88
Crazy Mango
making a list, checking it twice
Posts: 903
Likes: 366
|
Post by 88 on Jan 23, 2019 14:04:46 GMT 7
First the Buzzfeed fiasco and now this. Not sure the MSM can recover from pushing 2 absolutely pro libtard agenda yet 100% fake stories in one week. Some hilarious back-peddling videos up on youtube. Good to see Trump stepping up to the plate and inviting the poor kids that copped all ths abuse round to the whitehouse for burgers and cokes.
|
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,591
Likes: 8,950
|
Post by rubl on Jan 23, 2019 16:23:20 GMT 7
First the Buzzfeed fiasco and now this. Not sure the MSM can recover from pushing 2 absolutely pro libtard agenda yet 100% fake stories in one week. Some hilarious back-peddling videos up on youtube. Good to see Trump stepping up to the plate and inviting the poor kids that copped all ths abuse round to the whitehouse for burgers and cokes. Well, since you did mention Trump, seems some can push rubbish and lies for years and still have people to believe them. In the mean time it does seem that the schoolkids may have been provoked (although anti-abortion protesters in America never really need provocation). It also seem the kids may have turned not on the ones who provoked and taunted them but on others who were around for their own affair. Maybe the MAGA hat with Trump's Pocahontas taunts and somewhat brownish people they felt safe to ask for a wall. Meanwhile some have apologised for coming to conclusions with insufficient or incorrect data and others simply continue muddling the field as usual. Interesting you describe posting video's with more data as 'back pedaling'. Probably because you're not interested in the truth.
|
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,591
Likes: 8,950
|
Post by rubl on Jan 24, 2019 12:46:34 GMT 7
A lot of truth in this article "The MAGA Teen’s Today Show Interview Was an Embarrassment ... "My position is that I was not disrespectful." That line sums up why and how most reporters are fully unequipped to talk about racism in 2019, because of the misconception that intent is what matters. "Racist," as reporter Nikole Hannah Jones says, is considered an insult instead of an adjective, a moral judgment on someone's character and not a description of their actions. Since we can't know what someone's intent really was, and since we don't want to appear judgmental by labeling their actions, we can't determine if what they did was racist or not. It's a process that prioritizes how white people feel about being called racist over the actual malignancy of racism. ..." www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/maga-teens-today-show-interview-160400324.html
|
|
rott
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 3,754
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by rott on Jan 25, 2019 13:29:34 GMT 7
"Students from a Catholic boys high school". Gosh. Unbelievable. We have all been conditioned from an early age to believe that devout Catholics (and they are invariably described as devout) can do no wrong. Didn't know you were conditioned as such. BTW either you weren't paying attention or you were told incorrectly. It's the pope only who has papal infallibility', and only on religious and moral issues, allegedly that is. Since the schoolkids were on an anti-abortus rally they could have been of about any faith. Remember this is about the USA. Who says the Papa is infallible? The Bible makes no mention of a papacy or infallibility. Ruble your instincts here are as accurate as they were about Londonderry.
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Jan 25, 2019 13:42:01 GMT 7
Didn't know you were conditioned as such. BTW either you weren't paying attention or you were told incorrectly. It's the pope only who has papal infallibility', and only on religious and moral issues, allegedly that is. Since the schoolkids were on an anti-abortus rally they could have been of about any faith. Remember this is about the USA. Who says the Papa is infallible? The Bible makes no mention of a papacy or infallibility. Ruble your instincts here are as accurate as they were about Londonderry. Try reading Rubl a bit more carefully. He wrote "allegedly". I suspect he no more believes this nonsense than you or I. And being pedantic, Catholics, their priests, and other assorted kiddie-fiddlers only believe that papal pronouncements are "infallible" when he speaks "ex cathedra", "cathedra" being the Latin word for "commode".
|
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,591
Likes: 8,950
|
Post by rubl on Jan 25, 2019 14:25:56 GMT 7
Didn't know you were conditioned as such. BTW either you weren't paying attention or you were told incorrectly. It's the pope only who has papal infallibility', and only on religious and moral issues, allegedly that is. Since the schoolkids were on an anti-abortus rally they could have been of about any faith. Remember this is about the USA. Who says the Papa is infallible? The Bible makes no mention of a papacy or infallibility. Ruble your instincts here are as accurate as they were about Londonderry. Did you notice the 'allegedly'? BTW Dutch Catholics tend to be more pragmatic than dogmatic. As such popes probably have their own doubts if we belong to the flock or not. AS to infallibility, wiki has: "This doctrine was defined dogmatically at the First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican of 1869–1870 in the document Pastor aeternus, but had been defended before that, existing already in medieval theology and being the majority opinion at the time of the Counter-Reformation." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
|
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,591
Likes: 8,950
|
Post by rubl on Jan 25, 2019 14:37:45 GMT 7
Well, it would seem that there are a few in the States who love to muddle the field a bit more. It interesting to see 'suggested' by 'just asking' that of course Liberals cannot be Christians or even Catholics. "Are liberals declaring war on Christians and Catholics? Former congresswoman Nan Hayworth shares her thoughts on Democrats targeting Karen Pence and the Covington students." news.yahoo.com/liberals-declaring-war-christians-catholics-104411641.html
|
|
rott
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 3,754
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by rott on Jan 25, 2019 18:10:02 GMT 7
Well, it would seem that there are a few in the States who love to muddle the field a bit more. It interesting to see 'suggested' by 'just asking' that of course Liberals cannot be Christians or even Catholics. "Are liberals declaring war on Christians and Catholics? Former congresswoman Nan Hayworth shares her thoughts on Democrats targeting Karen Pence and the Covington students." news.yahoo.com/liberals-declaring-war-christians-catholics-104411641.html ,"on Christians and Catholics". Eh? Is somebody inferring that Catholics are not Christians? The very idea!!! More tomorrow when I am minus alcohol.
|
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,591
Likes: 8,950
|
Post by rubl on Jan 25, 2019 18:38:48 GMT 7
Well, it would seem that there are a few in the States who love to muddle the field a bit more. It interesting to see 'suggested' by 'just asking' that of course Liberals cannot be Christians or even Catholics. "Are liberals declaring war on Christians and Catholics? Former congresswoman Nan Hayworth shares her thoughts on Democrats targeting Karen Pence and the Covington students." news.yahoo.com/liberals-declaring-war-christians-catholics-104411641.html ,"on Christians and Catholics". Eh? Is somebody inferring that Catholics are not Christians? The very idea!!! More tomorrow when I am minus alcohol. Not you, I was wondering about what this American former congresswoman was saying.
|
|
AyG
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 5,871
Likes: 4,555
|
Post by AyG on Jan 25, 2019 19:23:47 GMT 7
Eh? Is somebody inferring that Catholics are not Christians? The very idea!!! Of course they're not Christians. Do you think Jesus would approve of the extreme opulence of the Catholic church? The boy-buggering priests? The non-biblical theological beliefs such as "purgatory", "confession"*, "prayers for the dead", "veneration of the virgin Mary", "worship of relics", "holy water", "canonisation", "rosaries", "indulgences", acceptance of "the apocrypha"? It's more a cargo cult based upon the "Pope" backed up by a tanker load of mumbo jumbo. * Yes, James 5:16 reads (KJV) "Confess your faults one to another" - it's to one another - not to some ludicrously becassocked priest.
