid enough to confuse with the Catholic Church) is involved they start opposing to it but fact is, liberals in the seventies overtly approved of pedophilia.

In the 18th century the Church was the only institution trying to do something against the massive child traffic inside the “Hôpital general”, a kind of orphanage in Paris, held by secularists, of course.

Christophobes really have no culture.
So all the catholic pedophiles have to do is say that their acts were post Vatican II so they don't count as christian acts. Got to admit, religions are champions at justifying their filth.
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
0
0
Re: God and Religion

frenchfry said:
So all the catholic pedophiles have to do is say that their acts were post Vatican II so they don't count as christian acts. Got to admit, religions are champions at justifying their filth.
Honestly, do you people even read what Echoes writes?

If you're not going to try and understand somebodies point of view, you shouldn't bother replying to him.

In fact, if you feel it is a useful contribution to come completely off topic with a generic 'omg catholic church pedophilia' remark, I suggest you refrain from replying to this thread at all until you come with up with something more useful to say.

(Btw, I'm not saying pedophilia scandals in religious organisations shouldn't be discussed in this topic, but when people are having a serious discussion about economics, secularism, enlightenment and religion and the relation between them and somebody butts in with a generic remark about pedophilia in the roman catholic church, it's just a bloody strawman and a really poor one too.)
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re: God and Religion

frenchfry said:
Echoes said:
Atheist Frogs (& Germans for that matter) should rather shut the f*ck up about pedophilia because they are the first to approve of it! Only when the Vatican II sect (which they are stupid enough to confuse with the Catholic Church) is involved they start opposing to it but fact is, liberals in the seventies overtly approved of pedophilia.

In the 18th century the Church was the only institution trying to do something against the massive child traffic inside the “Hôpital general”, a kind of orphanage in Paris, held by secularists, of course.

Christophobes really have no culture.
So all the catholic pedophiles have to do is say that their acts were post Vatican II so they don't count as christian acts. Got to admit, religions are champions at justifying their filth.
"you people" better watch out and read. :D
 
Re: God and Religion

Maaaaaaaarten said:
frenchfry said:
So all the catholic pedophiles have to do is say that their acts were post Vatican II so they don't count as christian acts. Got to admit, religions are champions at justifying their filth.
Honestly, do you people even read what Echoes writes?

If you're not going to try and understand somebodies point of view, you shouldn't bother replying to him.

In fact, if you feel it is a useful contribution to come completely off topic with a generic 'omg catholic church pedophilia' remark, I suggest you refrain from replying to this thread at all until you come with up with something more useful to say.

(Btw, I'm not saying pedophilia scandals in religious organisations shouldn't be discussed in this topic, but when people are having a serious discussion about economics, secularism, enlightenment and religion and the relation between them and somebody butts in with a generic remark about pedophilia in the roman catholic church, it's just a bloody strawman and a really poor one too.)
Thanks Maaaaaaaarten for telling me what I should and shouldn't contribute on this forum. Being an Atheist Frog and all I am obviously in need of guidance.
 
Echoes "historical" knowledge is the worst type of sectarian apology, willfully circumscribed and rhetorically triumphalist, totally blind to the obscurantist role the religous establishment played over these centuries. Frenchfry's ironic observation in light of this was not only pertinent, but necessary. I thus stand with the "Atheist frog."
 
A few months old but worth a read for a laugh (or maybe cry)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/12029884/Human-rights-campaigner-heckled-at-blasphemy-lecture.html

Islamic society at London university protested against a speech organized by another society, on the grounds that the speaker was allegedly a bigot. What she had said was that the niqab is a symbol of far right Islam. they even wrote a letter saying thAt people with outrageous views should not be allowed to talk at a university. They of course to gain sympathy threw in the word Islamophobia which is designed to paint as racist absolutely anyone who radicals don't like for whatever reasons.

So they invaded the speech and performed various acts of sabotage including shouting and turning off her projector.

Then the article looks over some of the people that same Islamic society had recently invited to give speeches. This includes, a man who had said that all white men must die, a man who had praised one of the isil terrorists, a man who said anyone who fights a Muslim should die.

Its amazing people like this actually exist.
 
Re: God and Religion

frenchfry said:
Echoes said:
Atheist Frogs (& Germans for that matter) should rather shut the f*ck up about pedophilia because they are the first to approve of it! Only when the Vatican II sect (which they are stupid enough to confuse with the Catholic Church) is involved they start opposing to it but fact is, liberals in the seventies overtly approved of pedophilia.

In the 18th century the Church was the only institution trying to do something against the massive child traffic inside the “Hôpital general”, a kind of orphanage in Paris, held by secularists, of course.

Christophobes really have no culture.
So all the catholic pedophiles have to do is say that their acts were post Vatican II so they don't count as christian acts. Got to admit, religions are champions at justifying their filth.
So the church was trying to curtail it where visible: in the Hôpital general, which it could antagonize, and through village leaders, etc. but not address it where it mattered (family too)? Sounds good. In that sense we're all post Vatican II and the 70s were an outgrowth of that coming apart under modernization--not a product of some heretical/schismatic ruling. Look at the world since (I'm addressing Echoes) codes of authority are overgrown and superseded, it's not the perversion of an arkhe gone amiss.
 
Mar 13, 2009
5,246
0
0
Re:

rhubroma said:
Echoes "historical" knowledge is the worst type of sectarian apology, willfully circumscribed and rhetorically triumphalist, totally blind to the obscurantist role the religous establishment played over these centuries. Frenchfry's ironic observation in light of this was not only pertinent, but necessary. I thus stand with the "Atheist frog."
Amen, brother
 
Re: God and Religion

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 …
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,093
1
0
Re: God and Religion

Echoes said:
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
These Vatican II nuns from 1968 look fashionable and happy, and yet they are still nuns.



Why should nuns not be fashionable and happy, if they can do so and still be nuns?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re:

Maxiton said:
These Vatican II nuns from 1968 look fashionable and happy, and yet they are still nuns.



Why should nuns not be fashionable and happy, if they can do so and still be nuns?
2 times. both. :)
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
Maxiton said:
These Vatican II nuns from 1968 look fashionable and happy, and yet they are still nuns.



Why should nuns not be fashionable and happy, if they can do so and still be nuns?
2 times. both. :)
Kinda makes you excited about going to church, doesn't it? I mean seriously.

CheckMyPecs said:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
But, clearly, two rights make a right. :)
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
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).
 
Re: God and Religion

Echoes said:
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 …
So now the excecutioner wants to play the victim.

It's not that the Church was against education, but wanted to establish the parameters within which it was correct (often to the extent of burning heretics) to be learned, or even hold positons contrary to the official doctrine. This in itself is a historical indictment against the religious institution.

The Church wasn't obsucrantist? How do you reconcile that with the Index librum prohibitorum, established in 1558 and suppressed only in 1966?! Naturally before then the Church didn't need to relly on such censorship. That's because the monks did their obliterating work in the monasteries. There was no circulation of books, no danger of literacy, no threat to the established order! With the invention of the printing press, the protestant reform and the new unorthodox philosphies and scientific inquiries that all changed: thus the Index. The Jesuit Cardinal Roberto Bellarime is a saint of the Church, but was the fulcrum behind the burning of the philosopher Giordano Bruno as a heretic in the Campo dei Fiori, Rome, in 1600.

I doubt you've heard of emphyteusis, a medieval system of rent without end of landed estates and urban mansions in Church hands, by which the ecclesiastics drew a permanent source of income from the nobility. This ensured a rigorous class system in which the laboring serfs remained wholly dependent upon their masters ad perpetuum. The guilds could be better controlled and monitored too.

The increased prosperity of the burghers enflamed that equilibrium, however, and its severe regimentation was destined to succumb to free enterprise. All the other issues raised, from this moment forward, are moot, moot underlined.

Now we can debate the virtues or evils of free enterprise, but we cannot falsify the past, I've thought, and we really shouldn't praise an ancien regime that kept the subordinate masses dependent and either totally ignorant or else brainwashed, with every independance of thought subject to the Inquisition. We should be grateful that the fascism of the clergy and the nobility eventually succumbed, in some cases caved into, the irresistable call to emancipation of independent thought, the only thing worth living for. The current injustices of global capitalism don't detract from that huge accomplishment. Nor does the fact that it came about in spurts, remains largely unsatisfactory and, still worse, risks collapsing into a new and more insidious feudalism.That is another matter, to be separated from the previousl circumstances that led to an intolerable status quo and the epochal change this inevitably brought about.

So the instances of pedophilia not inflicted by clergymen should make us rethink the scale and nature of the scandal caused by those that have been? Right. And let me add, the systematic abuse of children whose parents placed them into the care of priests didn't begin after Vatican II. To the contrary, but there wasn't even need for a cover-up. Before Catholic families could rely on the support of a public magistracy that wasn't submissive, or worse the long arm, of the ecclesiastical order, the shame and onus of the crime fell upon the abused child and his family. Silence was thus preferable to public ridicule and ostracization.

If Echoes doesn't like it and would prefer the old, religious-princes regime, then go live in Saudi Arabia. The masses are "provided for" there too. You can also, however, be beheaded for apostasy.
 
Re: God and Religion

Echoes said:
Brullnux, aside (have to say, the most decent poster of the pack, though he hates me) - ,
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.

Interesting about Sartre. I've always admired the play Huic Close.
 
Didn't the church issue the Sacramentum Poenitentiae in the 18th century? Oh yeah, they did. What is it one might ask? Oh yeah, it's a papal decree talking about the problem of sexual abuse and pedophilia in 1741. 1741.

But..."Vatican II" and "Leftists". Couldn't just be a completely corrupt institution, or making men deny normal sexual urges for millennia. Nope.
 
Mar 19, 2016
15
0
0
When I vote it said General Error.So I have to reply something. I'm an atheist in that, while I can't assure there is no God.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS