POST TWO OF TWO
(Examples of evil Catholic church policies, continued )
In Boniface a.d. 745 your church created a policy as follows :
Statute 13 Pasquil [jokes about the authorities] must be severely punished, even with exile.
I asked regarding the justification of the severe punishment failing to respect an authority of your organization with exile and it’s associated loss of association with family and loss of property and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Paderborn a.d. 785 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 21 anyone engaging in pagan rites must pay a heavy fine. If he cannot pay, no matter what his station, he becomes a slave of the church until he has paid up.
I asked regarding the justification of making a slave out of a person who is simply engaging in a religious practice different from yours and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
Canon 23 Soothsayers and fortune-tellers shall be given to churches and priests as slaves.
I asked regarding the justification of making a slave out of a person who is simply engaging in a religious practice different from yours and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
At the Lateran IV, a.d. 1215 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 3 All condemned heretics must be turned over to the secular authorities for punishment…Their property must be confiscated by the church. Those who have not been able to clear themselves of charges of heresy are excommunicated and must be avoided by all. If they remain a year under the ban, they must be condemned as heretics. All civic officers must take a public oath to defend the faith and expel from their territories all heretics. Whoever, when ordered to do so by the church, does not purify his district or domain of heretics will be put under the ban. If he does not give satisfaction within a year, he must be reported to the pope, who will absolve his vassals from all duty to him and declare his lands open to legitimate conquest by Catholics : those who participate in the attack will receive the same privileges as regular crusaders. …. Anyone who preaches without the authorization of a bishop is excommunicated…A bishop must inspect his diocese. His officers are authorized to have all inhabitants swear an oath to expose to the bishop all sectarians that can be discovered…anyone who refuses to take the oath automatically makes himself a traitor. ….
I asked regarding the justification of making a slave out of a person and the stealing of their property when they decide they no longer believe in or want to be part of your organisation and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
THESE ARE THE ACTUAL QUESTIONS YOU WERE ASKED AND WHICH, SO FAR, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO DEAL WITH BUT FREQUENTLY, YOUR ONLY RESPONSE HAS BEEN TO RETREAT TO THE BUNKER OF OFFERING A DIVERSION BY REPEATING A STOCK PHRASE LIKE "JESUS IS GOD" OR "THERE IS NO "A" IN JOHN 1:1C.
Whether Jesus was the God of the Old Testament was never the issue.
The issue is how you justify terrible, terrible crimes in your own political / religious organization while complaining about what others have done.
DOGKNOX ANSWERED :
Dogknox 20 said : "I quote the scriptures. I do not write them!"
Of course you did not quote scripture when offering us your take on john 1:18.
When you are quoting paraphrases and commentaries those are not scriptural text.
They are commentary and paraphrasing.
There is a difference and some of the readers noticed the switch.
And, then offering such texts to readers as though they were scripture is misrepresenting scripture.
I can't tell if you don't really know the difference between authentic scripture and commentary or paraphrasing of scripture, but some readers DO know the difference.
IF you really DON'T know the difference between scripture, and commentary, then you have no business claiming you "quote scriptures" since you would not know the difference in that case.
Dogknox 20 said : "I quote the works of EXPERT scripture scholars!"
I did not claim you were not quoting experts.
I said you were not quoting scripture when you were quoting commentary and paraphrase as though it was scripture.
Commentary, even when it comes from an expert who has your same religious bias is still commentary and commentary does not become scripture simply because it agrees with your bias.
Dogknox 20 said : "I quote the scriptures from over sixty (60) bibles.. NOT one has the letter "A" in John 1!"
I agree that none of your quotes have the "A" in them.
I also agree the every single greek scholar in the world who ever lived, and all individuals who speak greek or who know even basic greek, recognize the sentence, grammatically, HAS an "A" in it.
This is why non-contexted translators such as google, DO add an "A" to all greek sentences having the same grammatical makeup.
It is the CONTEXT of the translator which determines whether the translators translates it with an "A" or without an "A", Not grammar.
Dogknox 20 said : "Historical documented FACT: The JW's added the letter "A" to John 1 long after it was established the verse John 1 was interpreted correctly by EXPERTS!"
I agree that the JWs have an "A" in their version of John 1:1c.
I also agree that it is grammatically correct that they added the letter "A".
I agree that all greek speakers will agree that, grammatically, there is an "A" present in the greek.
It is context that explains the difference (not grammar).
Grammatically, IF one is NOT a 3=1 trinitarian, then there IS (or can be) an "A" present.
If one IS a 3=1 trinitarian then the "A" can be absent.
It depends on the context of the writer and the translator and not grammar.
THE QUESTIONS YOU WERE ACTUALLY ASKED REMAIN UNANSWERED
1) How do you justify Murder and slavery and robbery and persecution, and oppression by your church?
How does any of this answer the actual questions you were asked regarding how you justify your church murdering thousands, enslaving both adults and children, robbing individuals of property, persecution and murdering Jews, and oppressing entire populations in the pursuit of riches and power?
2) How do you justify hypocrisy in comparisons?
How does any of your answers answer the question as to how you justify complaining that another church has a miniscule number of individual who died by adhering to an article of their faith (not to accept a blood transfusion) while your church actually MURDERED thousands and thousands of individuals simply because they would not accept your faith and would not abandon their own commitments to God?
3) How do you claim that the authentic Church of Jesus did all of these terrible things?
How do you justify the claim that the authentic Church of Jesus Christ murdered and enslaved and oppressed entire populations in the pursuit of riches and power while this is so uncharacteristic of the Gospel of Jesus as it is represented in the textual records?
4) How does one justify lying for God in trying to either misrepresent another religion or lying in order to proselyte for their own Christian faith?
Clear
φυσιεισιτζω
(Examples of evil Catholic church policies, continued )
In Boniface a.d. 745 your church created a policy as follows :
Statute 13 Pasquil [jokes about the authorities] must be severely punished, even with exile.
I asked regarding the justification of the severe punishment failing to respect an authority of your organization with exile and it’s associated loss of association with family and loss of property and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
In Paderborn a.d. 785 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 21 anyone engaging in pagan rites must pay a heavy fine. If he cannot pay, no matter what his station, he becomes a slave of the church until he has paid up.
I asked regarding the justification of making a slave out of a person who is simply engaging in a religious practice different from yours and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
Canon 23 Soothsayers and fortune-tellers shall be given to churches and priests as slaves.
I asked regarding the justification of making a slave out of a person who is simply engaging in a religious practice different from yours and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
At the Lateran IV, a.d. 1215 your church created a policy as follows :
Canon 3 All condemned heretics must be turned over to the secular authorities for punishment…Their property must be confiscated by the church. Those who have not been able to clear themselves of charges of heresy are excommunicated and must be avoided by all. If they remain a year under the ban, they must be condemned as heretics. All civic officers must take a public oath to defend the faith and expel from their territories all heretics. Whoever, when ordered to do so by the church, does not purify his district or domain of heretics will be put under the ban. If he does not give satisfaction within a year, he must be reported to the pope, who will absolve his vassals from all duty to him and declare his lands open to legitimate conquest by Catholics : those who participate in the attack will receive the same privileges as regular crusaders. …. Anyone who preaches without the authorization of a bishop is excommunicated…A bishop must inspect his diocese. His officers are authorized to have all inhabitants swear an oath to expose to the bishop all sectarians that can be discovered…anyone who refuses to take the oath automatically makes himself a traitor. ….
I asked regarding the justification of making a slave out of a person and the stealing of their property when they decide they no longer believe in or want to be part of your organisation and how you can maintain that is a morally superior position than to take a stand not to receive blood because of a specific faith.
THESE ARE THE ACTUAL QUESTIONS YOU WERE ASKED AND WHICH, SO FAR, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO DEAL WITH BUT FREQUENTLY, YOUR ONLY RESPONSE HAS BEEN TO RETREAT TO THE BUNKER OF OFFERING A DIVERSION BY REPEATING A STOCK PHRASE LIKE "JESUS IS GOD" OR "THERE IS NO "A" IN JOHN 1:1C.
Whether Jesus was the God of the Old Testament was never the issue.
The issue is how you justify terrible, terrible crimes in your own political / religious organization while complaining about what others have done.
DOGKNOX ANSWERED :
Dogknox 20 said : "I quote the scriptures. I do not write them!"
Of course you did not quote scripture when offering us your take on john 1:18.
When you are quoting paraphrases and commentaries those are not scriptural text.
They are commentary and paraphrasing.
There is a difference and some of the readers noticed the switch.
And, then offering such texts to readers as though they were scripture is misrepresenting scripture.
I can't tell if you don't really know the difference between authentic scripture and commentary or paraphrasing of scripture, but some readers DO know the difference.
IF you really DON'T know the difference between scripture, and commentary, then you have no business claiming you "quote scriptures" since you would not know the difference in that case.
Dogknox 20 said : "I quote the works of EXPERT scripture scholars!"
I did not claim you were not quoting experts.
I said you were not quoting scripture when you were quoting commentary and paraphrase as though it was scripture.
Commentary, even when it comes from an expert who has your same religious bias is still commentary and commentary does not become scripture simply because it agrees with your bias.
Dogknox 20 said : "I quote the scriptures from over sixty (60) bibles.. NOT one has the letter "A" in John 1!"
I agree that none of your quotes have the "A" in them.
I also agree the every single greek scholar in the world who ever lived, and all individuals who speak greek or who know even basic greek, recognize the sentence, grammatically, HAS an "A" in it.
This is why non-contexted translators such as google, DO add an "A" to all greek sentences having the same grammatical makeup.
It is the CONTEXT of the translator which determines whether the translators translates it with an "A" or without an "A", Not grammar.
Dogknox 20 said : "Historical documented FACT: The JW's added the letter "A" to John 1 long after it was established the verse John 1 was interpreted correctly by EXPERTS!"
I agree that the JWs have an "A" in their version of John 1:1c.
I also agree that it is grammatically correct that they added the letter "A".
I agree that all greek speakers will agree that, grammatically, there is an "A" present in the greek.
It is context that explains the difference (not grammar).
Grammatically, IF one is NOT a 3=1 trinitarian, then there IS (or can be) an "A" present.
If one IS a 3=1 trinitarian then the "A" can be absent.
It depends on the context of the writer and the translator and not grammar.
THE QUESTIONS YOU WERE ACTUALLY ASKED REMAIN UNANSWERED
1) How do you justify Murder and slavery and robbery and persecution, and oppression by your church?
How does any of this answer the actual questions you were asked regarding how you justify your church murdering thousands, enslaving both adults and children, robbing individuals of property, persecution and murdering Jews, and oppressing entire populations in the pursuit of riches and power?
2) How do you justify hypocrisy in comparisons?
How does any of your answers answer the question as to how you justify complaining that another church has a miniscule number of individual who died by adhering to an article of their faith (not to accept a blood transfusion) while your church actually MURDERED thousands and thousands of individuals simply because they would not accept your faith and would not abandon their own commitments to God?
3) How do you claim that the authentic Church of Jesus did all of these terrible things?
How do you justify the claim that the authentic Church of Jesus Christ murdered and enslaved and oppressed entire populations in the pursuit of riches and power while this is so uncharacteristic of the Gospel of Jesus as it is represented in the textual records?
4) How does one justify lying for God in trying to either misrepresent another religion or lying in order to proselyte for their own Christian faith?
Clear
φυσιεισιτζω
Last edited:
