Total posts: 8,861
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@ Dr.Franklin Happy Chocolate Egg weekend to you and yours Doc.Did you know that Chocolate Egg Day is a Pagan fertility festival based upon a Pagan fertility festival?....And that's a fact.
Did the Easter bunny lay eggs too?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
As a follow on from my previous post above #4
So
let’s look at one
of finer points that Sean
McDowell reproduces
from Michael Licona’s work in the link of
your OP focusing on so called “martyrdom” of the disciples for, it
is believed by Christian, their belief in a man that was once
dead and came back to life while simply keeping in mind that nowhere in the whole of scripture is it reported that
anyone actually witnessed Jesus physically rise from being stone cold
dead and no longer alive, that is to say biologically dead.
As mentioned above, is
all we know is that a tomb was found empty and that these disciples
believed that a man said to have died after being crucified was
now walking about, speaking and drinking and eating. If
we are to take the New Testament as in any way true.*
Michael Licona wrote: “After Jesus’ death, the disciples endured persecution, and a number of them experienced martyrdom”.
The
followers of Jesus were wanted regardless of what they believed in*.
They for the best part were Galilean rebels if not full blown zealots
and followers of a man that was also wanted and authorities wanted dead*. It had all come to a
head when Jesus and his entourage crashed the Temple compound and
challenged the priests and money changers during a rebellious
outbreak and a full frontal challenge to the Roman authorities*; this
appears to have been the last straw. This is not to mention that they
were Jews and not Christians. And most people are referred to as
“martyrs” when fighting and dying for the cause, be it legitimate
or otherwise.
Michael Licona wrote: Second, early Christians were persecuted for their faith. John the Baptist was imprisoned and beheaded (Matt. 14:1–11).
What this has to do with martyrdom because of a belief in a resurrected "dead man" is anyone's guess? John was dead before Jesus was alleged to have resurrected from being stone cold biologically dead. *
Never the less this
is true * according to the New Testament. But Michael Licona is
being more than disingenuous. John the Baptist was
executed in prison but for what? The bible tells us nothing more than
John the Baptist was imprisoned (and beheaded) by Herod Antipas for denouncing his
marriage (to his brothers wife), which was illegal under Jewish Law.*
There
is no mention of how and when John was " taken " and we are only given a
-why. It is worthy taking note of verse 5 here.
Matthew
14: 3-5 For Herod had taken John and put him in prison. It was
because of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. 4 For John had
said to him, “It is against the Law for you to have her.” 5 He
would have killed John but he was afraid of the people.*
What
John thought of Herod Antipas the puppet king and his marital
situation would have been of no interest to Herod. He was of Arab
Nabataean stock. It is more likely that John was eventually killed
because of his sizeable following that, for the most part, are believed to have gone over to the Jesus movement and it’s cause and only after John was said to be dead. It is interesting that only after the death of John that Jesus really comes to the foreground.
Jewish
Historian Josephus in his Jewish Wars has this to say about the death
of John the Baptist:
Now
many people came in crowds to him [
John the baptist],
for they were greatly moved by his words. Herod, who feared that the
great influence John had over the masses might put them into his
power and enable him to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to
do anything he should advise), thought it best to put him to
death. In this way, he might prevent any mischief John might cause,
and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might
make him repent of it when it would be too late.
Accordingly
John was sent as a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to
Macherus, the castle I already mentioned, and was put to death.
Flavius
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities.
We read
nothing from
Josephus of
the dancing stepdaughter (that
is never named in scripture)being
offered a reward of “half
my kingdom” for simply dancing for the lustful king on his birthday, * which, I am sure that would have gone down well with the Romans that had put
him in place had the dancing bint taken up the offer and Herod Antipas had actually have honoured his offer.
The
bible mentions nothing of the people rising up at the news of John's
death, a man that
was so loved by the masses and that would hang on every word he spoke – unless of course this was the real reason of the full blown Temple rebellion and not just Jesus
throwing a hissy fit in the company of a few friends.? And
no mention of Jesus shedding a tear over the death of someone whom he called
“the greatest prophet that ever lived”* And we don’t know why
Jesus didn’t resurrect the worlds greatest prophet, either .....enmity perhaps?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Egg producer....Sperm producer.
✓
No debate necessary.
✓
I will not be brow beaten into disregarding the fundamental reality of the human species
✓
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Not a single word in this thesis produced by Licona proves a dead and stinking three day old corpse came back to life.
"Eye witness".
To what? That they seen a living man they called the Christ walking and talking and eating?
No one "witnessed" a dead man rise from his stone cold slab.
And empty tomb is only evidence that a tomb was empty and not that a supposed "dead man" come back to life.
"This does not prove that the resurrection is true" says Licona.
Correct. This the is only thing in the thesis that Licona gets correct.
"But it shows the depth of the apostles’ convictions. They were not liars. They truly believed Jesus rose from the grave and they were willing to give their lives for it." https://www.biola.edu/blogs/biola-magazine/2013/did-the-apostles-really-die-as-martyrs-for-their-f
And this simply shows the mindset of the time.
"They were not liars" says Licona that was was raised in a Christian family and had once served an apologetics coordinator as does or did the author of your link Sean McDowell.
Maybe not, they were either deceived? Or in on the plot which would make them liars. Did they even see Jesus dead in the first instance? From what we can glean from scripture is that they all had it on there toes at the arrest in Gethsemane and weren't seen again with maybe the exception of Simon/Peter that was only identified became of his Galilean accent.
Michael R. Licona is simply wheeling out the same old drivel that has and will continue to sell millions of books world wide. How many theological based books does Licona have under his belt now? He should have stuck to music but then again, theological books are among the top sellers next to children's book, I have been told.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, I'm proposing, for maybe a week, at random, all DebateArt usernames and icons be shuffled.
I don't fancy the idea at all. I am happy with who I am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
How embarrassing it must be for poor Miss Tradesecret in her own thread in being easily shown to still be the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid pseudo-christian relative to the JUDEO-Christian Bible!
It is Brother D. The Reverend Munchausen in his OP encourages his readers to "think outside the box" saying;
I wonder how many of us have the capacity to think outside of the box.1
Whilst claiming elsewhere:
Tradesecret wrote: I prefer to stick with what we know - not speculate about what we don't know #71
I actually do prefer and try to stick with what the bible says where it is appropriate and beneficial to do so, simply for the reason that what is written in the bible cannot be disputed weather one believes what is written or not is another matter, the point is it is there in black on white. Unless of course, your name is Reverend Munchausen Tradesecret. It is then that speculation, guesswork conjecture and assumptions come flying from all angles? It's a shame he doesn't afford any other poster the literary privilege to use any of the above bold underlined.
I won't be engaging him on this thread any longer Brother D. It is a pointless exercise, when trying to discuss or debate with a narcissistic compulsive liar and a contradictory bible clown.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Even the verse which indicates he thought two swords was plenty is indicative of this position.
Your alleged brilliant and exceptional memory of the bible has let you down AGAIN, BIBLE DUNCE.
>>>>> And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. #6
I won't be replying to you any longer on this thread Reverend Munchausen..
You are welcome to discuss or debunk the finer point of my argument HERE>>Contrary to .... (debateart.com) #1
Mind how you lie, now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you a Puffin sceptic then?
Not at all Vic lad. I have seen the Puffins. And let me tell you, much time has past since the days of the ancient Puffin tribes and nations and much much more 'knowing' and 'begatting' and 'coming un into' has taken place. The Puffin nations have given rise Penguins with some that have their own Kings and Emperors - Divi filius
Are you a HUMBLEIST?
She's nice and is informative. But not to be worshipped.
Not bad for 53......
53? Humble is only 53? Maybe she could be worshipped after all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
An Apuffinist Stephen
That's sounds good, Vic lad. Is that Greek for I don't believe in the God of all Puffindom?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up." When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!"
Moses had a problem with his eyesight. He appears to have had his bushes confused. When he heard the voice calling out his name it was the voice his future wife Zipporah, she was a true flaming redhead.
Created:
Posted in:
@ the Witch
, where did all the non-jewish people come from and why.
#77 may go some way to answering your question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Picking the correct puffin out of the 30,000 diffrent types of puffins is a bit over the top. Surly one couldn't and wouldn't be at all confident about that.
And there in lies your problem that I highlighted above, Deb. Hence I am a atheist Puffinist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
To humans. Correct.But not to puffins.God watchers / and cares for his puffins a lot more then us.He does notice the humans that happen to be near puffins.Other then that, he couldn't care less about us.The proof for this.Rebecca 17 : 33. And the puffins are what we are to serve.Tony W 22 : 28. Everything and everyone must care for the puffins.Eric 55 : 64 and we shall all gazeeth upon ze puffinsShall i continue?
Yes please continue Deb. But you may have a problem.
There are 4 different Puffin tribes today, Deb The Atlantic Puffin that all once worshiped the sea god Poseidon. Poseidon was married to Amphitrite and they had a son of god named Triton. Triton when he came of age pecked to death a Puffin task master which divided the Puffin nation into two tribes. For his crime Triton was forced into exile to wander the seas for 40 years with his new tribe called the tribe of the Horned Puffin. They eventually found a place to settle that, unknown to god Poseidon, Triton's mother had promised her son. This came to be known as the promised sea.
Over many years Triton had a son of his own named Chrysaor that grew up wondering when it was gong to be his time to rule over the tribe of the Horned Puffin as his father Triton seemed to be living forever he was over 900 years old at the time and Triton thought his time would never come. So, restless for power he shouted one day, ' who is with me' there was a war and thus the nation of Horned Puffin was once again divided and they went to live on mount North Pacific
The son of god named his tribe the Nation of the Tufted Puffin.
As was usual in the ancient times of the Puffin it became know that Triton god of the tribe of the Horned Puffin had a half brother. Amphitrite, Triton's mom had been banging Dionysus and produced a half brother son of god, who turned up on mount North Pacific the home of Chrysaor and the nation of Tufted Puffin
proclaiming to have come to unite all the lost puffin tribes, but lo, this incursion only served to split the nation of the Tufted Puffin into yet another puffin tribe named the nation of Rhinoceros Auklet with it's own god.
Do you see your problem Deb?
Created:
Posted in:
Luke 22:36King James Version
Then said he [Jesus] unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
As mentioned, the sword in this verse was by no means a sword of the metorphorcle kind.
Leaving the question why would Jesus have all his followers buy weapons even if it meant selling the clothes from their backs?
The bible clearly states that before Jesus came on the scene they appear to have had only two swords to rub together between them. As we read further from Luke's gospel:
Luke 22:36-38
The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied.
“That’s enough!” he replied.
"Not enough"!? says the - turn the other cheek - Prince of Peace. What was he expecting? A war?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So you have read the court transcript, yes or no?I have read large chunks of:
So that is a clear no then.
Well I can tell you. Hubbard admits to covering up the sexual abuse by "ELEVEN" members of the clergy. Those are the words of Hubbard himself, and just as the Boston Globe and the Daily Mail reported and I don't care what you believe about the court or it's proceedings.
Sexual abuse of Children IS RIFE in the Roman Catholic Church. And the likes of you not only tolerate it, but decide it is all the fault of the children and their parents.#7
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
@ADreamOfLiberty; Then you used the unpalatable notion of Disney employees buggered young children too, as if this gets your Cathylick Priests off the hook! Listen up Bible fool, the Cathylick church and pedophile priests that are to be trusted by young children, and that bugger them anyway, and Disney employees that do the same is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE concepts you dumbfounded Bible idiot! H-E-L-L-O?! Do I need to explain this simple deduction further to you at your expense again?
Exactly BrotherD. This is nothing more than Christian apologetics and a desperate attempt to conflate two mutually exclusive issues as if this some how excuses these vile paedophile men of the Roman Catholic Church chosen by, and called by GOD! to serve HIM and his CHILDREN. These Priests should be the most trusted people on the planet., yet, just a quick google and one can find 1000's and 1000's of cases where these men of GOD have failed their religion, their god and our children.
And the pay off's run into $billions. But what doe our resident Roman catholic apologist have to say on the matter? and this hush money in particular? He blames the victims and their parents and accuses them of being "in on the cover up" and accuses the parents of "pimping out their own children".
ADreamOfLiberty wrote: "So this theory of the crime can essentially be described as sexual abuse which may or may not have occurred, followed by the parents essentially pimping out their own child by demanding money instead of going to the police. If there was no money on the table (and the parents knew that) then why would they not immediately go to the police? So who is more to blame some cardinals in Rome who probably had no idea about this alleged payout or the parents of the child who were supposed to protect that child caring more about money"#7
I have never heard anything so fkn sick in all my life.
Stephen,I have listed a "plethora" of posts to the ever so dumbfounded ADREAMOFLIBERTY relating to the topic of pedophile priests that he ungodly defends, therefore, this modus operandi of this Bible fool is suspiciously equal to the dumbfounded of the JUDEO-Christian Bible, the 12 year old MISS TRADESECRET! Therefore, do you think that they are a Bible Stupid Brother and Sister Act? Inquiring minds want to know. :)
Nothing would surprise me where the Reverend Munchausen Tradedesecret is concerned Brother D. But I can say ADREAMOFLIBERTY 'S apologetics is right up there with that other vile Roman Catholic and forum sex pest ethang 5, for sure.
ADREAMOFLIBERTY wrote: I maintain that:1. Bestiality is not inherently immoral2. Anything which is not inherently immoral should not be illegal.#1The bible as often published is ambiguous on the issue since god first suggested every form of bestiality before Adam objected (Genesis)#8
What does that tell you?
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
@ADreamOfLiberty
but I also can't imagine why a social worker would call a diocese and not the police.That's because Hubbard admitted to covering it all up and THEN lying about the cover up. Are you a dumb as you are making out to be. READ THE COURT DEPOSITION THAT THE DEFENCE LAWYERS DIDN'T WANT TO DISCLOSE. or would you like me to show you that too.Here you go you lazy, bone idle, apologetic sycophant.Read this first, you apologetic clown..https://www.andersonadvocates.com/news/bishop-howard-hubbards-testimony-publicly-released-for-first-time/...and then read thisRead it slowly and I hope you fkn weep. But you won't, you have no fkn conscience whatsoever.. In my opinion you are no better than those that committed these godawful crimes against children.I can tell you did not read the relevant parts of the transcript or else you would have recognized that I quoted from it in post #25.
So you have read the court transcript, yes or no?
.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
@BrotherD.Thomas
Dear Oh dear Oh dear.
John Geoghan was a Boston priest whose career spanned 30 years in six different parishes. He was also a serial child rapist who had 150 boys came forward to accuse him of sexual abuse during his time in the Catholic Church.
John Geoghan was a Boston priest whose career spanned 30 years across Massachusetts.
He was also a serial child rapist who would meet a grisly death in jail.
I don't doubt for a second that the apologist for the Roman Catholic Church will have us believe that the Jury was fixed and this paedophile Roman Catholic Priest should have been found guilty on the evidence presented, and accuse all 150 boys of being all born liars. Such is the nature of the fawning sycophantic apologist blinded by faith.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What are the possibilities of a child winning a lawsuit against a powerful and extremely wealthy organisation such as the Roman church?The chances of winning a civil suit against the catholic church with the allegation of child sexual abuse is in my opinion significantly higher than the chance of the church winning a defamation suit against a media outlet.
And your opinion is based on what exactly? Do you have any legal training or experience.. at all.
Without evidence of actual malice the defamation suit would be thrown out by a judge. However in the case of sexual abuse allegations a simple majority of jurors could easily be so moved that the mere accusation is sufficient.
Well I am sure that any powerful organisation such as The Roman Catholic Church defending themselves against any false accusations of Child Sex Abuse in their ranks would get their ducks in a row and demand that their accusers face them in a courtroom in the case of the - film makers of "Spotlight" and the Pulitzer prize winning investigative reporters at the Boston Globe and their own investigation reporting on Child sex Abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, and would want to face their accusers and clear their name and for the good of the RC Church..
Boston Globe Investigation Into Child Sex Abuse in the Roman Catholic Church
"Spotlight" a Hollywood movie about Paedophile Priests in the Roman Catholic and the Cover Up.
You have simply been clutching at straws. And not for the first time on this thread.
Demanding settlements? But that is exactly what has been happening, the 'losses' of the church in that regard form the basis of your evidence of a conspiracy.So do you believe the thousands of accusations against the RC Church are all a conspiracy?The conspiracy I mentioned is the purported conspiracy within the church to hide evidence of sexual abuse."Purported"? But then you are simply and apologetically dismissing the facts presented by priests of the RC Church and the Roman Catholic church itself,in your attempts to absolve the Roman Catholic Church. This is simply you in full denial. There is and was a conspiracy to hide evidence.and yet whenever you look into it, it reads like "we should have done better",
Does it? Better that what? Better at hiding the Child Sex Abuse in their ranks or stamping it out?
because they think they're responsible for the actions of priests just like you do.
And so does any level headed person of the planet.
But I don't [think the Roman Catholic Church is responsible]
I think we know that by now and in the face of all the fkn GLARING evidence too. Your a sycophant that refuses to face facts pointing to a clear cover up ADIMTTED to by many of the RC clergy saying " instead [ of reporting it, he] kept the allegations against Bentley, and others, secret out of concern for 'scandal and the respect of the priesthood.' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10657343/Ex-Albany-bishop-acknowledges-covering-abuse-allegations.html
Looking after his won is what any decent law abiding person would call it.
Failing to act is not the same thing as a coverup.
Clutching at very thin straws in a vain attempt to absolve The Roman Catholic Church. You have failed.
For a coverup to exist there must be evidence available only to the church that was intentionally withheld.
But the evidence has been revealed on many occasions, you just don't want to face it and the fact that your church is riddled with paedophile Priests.
then how could there possibly have been an error in church behavior at the time if no allegations existed?Who mentioned an error? I am talking about the hidden sexual abuse of children at the hands of servants of god and the Roman catholic Church.The OP and myself. Try to keep up.
Stop telling lies. The OP doesn't even mention the word "error".
And are you suggesting that the RC Church with nothing to hide and church members to lose (as they have over this and other scandals) wouldn't want to defend their reputation as a stand up, blameless and moral sinless institution?Well they don't see themselves as blameless, I do. Their greatest mistake in all of this was to give the slightest impression that they were responsible or equipped to handle potential crime "in house" (as the FBI/jury/you put it).That doesn't answer the question.The answer is: Yes, I am suggesting they wouldn't want to defend their reputation as a stand up, blameless and moral sinless institution because that is not how they see themselves.And I am asking you why they wouldn't defend themselves and the Church against these serious and defamatory accusations if they had nothing to hide and were not true.?No that is not what you asked, full context reproduced above.
Stop with your barrel scraping bullshite. The question I asked hasn't changed. You have even gave your "opinion", hoping it served as an answer. It didn't.
So why the change of heart? Why would he do it now?There was no Church policy on it before, there is now.Why now? The policy had to have been created and put in place for a reason.People like yourself have mistakenly identified the church as a detective agency,
Nope, the Roman Catholic Church claims many times to have conducted their own investigations into these accusations of Child Sex Abuse in their ranks, AND THEN DECIDED TO HIDE THEIR FINDINGS. . HERE>>> " instead [ of reporting it, he] kept the allegations against Bentley, and others, secret out of concern for 'scandal and the respect of the priesthood.' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10657343/Ex-Albany-bishop-acknowledges-covering-abuse-allegations.html
You asked what behaviour and whenI asked when the admission of the suspect was made and I wanted more specific than "sexual abuse",
This is what you asked .
ADreamOfLiberty, wrote:The article says:[DailyMail] One, David Bentley, admitted to Hubbard that he had engaged in the behavior alleged. Former Bishop of Albany admits covering-up for ELEVEN 'pedophile' priests | Daily Mail OnlineWhen? What behavior?
and I broke it down for you. HERE>>#20
You then shifted this to the confession and attempted to redefine the word confession. I showed you that too.
I did not go and find it because I had the BoP I was curious.
No you just didn't want to see it for yourself and have to face the facts.
I can't imagine why Hubbard would lie, but I also can't imagine why a social worker would call a diocese and not the police.
That's because Hubbard hasn't lied about the priest David Bentley admitting he has sexually abused children.. read it for yourself. AND THEN ADMITTED TO HIDING IT.
but I also can't imagine why a social worker would call a diocese and not the police.
That's because Hubbard admitted to covering it all up and THEN lying about the cover up. Are you a dumb as you are making out to be. READ THE COURT DEPOSITION THAT THE DEFENCE LAWYERS DIDN'T WANT TO DISCLOSE. or would you like me to show you that too.
Here you go you lazy, bone idle, apologetic sycophant.
Read this first, you apologetic clown..
...and then read this
Read it slowly and I hope you fkn weep. But you won't, you have no fkn conscience whatsoever.. In my opinion you are no better than those that committed these godawful crimes against children.
And don't bother me again. You are not interested in facts or evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Great question Stephen,In this passage Matthew 10:34 the sword is metaphorical.
Is that conjecture or an assumption? You could be correct as I have said, you may have a point. [A] In that the real sword would indeed bring about family division. You just far to stupid to work that out for yourself. SEE HERE>> #1
In the latter passage you quote Luke 22:36 - I would have thought Jesus meant a real sword.
Correct. There is no getting away from it. It means exactly what it says.
The point however is why does he suggest a real sword there and not in the other one?
See [A] above. And tell me, why did Jesus instruct all of his followers to go buy a sword in the first place.
Jesus was not a pacifists.
I agree. And have never disputed that FACT. Jesus says he has not come to bring peace but a sword, Matthew 10:34 he also tells his followers to arm themselves even at a cost of the clothes of their backs Luke 22:36, hardly the words of a pacifist. SEE HERE>>#3
He was not a zealot,
Why do you say that?
even though one of his apostles was one prior to becoming a disciple.
More conjecture, and assumption, and guesswork.
The bible is clear that there were more than one zealot in his entourage. This will be your extraordinary and exceptional memory of the scriptures letting you down again not to mention you linguistical command of ancient Greek. I believe all they were all Galilean nationalist zealots. << Thinking outside the box you see.
One of Jesus' disciples was also a tax collector. This did not make Jesus a tax collector.
Stop being so fkn silly. The tax collector was a part of the Jesus party you clown. And being a tax collector wouldn't mean he was not also a zealot, you bible dunce.
Others were fishermen. Again, Jesus was not a fisherman.
So? It would have stopped them being zealots and fishermen.
Self-defense is a valid reason to have a sword.
So what were they defending themselves with before Jesus told them to go and buy a sword; FISH!?? By all BIBLICAL accounts they only had two swords between them all. That memory is failing you quite a lot isn't it Reverend Munchausen?
"So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”
And He said to them, “It is enough.”
And He said to them, “It is enough.”
NOT ENOUGH!!!!! ??? What was expecting a full scale war perhaps.... that he admits he will bring about. <<<< learn your bible thicko..
I am sure you are just champing at the bit wanting to tell us all.
Which is why I have began to explain to the contrary on a thread of my own and that you are giving a very wide berth to and have avoided like the plague.
Contrary to .... (debateart.com) #1 You are welcome to come and debunk anything I have to say on that thread.
Jesus even rebuked Peter when Peter swung a sword.
There is no NT evidence to the contrary. For those who suggest otherwise - the onus is on you.
Which is why I have began to explain to the contrary on a thread of my own and that you are giving a very wide berth to and have avoided like the plague.
Contrary to .... (debateart.com) #1 You are welcome to come and debunk anything I have to say on that thread.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Cathylick priests screwing innocent young children is despicable to say the least, notwithstanding the coverups of same by the RCC church.
It is abhorrent Brother D. And what is worse is those that deny the cover up in the face of all the facts and evidence.
Created:
Why hasn't the RC Church sued the makers of the film "spotlight" that tells the story of paedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church? Andwhy hasn't the Roman Catholic Church sued the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporters and The Boston Globe for writing and publishing false and defamatory accusations?Well one reason could be it's almost impossible to win a defamation lawsuit against a journalist expressing opinions on public interest topics .So how possible do you believe it would be for a child and or his family to go up against a powerful and extremely wealthy institution such as the Roman Catholic Church and win?Your question is complex (the fallacy) because it hides the truth in the details:No it isn't. You have offered possible reasons for the RC church not taking out lawsuits against film makers and investigative journalist. One being the "almost impossibility" of winning. I asked you in response what are the possibilities of a child winning a lawsuit against a powerful and extremely wealthy organisation such as the Roman church?It's almost impossible to win a defamation lawsuit of that nature (in the USA) because of precedent establishing extremely high bars such as actual malice that are almost impossible to prove. It is not almost impossible because lawyers are just too damn expensive.
You are still avoiding my question. I asked you if that is the case what are the possibilities of a child winning a lawsuit against a powerful and extremely wealthy organisation such as the Roman church?
What does it mean to "go up against" the church? PR? Civil suits?Stop being so ignorant and disingenuous. Go up against as in - sue a powerful and extremely wealthy organisation such as the Roman Church?Civil suit is an inappropriate response to criminal activity.
Ok but opinion counts for nothing. Just answer my question. I asked you what are the possibilities of a child winning a lawsuit against a powerful and extremely wealthy organisation such as the Roman church?
Demanding settlements? But that is exactly what has been happening, the 'losses' of the church in that regard form the basis of your evidence of a conspiracy.So do you believe the thousands of accusations against the RC Church are all a conspiracy?The conspiracy I mentioned is the purported conspiracy within the church to hide evidence of sexual abuse.
"Purported"? But then you are simply and apologetically dismissing the facts presented by priests of the RC Church and the Roman Catholic church itself,
in your attempts to absolve the Roman Catholic Church. This is simply you in full denial. There is and was a conspiracy to hide evidence.
Why is it that all of these actions against the church only seem to occur well after the statute of limitations expire (there shouldn't be such a thing in such serious cases)?You haven't researched this at all have you. The obvious reason appears to be in most cases the CHILDREN don't say a word about their sexual abuse at the hands of these powerful and influential priests until they have grown into adults.I see, then how could there possibly have been an error in church behavior at the time if no allegations existed?
Who mentioned an error? I am talking about the hidden sexual abuse of children at the hands of servants of god and the Roman catholic Church.
And are you suggesting that the RC Church with nothing to hide and church members to lose (as they have over this and other scandals) wouldn't want to defend their reputation as a stand up, blameless and moral sinless institution?Well they don't see themselves as blameless, I do. Their greatest mistake in all of this was to give the slightest impression that they were responsible or equipped to handle potential crime "in house" (as the FBI/jury/you put it).That doesn't answer the question.The answer is: Yes, I am suggesting they wouldn't want to defend their reputation as a stand up, blameless and moral sinless institution because that is not how they see themselves.
And I am asking you why they wouldn't defend themselves and the Church against these serious and defamatory accusations if they had nothing to hide and were not true.?
So why the change of heart? Why would he do it now?There was no Church policy on it before, there is now.
Why now? The policy had to have been created and put in place for a reason.
The article says:[DailyMail] One, David Bentley, admitted to Hubbard that he had engaged in the behavior alleged. Former Bishop of Albany admits covering-up for ELEVEN 'pedophile' priests | Daily Mail OnlineWhen? What behavior?You cannot help yourself can you? Let me break it down for you."During the four-day deposition, the Bishop Emeritus named several priests who had been accused of sexual abuse who were referred to treatment and later returned to ministry, without notification to the public.One, [ OF THE SEVERAL PRIESTS ] David Bentley, admitted to Hubbard that he had engaged in the behaviour alleged.When was the purported admission, not when was the purported deposition.
You asked what behaviour and when, ffs keep up.
The piece tell you when it was, see bold underlined above. . I am not going to keep doing all the research for you. You can keep denying these court stated facts and admissions all you want. But you are failing miserably not only to keep up, but in your poor endeavours to defend the indefensible.
And we do have the deposition transcript. And it confirms church hid abuse. You just don't want to face the facts because you are nothing more than an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church and the rife sexual deviancy of its priests chosen and called by god himself..Ok post it
Why do you not look for it yourself, like I did. Or are you simply blinded by faith and afraid to accept the truth and the facts of the matter.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Why hasn't the RC Church sued the makers of the film "spotlight" that tells the story of paedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church? Andwhy hasn't the Roman Catholic Church sued the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporters and The Boston Globe for writing and publishing false and defamatory accusations?Well one reason could be it's almost impossible to win a defamation lawsuit against a journalist expressing opinions on public interest topics .So how possible do you believe it would be for a child and or his family to go up against a powerful and extremely wealthy institution such as the Roman Catholic Church and win?Your question is complex (the fallacy) because it hides the truth in the details:
No it isn't. You have offered possible reasons for the RC church not taking out lawsuits against film makers and investigative journalist. One being the "almost impossibility" of winning. I asked you in response what are the possibilities of a child winning a lawsuit against a powerful and extremely wealthy organisation such as the Roman church?
What does it mean to "go up against" the church? PR? Civil suits?
Stop being so ignorant and disingenuous. Go up against as in - sue a powerful and extremely wealthy organisation such as the Roman Church?
Demanding settlements? But that is exactly what has been happening, the 'losses' of the church in that regard form the basis of your evidence of a conspiracy.
So do you believe the thousands of accusations against the RC Church are all a conspiracy?
That is not the real issue. The real issue is that this is an extremely criminal matter perpetrated not by "the church" but by specific persons.
They represent the church and god.
The pertinent question is: How possible do you believe it would be for a child and or his family to report sexual assault by a specific person to the police?
No, my question was clear. You are simply trying wave it it away and attempting to absolve the RC Church.
Why is it that all of these actions against the church only seem to occur well after the statute of limitations expire (there shouldn't be such a thing in such serious cases)?
You haven't researched this at all have you. The obvious reason appears to be in most cases the CHILDREN don't say a word about their sexual abuse at the hands of these powerful and influential priests until they have grown into adults.
Another might be the fact that the Church knows they have bad PR and don't want to stoke the flames.And another could be they didn't want to risk the chance of more revelations that would put the "Spotlight" on them highlighting the child sex abuse scandal revealing more child sex abuse in the RC Church and would rather play it down to protect the priesthood.That is repeating what I said with a spin.
That is adding to what you disingenuously failed to say.
And are you suggesting that the RC Church with nothing to hide and church members to lose (as they have over this and other scandals) wouldn't want to defend their reputation as a stand up, blameless and moral sinless institution?Well they don't see themselves as blameless, I do. Their greatest mistake in all of this was to give the slightest impression that they were responsible or equipped to handle potential crime "in house" (as the FBI/jury/you put it).
That doesn't answer the question.
"Ex-Bishop of Albany admits he didn't report child sex allegations made against ELEVEN priests to police or fire them because he wanted to avoid another Catholic church 'scandal'.Made by people who must have chosen to report only to him and not to the police their belief that crimes had occurred.
Your apologetics are breath-taking.
Meanwhile, Hubbard testified he didn't report the allegations to law enforcement because he didn't feel he was required by law to do soThat is no doubt correct. The duty, in those cases where it exists is on the witness.
But he appears to have believed the accusations against these eleven Roman Catholic priests and by his own admission and chose not to go to the police to report their crimes..... although he does add:
" I don't think the law then or even now requires me to do it. Would I do it now? Yes. But did I do it then? No.'"
So why the change of heart? Why would he do it now?
On the other hand this Hubbard was himself accused of sexual abuse. Was he obligated to report to the police that someone was accusing him of a crime when the accuser did not?
That is more like the reason that "today he would report those other child sexually abusing priests. ' it wasn't me,, but it was them others'.
I can easily see why he might find accusations suspicious if he himself was falsely accused.
Indeed and also the reason why he now- today, believes he should have reported the crimes committed against these children by members of his own priestly brotherhood.
" I don't think the law then or even now requires me to do it. Would I do it now? Yes. But did I do it then? No.'"
The article says:[DailyMail] One, David Bentley, admitted to Hubbard that he had engaged in the behavior alleged. Former Bishop of Albany admits covering-up for ELEVEN 'pedophile' priests | Daily Mail OnlineWhen? What behavior?
You cannot help yourself can you? Let me break it down for you.
"During the four-day deposition, the Bishop Emeritus named several priests who had been accused of sexual abuse who were referred to treatment and later returned to ministry, without notification to the public.
One, [ OF THE SEVERAL PRIESTS ] David Bentley, admitted to Hubbard that he had engaged in the behaviour alleged.
[DailyMail] In arguing for the release of the deposition transcript, attorneys for some of the alleged victims had argued that the risk of pre-trial prejudice was no longer valid after Hubbard published an opinion piece in the Albany Times-Union last year in which he defended the diocese's handling of abuse complaints.So we don't actually have the transcript, this story is based on what the plaintiff's attorneys told the DailyMail.
No. It is the Daily Mail reporting from the courtroom. And we do have the deposition transcript. And it confirms church hid abuse. You just don't want to face the facts because you are nothing more than an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church and the rife sexual deviancy of its priests chosen and called by god himself..
Shite judge of character isn't he your god?. How the fk is he going to judge and treat me that hasn't ever committed a crime in my life. Mind you, that didn't stop the vile bastard torturing Job who was blameless in the eyes of god , so I won't be expecting any special treatment.
Created:
It all goes back before even I was born.
Letters: Catholic bishops warned in '50s of abusive priests
FAITH & REASON
By Rachel Zoll, Associated Press
The founder of a religious order that treats Roman Catholic priests who molest children concluded in the 1950s that offenders were unlikely to change and should not be returned to ministry, according to his letters, which were obtained by plaintiffs' lawyers.
The Rev. Gerald Fitzgerald, founder of the Servants of the Paraclete, was so sure of the priests' inability to control themselves that he tried to buy an island to isolate them.
Fitzgerald discussed the issue with Pope Paul VI and in correspondence with several bishops, according to the National Catholic Reporter, an independent newspaper that reported the full content of the letters Monday.
The documents challenge recent statements by U.S. bishops that before the clergy sex abuse scandal erupted in the 1980s and again in 2002, they were unaware of the risks of moving predators among parishes.
"I myself would be inclined to favor laicization for any priest, upon objective evidence, for tampering with the virtue of the young, my argument being, from this point onward the charity to the Mystical Body should take precedence over charity to the individual," Fitzgerald wrote in a 1952 letter to Bishop Robert Dwyer of Reno.
"Moreover, in practice, real conversions will be found to be extremely rare," he continued. "Hence, leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the approximate danger of scandal."
The Los Angeles law firm Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, which has brought many abuse cases against California dioceses, persuaded a judge in New Mexico to unseal the letters in 2007, according to Helen Zukin, an attorney at the firm.
The attorneys then verified that the documents were authentic during depositions with Fitzgerald's successor as the Paracletes servant general, the Rev. Joseph McNamara, Zukin said.
Leaders of the Servants of the Paraclete could not be reached for comment Monday.
Fitzgerald set up the Paraclete treatment center in the late 1940s in Jemez Springs, N.M., mainly to help clergy struggling with alcoholism and emotional troubles. Soon, bishops began sending him priests who had molested young people or could not keep their celibacy vows.
In a 1957 letter to Bishop Matthew Brady of Manchester, N.H., Fitzgerald wrote that abusive priests only pretended to repent and change "to be again in a position where they can continue their wonted activity." He said eventually the church would have to establish "a uniform code of discipline and of penalties" to protect the priesthood.
More than four decades later, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops did just that. It created a national discipline and child protection policy after news reports and court files unsealed in 2002 showed that many bishops had moved guilty priests from assignment to assignment without notifying parents or police.
Under the new plan, offenders are barred from church work or ousted from the priesthood altogether.
American dioceses have paid more than $2.6 billion in abuse-related costs since 1950, according studies commissioned by the U.S. bishops.
By the 1960s, Fitzgerald was losing control over the direction of the religious order, and medical and psychological professionals began working at the center — a change he had resisted. Those experts said some abusers could return to ministry.
The New Mexico treatment center closed in the 1990s in the face of lawsuits over priests who had molested children while staying at the Jemez Springs site or after being treated there.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Yes, a Church-commissioned report in 2004 said more than 4,000 US Roman Catholic priests had faced sexual abuse allegations in the last 50 years.
Indeed, and the Roman Catholic church paid off many its child sex abuse victims, running to over a $billion world wide. One would think it more worthier, honourable and noble to challenge the accusations made against these men chosen and called by god. Not to mention a damn site cheaper. They must have realised that Prayer alone wouldn't work.
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Matthew 19:14
What tf it must be like for children in the kingdom of heaven only god knows.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Why hasn't the RC Church sued the makers of the film "spotlight" that tells the story of paedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church? Andwhy hasn't the Roman Catholic Church sued the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporters and The Boston Globe for writing and publishing false and defamatory accusations?Well one reason could be it's almost impossible to win a defamation lawsuit against a journalist expressing opinions on public interest topics .
So how possible do you believe it would be for a child and or his family to go up against a powerful and extremely wealthy institution such as the Roman Catholic Church and win?
Another might be the fact that the Church knows they have bad PR and don't want to stoke the flames.
And another could be they didn't want to risk the chance of more revelations that would put the "Spotlight" on them highlighting the child sex abuse scandal revealing more child sex abuse in the RC Church and would rather play it down to protect the priesthood.
And are you suggesting that the RC Church with nothing to hide and church members to lose (as they have over this and other scandals) wouldn't want to defend their reputation as a stand up, blameless and moral sinless institution?
"Ex-Bishop of Albany admits he didn't report child sex allegations made against ELEVEN priests to police or fire them because he wanted to avoid another Catholic church 'scandal'.
Meanwhile, Hubbard testified he didn't report the allegations to law enforcement because he didn't feel he was required by law to do so, and instead kept the allegations against Bentley, and others, secret
When asked why he didn't report the allegations to police, Hubbard said: 'Because I was not a mandated reporter. I don't think the law then or even now requires me to do it. Would I do it now? Yes. But did I do it then? No.'"
Created:
@the Witch.
-->@Intelligence_06He's an atheist that uses a "Christian" persona to get away with trolling.
And you are not trolling? Your comment has nothing to do with the theme of the thread or topic in hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
(Ah dude I remember you [ADreamOfLiberty]. It's been like 6 or 7 years since you dropped off the radar from DDO and when you joined this site you picked the exact same username? Anyways, welcome back I guess.)
Was this him?
Bestiality/Zoophilia
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I will never have anything but the highest suspicion for accusations that were never even reported to police.You are coming across no better than those that preferred to turn a blind eye.That is likely a result of your biases.
What do you believe has caused my "biases". Do you think that I got out of bed one day and simply decided that the Roman Catholic Church was rife with paedophilia?
The message I'm sending is: Innocent until proven guilty, no matter how angry the crime makes you feel. In fact if you feel very angry you need to be extra careful to be objective.
I agree, anger, like faith, can blind one to the truth of the matter.
If it wasn't for ratzinger claiming for the church the role of criminal investigator you wouldn't even have the accusations you have now, yet now you accuse him of being part of the coverup.So I will take it that you are pretending to have never heard of John Geoghan the American serial child rapist and Roman Catholic priest assigned to parishes in the Archdiocese of Boston in Massachusetts.... etc etc Catholic Archdiocese of Boston sex abuse scandal - WikipediaNo I hadn't heard the name before. Was he charged?
So you didn't bother reading the link.
“These moments where we know people have done things wrong and we don’t, as a society, we don’t stand up to them, it takes years and years and years and the question is why? Why does it take so long?”That is a very good question. Even in 1989 dialing the police non-emergency number, explaining the evidence and setting up a meeting with a detective would take less than half an hour. The only plausible reason I can imagine this not happening is that there existed at the time, no compelling evidence.
It is a good question. Did you research why this is the case?
The FBI did;
Church officials followed a “playbook for concealing the truth,” the reports states. The patterns were similar enough that FBI analyses of the church’s responses yielded seven rules, basically, an institutional guide to covering up abuse. Here are seven principles the jurors note:
- Make sure to use euphemisms rather than real words to describe the sexual assaults in diocese documents. Never say”rape”; say “inappropriate contact” or “boundary issues.”
- Don’t conduct genuine investigations with properly trained personnel. Instead, assign fellow clergy members to ask inadequate questions and then make credibility determinations about the colleagues with whom they live and work.
- For an appearance of integrity, send priests for “evaluation” at church-run psychiatric treatment centers. Allow these experts to “diagnose” whether the priest was a pedophile, based largely on the priest’s “self-reports” and regardless of whether the priest had actually engaged in sexual contact with a child.
- When a priest does have to be removed, don’t say why. Tell his parishioners that he is on “sick leave,” or suffering from”nervous exhaustion.” Or say nothing at all.
- Even if a priest is raping children, keep providing him housing and living expenses, although he may be using these resources to facilitate more sexual assaults.
- If a predator’s conduct becomes known to the community, don’t remove him from the priesthood to ensure that no more children will be victimized. Instead, transfer him to a new location where no one will know he is a child abuser.