|
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,591
Likes: 8,950
|
Post by rubl on Jan 25, 2019 23:08:05 GMT 7
Eh? Is somebody inferring that Catholics are not Christians? The very idea!!! Of course they're not Christians. Do you think Jesus would approve of the extreme opulence of the Catholic church? The boy-buggering priests? The non-biblical theological beliefs such as "purgatory", "confession"*, "prayers for the dead", "veneration of the virgin Mary", "worship of relics", "holy water", "canonisation", "rosaries", "indulgences", acceptance of "the apocrypha"? It's more a cargo cult based upon the "Pope" backed up by a tanker load of mumbo jumbo. * Yes, James 5:16 reads (KJV) "Confess your faults one to another" - it's to one another - not to some ludicrously becassocked priest. Probably Jesus would tell you to turn the other cheek. Would Jesus just weep when he sees all those 'Christians' misusing His name, and always refer to Him when they go on a killing ramp like a Crusade, or burning people for a 'wrong' interpretation of the Bible? BTW Wiki has this on 'Jesus of Nazareth' "Since early Christianity, Christians have commonly referred to Jesus as "Jesus Christ".[58] The word Christ was a title or office ("the Christ"), not a given name.[59][60] It derives from the Greek Χριστός (Christos),[50][61] a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (משיח) meaning "anointed", and is usually transliterated into English as "Messiah".[62][63] In biblical Judaism, sacred oil was used to anoint certain exceptionally holy people and objects as part of their religious investiture (see Leviticus 8:10–12 and Exodus 30:29). Christians of the time designated Jesus as "the Christ" because they believed him to be the Messiah, whose arrival is prophesied in the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament. In postbiblical usage, Christ became viewed as a name—one part of "Jesus Christ". The term "Christian" (meaning a follower of Christ) has been in use since the 1st century.[64]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
|
|
88
Crazy Mango
making a list, checking it twice
Posts: 903
Likes: 366
|
Post by 88 on Jan 26, 2019 5:08:50 GMT 7
|
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,591
Likes: 8,950
|
Post by rubl on Jan 26, 2019 11:06:34 GMT 7
"Good week for those who love the truth. Bad week for extremist." is what I think you mean. Still the episode shows that it's difficult, very difficult to get to the truth especially when people start to hire lawyers to obfuscate things a wee bit more.
|
|
rott
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 3,754
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by rott on Jan 26, 2019 14:00:02 GMT 7
Who says the Papa is infallible? The Bible makes no mention of a papacy or infallibility. Ruble your instincts here are as accurate as they were about Londonderry. Did you notice the 'allegedly'? BTW Dutch Catholics tend to be more pragmatic than dogmatic. As such popes probably have their own doubts if we belong to the flock or not. AS to infallibility, wiki has: "This doctrine was defined dogmatically at the First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican of 1869–1870 in the document Pastor aeternus, but had been defended before that, existing already in medieval theology and being the majority opinion at the time of the Counter-Reformation." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibilityNot sure what you think (or allege) that the unscriptural Vatican I proves. No mention anywhere in history of papal infallibility before the thirteenth century. Or the fourteenth or possibly the fifteenth depending on what reference you use.
|
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,591
Likes: 8,950
|
Post by rubl on Jan 26, 2019 14:14:40 GMT 7
Did you notice the 'allegedly'? BTW Dutch Catholics tend to be more pragmatic than dogmatic. As such popes probably have their own doubts if we belong to the flock or not. AS to infallibility, wiki has: "This doctrine was defined dogmatically at the First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican of 1869–1870 in the document Pastor aeternus, but had been defended before that, existing already in medieval theology and being the majority opinion at the time of the Counter-Reformation." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibilityNot sure what you think (or allege) that the unscriptural Vatican I proves. No mention anywhere in history of papal infallibility before the thirteenth century. Or the fourteenth or possibly the fifteenth depending on what reference you use. Initially I just reacted to your "Gosh. Unbelievable. We have all been conditioned from an early age to believe that devout Catholics (and they are invariably described as devout) can do no wrong. " As a Catholic I've never been conditioned to believe I can do no wrong and Dutch being what they are I also have grave doubts on the papal infallibility. BTW up-to-a-point what people made of the religion (or maybe more moral ideas) by Jesus of Nazareth is ALL peoples work, not God's or the work of Jesus. IMHO of course. Greetings from your favorite Dutch heretic uncle rubl
|
|