Check out topic: No Justice in New York
Nancy Pelosi Says Republicans Dishonor God and that Democrats are People of Faith
Jan 21, 2017 23:53:58 #
Aren´t internet website forums a marvelous creation?
We can all insult each other with impunity, asserting our credentials as our right to do so, as we spew forth and sputter our righteous wrath!
We can all insult each other with impunity, asserting our credentials as our right to do so, as we spew forth and sputter our righteous wrath!
pafret wrote:
You somehow have confused Catholicism with the Maf... (show quote)
Jan 22, 2017 00:53:28 #
Ad Hominem Attacks
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.
However, in some cases, ad hominen attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argumentârather than known factsâthen pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.
Ad hominem tu quoque (literally: "You also") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is false because it does not disprove the premise; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective.
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.
Pafret, substitute one of the above for your referenced, less than impressive Catholic Apologetical URL, as neither of the oaths it defensively quotes and denies, matches the printed copy in my home library.
http://www.evangelizationstation.com/htm_html/Anti-Catholicism/jesuit_oath_debunked.htm
1. I´ve never found it necessary to access ¨your Jesuit´s oath¨ at the Library of Congress website.
2. No library, congressional or otherwise, authenticates the material they store/display/circulate.
3. If that is the ¨most preposterous trash,¨ you´ve encountered, your experience has been limited.
4. What we have is a rude, pompous, intolerant, uninformed and completely indoctrinated, i.e., brainwashed loyalist.
Over the centuries the Catholic church has forged numerous documents, ranging from letters written by Augustine, the Apostles Creed, the Immaculate Conception, to the so called "apostolic writings" by Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas (O. C. Lambert, Catholicism Against Itself, 1956, pgs. 54-68.)
(Lambert lists Augustine's forgeries: De Condition Cordis, Summa, Part III, Fourth Number, 119, De Penitentia, Summa, Part III, Third Number, 57 and Hypognosticon, Summa, Part III, Third Number, 77.
In the Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. VI, pg. 136, we have the following frank admission:
"Substituting of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages."
And then we have the following quote too:
"One is forced to admit that the gradual corruption of Christianity began very early" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. XII, pg. 414.)
One of Rome's most bogus claims has been that of apostolic succession. Yet amazingly the Catholic church (much later on) was forced to own up and say the following about the Apostolic Canons, which allegedly deal with how the Apostles dictated material to St. Clement of Rome:
"A tradition (accepted because unexamined) long prevailed that these canons were dictated by the Apostles to St. Clement of Rome, who committed them to writing. Accurate research has dispelled this notion." (Catholic Dictionary, pgs. 41, 42.)
The following quote, which has long been refuted since the 16th century as being "authentic," is still cited and used by Catholics today, when wishing to uphold its hierarchical structure:
"A letter from Clement to James forms an epilogue to H. In it Clement relates how Peter before his death gave his last instructions and set Clement in his own chair as his successor in the See of Rome...The writer knows a complete system of ecclesiastical organisation. Peter sets a bishop over each city, with priests and deacons under him; the office of bishop is well defined" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, IV, pgs. 14-144.)
The above is inaccurate in many ways. The apostolic constitution of 270AD taught Linus as successor to Peter, not Clement. Yet this source (written allegedly by Clement himself) was later deemed a fake (authored 325AD), by the Catholic church:
"We must nevertheless abandon any attempt to argue from Clementine [20 books by this author], since the oldest parts betray themselves more and more as a product of the third century - he was guilty of arbitrary inventions and changes" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, VII, pgs. 327.)
Once again Rome was forced to come clean after some real scholars raised their game and exposed forgeries with Christendom, dating back centuries.
Interestingly, Lambert remarks in page 56, how Thomas Aquinas embarrassingly quotes "seven times from these forgeries."
An Infallible church, with infallible popes, churning out forgeries, with their own scholars not knowing the difference between forgeries and the real thing, how are the poor old laity supposed to make heads or tails of it!
One may ask: how did Rome get away with lying for so long to the masses? Well, if Emperor Leo (401-474AD) couldn't read or write, one can easily guess have rampant ignorance was too the rest of the then Catholic world (Lambert, pg. 63.)
"Writers of the forth century were prone to describe many practises (i.e., The Lenten Fast of Forty Days) as apostolic institutions which certainly had no claim to be so regarded" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. III, pg. 484.)
Rome also forged the infamous The Donation of Constantine, dated 30 March 315 AD.
"The supposed donation of Emperor Constantine, [was] probably forged in the eight century" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, XIV, pg. 714.)
This forged document records how Constantine not only contracted leprosy all over his body (which pagan priests failed to cure), but also received a vision from Peter and was told to contact "pope" Sylvester, hiding on Mount Soracte, who would cure him. Apparently Sylvester made him well and Constantine restored Christian Churches worldwide to their former glory. Also part of this forged document was how Constantine had kindly handed over his own power and sovereignty to the bishop of Rome.
This elaborate hoax circulated throughout the Catholic church for years and helped build up their so-called apostolic authority throughout the pagan world, but it was totally false and had no truth whatsoever within it.
It should also be said that when Luther became aware of this, it convinced him even more to launch the Reformation.
Constantine did, however, "convert" to Christianity through the Arian bishop Eusebius, but only on his deathbed, at the 11th hour, in 337AD (Dr. Peter De Rosa, Vicar's of Christ, pgs. 55, 56.)
And in 1944 we discover how a Dr. J.V. Simcox, professor of Canon Law at St. Edmunds College Ware - the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical seminary for the Archdiocese of Westminster - finally broke ranks (he had held his post for 23 years), and decided to publicly complain of other forgeries and deceptions:
"God does not need our lies; and Catholics who fear truth in matters of religion confess that they do not really believe Catholicism to be from God" (Is the Roman Catholic Church a Secret Society?, pg. 30.)
Questions, comments, insults, frenzied denials?
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.
However, in some cases, ad hominen attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argumentârather than known factsâthen pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.
Ad hominem tu quoque (literally: "You also") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is false because it does not disprove the premise; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective.
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.
Pafret, substitute one of the above for your referenced, less than impressive Catholic Apologetical URL, as neither of the oaths it defensively quotes and denies, matches the printed copy in my home library.
http://www.evangelizationstation.com/htm_html/Anti-Catholicism/jesuit_oath_debunked.htm
1. I´ve never found it necessary to access ¨your Jesuit´s oath¨ at the Library of Congress website.
2. No library, congressional or otherwise, authenticates the material they store/display/circulate.
3. If that is the ¨most preposterous trash,¨ you´ve encountered, your experience has been limited.
4. What we have is a rude, pompous, intolerant, uninformed and completely indoctrinated, i.e., brainwashed loyalist.
Over the centuries the Catholic church has forged numerous documents, ranging from letters written by Augustine, the Apostles Creed, the Immaculate Conception, to the so called "apostolic writings" by Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas (O. C. Lambert, Catholicism Against Itself, 1956, pgs. 54-68.)
(Lambert lists Augustine's forgeries: De Condition Cordis, Summa, Part III, Fourth Number, 119, De Penitentia, Summa, Part III, Third Number, 57 and Hypognosticon, Summa, Part III, Third Number, 77.
In the Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. VI, pg. 136, we have the following frank admission:
"Substituting of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages."
And then we have the following quote too:
"One is forced to admit that the gradual corruption of Christianity began very early" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. XII, pg. 414.)
One of Rome's most bogus claims has been that of apostolic succession. Yet amazingly the Catholic church (much later on) was forced to own up and say the following about the Apostolic Canons, which allegedly deal with how the Apostles dictated material to St. Clement of Rome:
"A tradition (accepted because unexamined) long prevailed that these canons were dictated by the Apostles to St. Clement of Rome, who committed them to writing. Accurate research has dispelled this notion." (Catholic Dictionary, pgs. 41, 42.)
The following quote, which has long been refuted since the 16th century as being "authentic," is still cited and used by Catholics today, when wishing to uphold its hierarchical structure:
"A letter from Clement to James forms an epilogue to H. In it Clement relates how Peter before his death gave his last instructions and set Clement in his own chair as his successor in the See of Rome...The writer knows a complete system of ecclesiastical organisation. Peter sets a bishop over each city, with priests and deacons under him; the office of bishop is well defined" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, IV, pgs. 14-144.)
The above is inaccurate in many ways. The apostolic constitution of 270AD taught Linus as successor to Peter, not Clement. Yet this source (written allegedly by Clement himself) was later deemed a fake (authored 325AD), by the Catholic church:
"We must nevertheless abandon any attempt to argue from Clementine [20 books by this author], since the oldest parts betray themselves more and more as a product of the third century - he was guilty of arbitrary inventions and changes" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, VII, pgs. 327.)
Once again Rome was forced to come clean after some real scholars raised their game and exposed forgeries with Christendom, dating back centuries.
Interestingly, Lambert remarks in page 56, how Thomas Aquinas embarrassingly quotes "seven times from these forgeries."
An Infallible church, with infallible popes, churning out forgeries, with their own scholars not knowing the difference between forgeries and the real thing, how are the poor old laity supposed to make heads or tails of it!
One may ask: how did Rome get away with lying for so long to the masses? Well, if Emperor Leo (401-474AD) couldn't read or write, one can easily guess have rampant ignorance was too the rest of the then Catholic world (Lambert, pg. 63.)
"Writers of the forth century were prone to describe many practises (i.e., The Lenten Fast of Forty Days) as apostolic institutions which certainly had no claim to be so regarded" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. III, pg. 484.)
Rome also forged the infamous The Donation of Constantine, dated 30 March 315 AD.
"The supposed donation of Emperor Constantine, [was] probably forged in the eight century" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, XIV, pg. 714.)
This forged document records how Constantine not only contracted leprosy all over his body (which pagan priests failed to cure), but also received a vision from Peter and was told to contact "pope" Sylvester, hiding on Mount Soracte, who would cure him. Apparently Sylvester made him well and Constantine restored Christian Churches worldwide to their former glory. Also part of this forged document was how Constantine had kindly handed over his own power and sovereignty to the bishop of Rome.
This elaborate hoax circulated throughout the Catholic church for years and helped build up their so-called apostolic authority throughout the pagan world, but it was totally false and had no truth whatsoever within it.
It should also be said that when Luther became aware of this, it convinced him even more to launch the Reformation.
Constantine did, however, "convert" to Christianity through the Arian bishop Eusebius, but only on his deathbed, at the 11th hour, in 337AD (Dr. Peter De Rosa, Vicar's of Christ, pgs. 55, 56.)
And in 1944 we discover how a Dr. J.V. Simcox, professor of Canon Law at St. Edmunds College Ware - the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical seminary for the Archdiocese of Westminster - finally broke ranks (he had held his post for 23 years), and decided to publicly complain of other forgeries and deceptions:
"God does not need our lies; and Catholics who fear truth in matters of religion confess that they do not really believe Catholicism to be from God" (Is the Roman Catholic Church a Secret Society?, pg. 30.)
Questions, comments, insults, frenzied denials?
pafret wrote:
I checked out your "Jesuit Oath" also Kn... (show quote)
Jesuit Symbol
Jan 22, 2017 07:12:47 #
Zemirah wrote:
Nancy Pelosi is Planned Parenthoods biggest promot... (show quote)
Nancy Pelosi is a WHACKO! She abounds in ignorance and just about everything that comes out of her mouth is a pile of manure. Only a woman like Pelosi can come out of California. The poor woman ain't got it!!!
Jan 22, 2017 08:09:35 #
Nuclearian wrote:
This from the biatch whose party slaughters 1.7 million babies a year through abortions?
This from the Party that has slaughtered thousands of Arabs through regime change, all for globalists.
Fact is, DEMOCRATS ARE NAZI's. Hitler would have been proud to have them in his Party.
This from the Party that has slaughtered thousands of Arabs through regime change, all for globalists.
Fact is, DEMOCRATS ARE NAZI's. Hitler would have been proud to have them in his Party.
Thank you! Dip stick democrats are totally mentally defective. ALL of them. It may be the food additives that make some people lose brain cells, and then they have kids that are even worse.....and the end result are a few million that are really so mentally defective there is no cure...aside from a bullet to the brain.
Jan 22, 2017 08:10:17 #
samtheyank wrote:
Nancy Pelosi is a WHACKO! She abounds in ignorance and just about everything that comes out of her mouth is a pile of manure. Only a woman like Pelosi can come out of California. The poor woman ain't got it!!!
PEEEE LOSI....BARF MATERIAL!
Jan 22, 2017 08:11:34 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
If Pelosi thinks democrats are so exceedingly pious, she should have spoken up at the Democrat National Convention when the delegates denied God three times
What Pelosi thinks is irrelevant, and getting more irrelevant every day that Trump is President. She continues to get elected because she is from the great moonbeam state of California. She and her husband has gotten rich through politics and she does not want to get off the "gravy train". Anyone that says "...you have to vote for it (Obamacare) to see what's in it..." obviously has delusions of grandeur and does not have the best interests of the country at heart. She is a liar. She also talked about having the "most transparent Congress in history" as the Dems met behind closed doors and didn't allow Republicans to participate. She is a liar. She comes in second only to Obama for lying to the American people. But considering that she represents California, that's "par for the course".
Jan 22, 2017 08:23:00 #
snowbear37 wrote:
img src="https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/ima... (show quote)
I am surprised you didn't mention Lying Hillary. Anyway, you are right on the money. It is what it is and Truth is Truth. That is what you call an absolute! Right on my friend!
Jan 22, 2017 08:38:27 #
I found this a most enjoyable read. This is one part of history I know little about and could not begin to authenticate or disprove it without some amount of research. But it seems very well written and believable. Did you write this or was it was it purloined in part or total from someone else? No matter, it was still impressive.
Jan 22, 2017 08:52:40 #
Wolf counselor wrote:
Right !
Does anyone really care what Pelosi has to say ?
Does anyone really care what Pelosi has to say ?
I certainly don't. I don't agree with idiots at all. If she's really a Christian she's an apostate big time. She'll have to answer to the Lord for all the evil she's supported. Show us where the Lord agreed with homosexuality and aborting babies because so many want to fornicate. Show me where He supports fornication and homosexuality. SHOW ME!
Semper Fidelis
ssgtgood USMC
Jan 22, 2017 09:20:21 #
What is really scary is the fact that people believe her every word . Stupidity runs deep and she needs stupid people to remain in office . If it wasn't for Calipornia she wouldn't have a job . I think she is suffering from dementia and is not responsible for what she says . Satan will be suffering from depression after she is collected .
Jan 22, 2017 09:27:30 #
Zemirah wrote:
Nancy Pelosi is Planned Parenthoods biggest promot... (show quote)
Nancy worships molec, the god that requires children be slain on his altar.
Jan 22, 2017 09:54:02 #
padremike
Loc: Phenix City, Al
Zemirah wrote:
Nancy Pelosi is Planned Parenthoods biggest promot... (show quote)
I remember very well a video of Nutty Nancy in a San Francisco gay pride day parade sitting high on the back seat of a convertible, pointing and laughing at a caricature of Christ being sidomized by another homosexual. A Christian? Not hardly!
Jan 22, 2017 10:16:07 #
no propaganda please
Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
padremike wrote:
I remember very well a video of Nutty Nancy in a San Francisco gay pride day parade sitting high on the back seat of a convertible, pointing and laughing at a caricature of Christ being sidomized by another homosexual. A Christian? Not hardly!
Yes, I remember seeing that, wish it could be posted again the next time that one of the LGBTQ activists (and there are many) on OPP dares to claim that the LGBTQ are loving Christians who just want to be left alone. What they do, and celebrate says what they really think and are.
Jan 22, 2017 10:33:51 #
Jan 22, 2017 10:37:52 #
I donot know the catholic orders but I do know that Nancy Pelosi, is lacking a lot upstairs. Praise GOD today she is without any power. All she can do is run her mouth and the people listening to her have minds just like her, empty.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.