- Finally, and above all, don’t tell the police. Child sexual abuse, even short of actual penetration, is and has for all relevant times been a crime. But don’t treat it that way; handle it like a personnel matter, “in house.”
In response to the report, Pennsylvania’s Catholic bishops issued a statement (paywall) calling for prayers for victims and the church. They promise more openness and said steps have been taken to make churches safer.The Catholic Church's seven-point system for covering up abuse — Quartz (qz.com)
AND here are two more good questions.
Why hasn't the RC Church sued the makers of the film "spotlight" that tells the story of paedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church? And
why hasn't the Roman Catholic Church sued the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporters and The Boston Globe for writing and publishing false and defamatory accusations?
The Globe’s Spotlight team exposed the attacks over a period of decades by priests in the Boston archdiocese who molested young boys but instead of being reported to the police were given counseling and moved to a different parish."Instead of being reported to the police", yea who made that decision? Not someone who had reliable evidence of sexual abuse I will continue to infer.
So it will be the fault of children, their parents, the police and the local authorities, and not the RC Church according to your own biases.
Team members interviewed victims who were still distraught and disturbed decades later, and established that the Roman Catholic Church had a policy of paying victims to remain silent, and not rock the boat by making their allegations public.If that could be proven, that's child prostitution, pull the bank records. If nobody reported this at the time, not the church, not the victims, not the victim's parents then the 'victims' were in on the coverup weren't they? Even money did change hands that is far from placing the blame squarely on some secret church policy, clearly the 'victims' wanted money more than they wanted justice.
This says more about your own biases than it ever will my own.
So this theory of the crime can essentially be described as sexual abuse which may or may not have occurred, followed by the parents essentially pimping out their own child by demanding money instead of going to the police. If there was no money on the table (and the parents knew that) then why would they not immediately go to the police? So who is more to blame some cardinals in Rome who probably had no idea about this alleged payout or the parents of the child who were supposed to protect that child caring more about money?
This too says more about your own biases than they ever will my own.
McCarthy said that despite making some concessions to legal authorities by eventually turning over church recordsThe police do not need to ask for records, if there is probable cause they can get a subpoena.
You don't seem to understand how this works do you? You also underestimate the power of the RC Church and you obviously haven't ever heard of penitent privilege.
“Many people left the Catholic faith because of a lot of this and it suffered but I feel like maybe now we can have a discussion with the Pope that’s in…and maybe it could start doing some reparations to the credibility of an institution that has meant a lot to people over the centuries.“I think it’s essential, it must be done.”Seems like a witch hunt when all roads lead to the stake.
I suppose it would seem that way... if you were a Roman Catholic.
Tell me, do you believe a persons testimony should be taken as truth and at face value?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I will never have anything but the highest suspicion for accusations that were never even reported to police.
You are coming across no better than those that preferred to turn a blind eye.
If it wasn't for ratzinger claiming for the church the role of criminal investigator you wouldn't even have the accusations you have now, yet now you accuse him of being part of the coverup.
So I will take it that you are pretending to have never heard of John Geoghan the American serial child rapist and Roman Catholic priest assigned to parishes in the Archdiocese of Boston in Massachusetts. He was re-assigned to several parish posts involving interaction with children, even after receiving treatment for pedophilia? Robert Joseph Banks, when an auxiliary bishop in Boston, had recommended in 1989 that Geoghan remain as a parish priest despite receiving an assessment that he would likely continue to act on his pedophilia. Banks was appointed bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay in 1990. He retired in 2003, having reached the church's mandatory retirement age of 75 years. Banks remains Bishop Emeritus of Green Bay.Catholic Archdiocese of Boston sex abuse scandal - Wikipedia
And this Hollywood movie was complete fiction although based on a Pulitzer prized investigation into paedophilia in the RC Church, was it?
The Boston Globe’s Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation of pedophile Roman Catholic priests, deals with just a fraction of sexual predation in the church, its director says.
“These moments where we know people have done things wrong and we don’t, as a society, we don’t stand up to them, it takes years and years and years and the question is why? Why does it take so long?” McCarthy said in an interview on Wednesday.
The Globe’s Spotlight team exposed the attacks over a period of decades by priests in the Boston archdiocese who molested young boys but instead of being reported to the police were given counseling and moved to a different parish. The expose led to the resignation of Boston’s Cardinal Bernard Law in 2002.
The film for the most part focuses on how the Globe’s team tracked down and confronted some of the offending priests.
Team members interviewed victims who were still distraught and disturbed decades later, and established that the Roman Catholic Church had a policy of paying victims to remain silent, and not rock the boat by making their allegations public.
McCarthy said that despite making some concessions to legal authorities by eventually turning over church records, he doubted the Church had fundamentally reformed.
“There are still cases in the church, right? The new pope (Francis) just appointed a tribunal with Cardinal (Sean Patrick) O’Malley out of Boston to oversee these cases but then SNAP (a victims’ group) and all these different organizations are saying it’s not enough, you’ve appointed an in-house tribunal, we are not going to get justice from that,” McCarthy said.
“I still believe in the Catholic Church, I believe in the good they can do but they are an institution that has to sort of take responsibility for the crimes they’ve committed against their parishioners and their constituency and own it — and they are not yet.”
Ruffalo said he hoped the film would help to build pressure on the church to undertake further reforms.
“Many people left the Catholic faith because of a lot of this and it suffered but I feel like maybe now we can have a discussion with the Pope that’s in…and maybe it could start doing some reparations to the credibility of an institution that has meant a lot to people over the centuries.
“I think it’s essential, it must be done.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Combined with my comments above in my op &,#3 Brother D. there is this question that needs to be addressed.
How many people did it take to arrest one man that Christians insist was simply only a man preaching peace on earth , to turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour and give to the "poor"? That is said to have had healed the sick, made the blind see, the deaf hear and the dead comeback to life? And all deemed by Christians. to have been "miracles" performed by Jesus?
Luke 22:47 KJV And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
The KJV bible dictionary defines - multitude as;
1. The state of being many; a great number.
2. A number collectively; the sum of many.
3. A great number, indefinitely.
So this isn't just a small group of elders and and few Roman soldiers. They appear to have been expecting some serious resistance from this man of peace and love and his small band of 12 minus 1 Judas.
In other bibles the multitude is referred to as a " cohort", which in ancient Rome was a military unit, comprising six centuries, equal to one tenth of a legion with 1 legion compromising of between some 5,300 - 6,000 men.
John 18:12 So the Roman cohort and the commander and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him, NASB, LEB
Over kill doesn't even cover it. Unless of course, Jesus was Lord and commander of quite a large resistance force.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Tradesecret, and the many different individuals playing her, are on another sabbatical to "try" and regroup as they lick their wounds of total defeat of what they thought they knew about Christianity, but didn't!
Or maybe he has reestablished contact with his "mentor" in Moscow to see if he has more secrets to trade?
Tradesecret wrote: Eastern Orthodox Academic in Moscow - (one of my mentors) #311
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
QUESTION; who wants to be a hell bound Catholic whose church hid pedophile priests, and spent 6 BILLION DOLLARS of their flocks money from collection plates on Sunday mornings to pay over time the reparations to the parents of the buggered kids by smelly old priests, and the ramification of these poor kids needing psychiatric help in the aftermath, raise your hands! :(
Self confessed sexual deviants and perverts, by all accounts, Brother D.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Miss Tradesecret is MIA since March 30, 2022,
That will more than likely be because it is the only way he can supress his inner Ethang5, BrotherD.
I did warn him very recently that his mask was slipping >>. bottom of page #324
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I have only listed a few of MANY contradictions within the scriptures that I have just learned to accept. YOU [Tradesecret] on the other hand, will use many insipid and irrational propositions to get out of the Bible being contradicting.#357
I couldn't have put that better myself, BrotherD.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
angel?
Which simply means messenger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Christians should be tough and fight hard.
As Jesus taught and encouraged the people he'd come to save. The Jewish zealots of Galilea, and with a sword in their hands.
Created:
Posted in:
@the Witch
Where the problem lies is for some reason atheists think that religion should be debated via science even though religion has nothing to do with science.
Does not Witchcraft involve science? Are you saying the Witches of yore didn't use science for things such as healing? Or is not Witchcraft a religion. Is astronomy a science?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Indeed Brother D. This was no "metaphorical sword" .
The expected king messiah(warrior king) was one that was supposed to free then Jews from the Roman yoke and there was no way he was going to do that using such language as "render unto Caesar" (Mark 12:17) . Hearing words such as this must have sent the Galilean zealots into a complete frenzy. As is clear from scripture it was from Galilean population that these Jewish nationalists/zealots come from and that Jesus drew his following from.
But then the NT does mention that even his closest didn't understand what he was saying and doing half the time; when he worked and spoke in secret most of the time. Also understandable considering that he was in the middle of building a resistance force and considering he had come to reclaim a throne that someone else happened to be sitting on at the time and put in place by Rome. It was imperative that he keep who he was, and his what his mission was secret until "his time had come". Not to mention that he was forever telling people not to mention what he had said or done . Indeed, he told those said to be closest to him, his inner circle, " I send you out a sheep among wolves so "be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves": that is saying stay alert, it is also saying be two faced & crafty in modern English.
Interesting is not Brother D. that Jesus attributes "wisdom" to the serpent?
Some even asked "Others said, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee?" (John 7:41) Well it's because Jesus was also a Jewish nationalist as was John the Baptist.
Scripture has Jesus' centre of operations in Bethany & Galilee was where he performed his so called "miracles".
So called "Miracles" such as water into wine, healing the sick, sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to voiceless, raising the dead. All performed in Galilee. And were anything but "Miracles". In truth these "miracles were nothing more than initiations rites into the ranks of Jesus' following.
Created:
Posted in:
the
beliefs and some comments in this thread
#1 It's recorded in Matthew 10:34 that Jesus says:"Do not suppose I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law against her mother in law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."Jesus, in my view[,………………………………...]I think part of the answer lies in the type of sword Jesus is talking about. Obviously it is a metaphorical sword, but the Greek word here is a dagger. Not a great big swashbuckling broad sword, but a short dagger. #34
I don’t agree. There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament
BIBLE that shows anything contrary to what Matthew
10:34 actually states and
means.
And, there are many other verses that clearly show that Jesus ‘ appearance
in Palestine as
a king returned to claim his throne and title would create conflict/war with Rome, it
was unavoidable, which
in turn would create division of opinions within the family. These difference
of opinions
would, as Jesus himself admits, set “'a
man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in
law against her mother in law a man's enemies will be the members of
his own household."
You
see, there is no doubt that the
reason for this is simple. Generations
of Jews at the time had been Hellenised
after centuries of influence under the Greek rule and their gods (weren’t even the
gospels recorded in Greek?).
So here we had an older generation still aligned to or hadn’t forgotten their Old Testament god Yahweh while the younger generations were not; “the
children of Israel had gone astray”..
The
BIBLE clearly tells us that Jesus’ “mission” was to unite
those Jews that had been “lost” Matthew 15:24 under
one god and one rule.
In
short Jesus was building an army. And I believe there is evidence in
the New Testament that does go some way in proving this. And,
as with all ends of conflict, there would be the peace under one god
and one rule and
Jesus believed himself to be the man to bring this peace about. This is a recurring pattern throughout the whole of the BIBLE….. if
not the whole of history. Many
Jews were happy with the situation under Greek rule as were many
happy under Babylonian rule so much so many decided to remain in
Babylon and many were
full and active members of Babylonian society. After
some 70+ years many Jews prospered.
It is easy to imagine that many second and third generation Jewish
Babylonians had no interest in leaving. As
were many happy with the status quo under Roman rule and didn’t
want any self proclaimed pretender king upsetting it:
John
11:48
If
we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then
the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”
Luke
22:36King James Version
Then
said he [Jesus] unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it,
and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his
garment, and buy one.
Indeed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
People will conjecture and guess - that is a matter for them. I am not asking for that. #31
So.
In fact, it seems to me that Jesus is saying - things need to change. But rather than taking a superficial approach, let's go for the deep seated reasons for the state of disarray and heal them.I think the other thing here is that - Micah knew just like Jonah knew that God was slow to anger but quick to forgive. Jonah might have embraced that in relation to Israel, but not for the Gentiles. God however was much bigger and much more merciful than even Jonah could fathom or perhaps liked. Micah is rightly concerned for his own people in his own land. Yet Micah was also aware that even after repentance, even after reconciliation with God, that the Jews would once again go back to their old ways. The history of Israel and indeed the world, shows that this path is inevitable.Jesus was very aware of this. His mission was therefore both the same but different. It was like the John the Baptist's a gospel to call his people to repentance - but it was also more than that. He, as the messiah, would not only deliver them from their sins, but would do it comprehensively. Hence, the clear message that he was not coming to bring peace in the way that people would normally have been thinking. Peace from the Romans. Peace with each other. Even peace with God for a temporary moment - only to fall back into their old ways again. It was to bring a sword. A sword that would cut away that which would send them back to their old ways and enable them to remain with God forever.This sword as I mentioned above is not a big swashbuckling broadsword. It was a short dagger. One which could maim but also was used to remove arrows from the body after an attack. Jesus' was not taking responsibility for the situation at the time, he was not taking pleasure in the situation either. He wanted to change it. Remember these verses are in the context of a discussion Jesus is giving to his Apostles as they were being sent out as his disciples to help in the swooping up of those who are repentant.Yet Jesus also knew that this message of his would be divisive. Hence the imagery of the sword as well. Some people would see sword and think "dangerous fool". Others however would see sword and think "savior". Those who rejected him would continue in their sin - perhaps from time to time dealing with it - but then just going back to the old ways. Those who embraced him would have their sin dealt with - once and for all. This is why Jesus then talks about loyalty in this context.Families divided again. But this time it would be a division brought about loyalty to Jesus or those who were opposed to him. This has been the story of the world since then. Those who have embraced Jesus and those who have not. Jesus wanted his apostles to be fully informed of this as they went about their task. These verses - are therefore not directed to the world at large. They were directed at his apostles as instructions in how they would be received or not - in their mission to draw people back to God.
Conjecture and guesswork. Something you tell myself and others you are never prepared to use yourself when discussing the bible.
Obviously it is a metaphorical sword, but the Greek word here is a dagger. Not a great big swashbuckling broad sword, but a short dagger.#34
You claim it was a "metaphorical sword" that Jesus was referring to. You may be correct in the case of pitting one family member against another. Simply because some Jew believed him (Galileans for the most part) and many didn't (those in Jerusalem where no one had ever heard of him).
But tell me Tradesecrete. What kind of sword was Jesus speaking of when he told his followers to arm themselves to the teeth even if it meant selling the clothes off their backs?
Luke 22:36King James Version
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You missed this. Too difficult to explain yourself is it? >>
-->@Tradesecret think outside of the boxCan you explain what you mean by "think outside the box"?Fair enough. In this topic it is about not just assuming these are contradictions but thinking of ways that might find a way to reconcile them. For example, how might the Jews have considered a messiah might bring peace to the land of Israel and perhaps relief from the Romans? And how might that compare to what Micah's point was in his prophecy.So you want us to use conjecture & guess work? Assume? To think in an original and creative way? To use our imagination? And in ways that are not limited or controlled by rules or tradition?I am asking people for their opinion about these apparent contradictions.
No, you haven't. You have asked us to "think outside the box" to see if these contradictions can be reconciled? HERE>> #1
People will conjecture and guess - that is a matter for them. I am not asking for that.
Well other than conjecture, guess work, assumptions and speculation (as educated as they be), what is left other than to take them for what they clearly appear to be: biblical contradictions?
I am simply asking people not to automatically assume it must be a contradiction - which itself is also conjecture and guess work.
So then your answer to my query is for us to find a solution to these contradictions without using conjecture, guess work, assumptions and speculation. How does one do that without "thinking outside the box"?
I don't have an issue with people using ways that are controlled by rules or traditions.
That is exactly why I wanted you to make it clear what you deem to be thinking "outside of the box", and why I wrote:
"So you want us to use conjecture & guess work? Assume? To think in an original and creative way? To use our imagination? And in ways that are not limited or controlled by rules or tradition?"#16
>>>>> NOT limited to or controlled by rules or traditions. You obviously misunderstood what I asked.
Is it possible that they can be reconciled?
They maybe can. But seeing that your definition of "thinking outside the box" is extremely limited to the "inside of the box" it only leaves one to:
[A] Intentionally and knowingly misinterpret scripture ? Intentionally and knowingly mistranslate scripture? Rewrite scripture and insert new definitions to words? Put words into the mouths of biblical characters that they do not speak? OR make up lies and excuses?
Tradesecret wrote: @rosends "Jesus, in my view, takes Micah's point and unpacks it. Society in Jesus' time was much like Micah's time. And as Stephen mentions much like our own time.I think part of the answer lies in the type of sword Jesus is talking about. Obviously it is a metaphorical sword, but the Greek word here is a dagger. Not a great big swashbuckling broad sword, but a short dagger. One that can be used to maim but more often is used to pluck arrows out of one's own body during a war. Some have called it a healing sword. Not that it heals, but it is part of the process of starting the healing. Like a needle is used to get rid of a splinter."
Will that be conjecture, guess work, assumptions and or speculation? OR fact?
SO:
Are you going to show us how you/the church "reconcile these apparent biblical contradictions" without applying conjecture, guess work, assumptions and speculation or any of the above I have shown at [A], Tradesecret ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
2. Miss Tradesecret is only 12 years old as her profile page so states where her birthday "now" is December 31, 2010, and then doing the simple math!
Country: Ukraine??
Native language Urdu????
I am genuinely stuck for words' Brother and even more baffled now as to the why? Has he become so embarrassed by all his past statements and claims and tall tales about himself that he is now attempting to play it all down as one big joke and put it all behind him? I have said he's clown.
I wonder too if he believes it has gone unnoticed that he has copied an old thread of my own from a year ago? Starting with exactly the same question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Polystyrene Witch wrote: That should be self-evident if you're going to be in a religion form debating religion that's kind of a basic premise you should have latched on too. Because honestly if you're not participating in a religion it really has nothing to do with you.Reece101 wrote: Calm down.
The Witch won't be doing that anytime soon, Reece. She's cast her spell and poked her big Witch's nose in to something she has no intention of addressing. She will be a " bullied " victim sooner or later and you will be a "hater" and a misogynist and accused of being much, much worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
think outside of the boxCan you explain what you mean by "think outside the box"?Fair enough. In this topic it is about not just assuming these are contradictions but thinking of ways that might find a way to reconcile them. For example, how might the Jews have considered a messiah might bring peace to the land of Israel and perhaps relief from the Romans? And how might that compare to what Micah's point was in his prophecy.So you want us to use conjecture & guess work? Assume? To think in an original and creative way? To use our imagination? And in ways that are not limited or controlled by rules or tradition?I am asking people for their opinion about these apparent contradictions.
No, you haven't. You have asked us to "think outside the box" to see if these contradictions can be reconciled? HERE>> #1
People will conjecture and guess - that is a matter for them. I am not asking for that.
Well other than conjecture, guess work, assumptions and speculation (as educated as they be), what is left other than to take them for what they clearly appear to be: biblical contradictions?
I am simply asking people not to automatically assume it must be a contradiction - which itself is also conjecture and guess work.
So then your answer to my query is for us to find a solution to these contradictions without using conjecture, guess work, assumptions and speculation. How does one do that without "thinking outside the box"?
I don't have an issue with people using ways that are controlled by rules or traditions.
That is exactly why I wanted you to make it clear what you deem to be thinking "outside of the box", and why I wrote:
"So you want us to use conjecture & guess work? Assume? To think in an original and creative way? To use our imagination? And in ways that are not limited or controlled by rules or tradition?"#16
>>>>> NOT limited to or controlled by rules or traditions. You obviously misunderstood what I asked.
Is it possible that they can be reconciled?
They maybe can. But seeing that your definition of "thinking outside the box" is extremely limited to the "inside of the box" it only leaves one to:
[A] Intentionally and knowingly misinterpret scripture ? Intentionally and knowingly mistranslate scripture? Rewrite scripture and insert new definitions to words? Put words into the mouths of biblical characters that they do not speak? OR make up lies and excuses?
Tradesecret wrote: @rosends "Jesus, in my view, takes Micah's point and unpacks it. Society in Jesus' time was much like Micah's time. And as Stephen mentions much like our own time.I think part of the answer lies in the type of sword Jesus is talking about. Obviously it is a metaphorical sword, but the Greek word here is a dagger. Not a great big swashbuckling broad sword, but a short dagger. One that can be used to maim but more often is used to pluck arrows out of one's own body during a war. Some have called it a healing sword. Not that it heals, but it is part of the process of starting the healing. Like a needle is used to get rid of a splinter."
Will that be conjecture, guess work, assumptions and or speculation? OR fact?
SO:
Are you going to show us how you/the church "reconcile these apparent biblical contradictions" without applying conjecture, guess work, assumptions and speculation or any of the above I have shown at [A], Tradesecret ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Everything Stephen thinks it means
Well in the case of this particular thread, Deb, Micah is clear about what he is seeing and writing about. I don't think anything other than that which Micha is conveying.;, the signs of his times.
The author of Matthew's gospel is taking verses from various OT accounts/stories, to prove that Jesus is the one "prophesised" about. <<< I don't think that, Deb, Mathew's account shows it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Micha is talking about what he is observing about his own time and the sadness of the situation that he witnesses. By the end of the chapter, he speaks of a future in which the people return to God and God to the people.I don't know why Jesus would quote this as a status he would try to bring about.
That will be because the author of Mathew's gospel is desperate to link Jesus to the Old Testament prophesise as the expected Messiah that Yahweh or his royal envoy /regent that will reign over a kingdom of peace. This of course is only what Christians interpret parts the book of Micah to mean.
The author Mathew reaches for his trusty Old Testament many times in an attempt to prove to his Jewish audience that Jesus is the promised "prince to come". In Matthew, we read Jesus is forever fulfilling one prophecy or another
from the Old Testament with Jesus forever telling his disciples “for
it is written” (but never tells us where it is written)?; and the author of Mathew's gospel was often putting words into the mouth of Christ. Matthew’s gospel only says Jesus is quoting Micah. It is
nothing more that hearsay.
In truth, no one knows who wrote Mathew`s gospel. But that of course is another argument entirely.
The author of Mathew's gospel uses not only selected passages from Micah. For instance he also uses:
M 1:23
Isaiah 7:14
Born of a virgin
M2:5–6
Micah 5:2
Born in Bethlehem
M2:14–15
Hosea 11:1
Come out of Egypt
M12:18–21
Isaiah 42:1–4
Bring hope to the Gentiles
M13:14–15
Isaiah 6:9–10
Many would not understand His teaching
M13:34–35
Psalm 78:2
Speak in parables
M15:7–9
Isaiah 29:13
Opposed by hypocrites
M21:4–5
Zechariah 9:9
Arrive riding a donkey
M21:42
Psalm 118:22–23
Rejected by some to their own undoing
M22:44
Psalm 110:1
Recognized by David as Lord
M26:31
Zechariah 13:7
Followers would scatter at His death
M27:9–10
Zechariah 11:13
Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver
M27:35
Psalm 22:18
Lots cast to divide His clothes
M2:16–18
Jeremiah 31:15
Birth would cause grief and the death of children
M3:3
Isaiah 40:3
Announced by a forerunner
M4:15–16
Isaiah 9:1–2
Minister in Galilee
M8:17
Isaiah 53:4
Bring healing
M11:10
Malachi 3:1
Announced by a forerunner
Micha is talking about what he is observing about his own time
He was indeed , Rosi. How the society around him in general had deteriorated. Corruption in high places, greed, breakdown of family, the down trodden, the poor , disenfranchised etc etc.
And I don't doubt for a second the Jews of Jesus' time were experiencing much of the same under Roman rule. And as we in the 21st century are experiencing in our time , imo. Same old same old.
It comes in cycles at the end of every age. Out with the old and in with the new. Only, the rulers of the old are extremely reluctant to relinquish power to the new....... without a fight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
think outside of the boxCan you explain what you mean by "think outside the box"?Fair enough. In this topic it is about not just assuming these are contradictions but thinking of ways that might find a way to reconcile them. For example, how might the Jews have considered a messiah might bring peace to the land of Israel and perhaps relief from the Romans? And how might that compare to what Micah's point was in his prophecy.
So you want us to use conjecture & guess work? Assume? To think in an original and creative way? To use our imagination? And in ways that are not limited or controlled by rules or tradition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
think outside of the box
Can you explain what you mean by "think outside the box"?
Created: