Are you to much of a Pusey to answer my question s.. Why do you pray to a dead woman wwhi isn't god. Why do you call the asshole holy father. You are a cult member that is why. You ridicule the word of God saying it is a piece of paper. You're. Being quite foish.

I don't consider not answering belligerent taunts to be "being a puaay". I have a long military and professional record that demonstrate I am anything but. There's no harm that I can see in answering you soberly. Are you drunk? You're writing as though you were. I would be really sorry for you if you wrote like sober.

Why do Catholics pray to Mary? Well, first off, because it works. The greatest font of visible, verifiable miraculous healing on earth is the Marian shrine at Lourdes, in France, where the Virgin appeared in 1835 to Bernadette Soubirous. Mary's appearance in Guadelupe, Mexico, quickly effected the mass conversion of the Meso-American Indians to the worship of her Son, Jesus. What Spanish missionaries could not achieve in decades of effort against the harsh Aztecs, Mary did with one appearance. God has used her as a powerful emissary, and just like we ask our friends to pray for us, when we say a Hail Mary, we ask Mary to pray for us to our God. She demonstrably has clout, and the Hail Mary has been demonstrated to be a particularly powerful prayer, because it is answered so often.

Mary is not dead. None of the saints are dead. You are very much mistaken in believing that she is. She isn't God. She is God's mother, and He loves her. He has sent her as his emissary many times - at Lourdes, at Fatima, at Guadelupe and elsewhere. She is full of grace, and we know she is the closest to God that any human being has ever come.

Why do you call the Pope an asshole? There were Popes in the past who were assholes - terrible people. But that was a long time ago, and the process for choosing the Pope has improved vastly since then. All of the Popes since I was born have been wonderful men. What has Francis ever done to you for you to call him an asshole? Not one thing.

Of course, you're a Protestant Republican, and therefore anybody who doesn't think exactly like you is an asshole...except of course your Republican Congressmen and other leaders. They clearly don't think like you, because they enact everything that you hate, but you still support them. This is because you are a blind and stubborn dupe.

The Catholic Church is the world's largest human organization, with 1.4 billion people in it. The supermajority of Christians are Catholic. Your religion is the little cult.

I did not ridicule the word of God saying it is a piece of paper. It was the Constitution I was calling the piece of paper. I called the Bible "a book" - one that you don't follow.

I don't know whether or not I am "foish". Not sure what that means. "Foolish", perhaps?

No, I'm being very straightforward and answering the angry, hateful, belittling, awkward, illiterate questions of a raging Protestant Republican.

I don't ask you questions back because you're a Protestant Republican. I already know what you think about everything. You guys' heads are screwed on with bolts, and you're very predictable.

Because your leaders lie to you every election and keep doing what you hate, you're always in a rage, and so you always blame people who didn't do anything to you, like me. I'm the scapegoat for your rage at the lying sacks of shit that screw you over every time. You beat on me because I listen, respond and understand you. Protestant Republicans more powerful than you would point and laugh while you drowned. I'd jump in and pull you out, so that you could call me a pussy and a cultist, because I don't share your blind political and religious ideas.

That's why it's so good to have these discussions. The character of the Protestant Republican and the character of the Roman Catholic are quite poetically framed by our dialogue.

Your fellow religionists - Protestant Republicans all - will occasionally jump in from the peanut gallery and curse me out. What they never do, and what you never do, is venture to give ideas for fixing anything. I think about it, and write it out. I write out different paths that could get us to different results. I discuss things philosophically and strategically. I try to persuade with appeals to logic, humanity and Christianity. I fail, of course, because I am talking to Protestant Republicans.

Still, circling back, to call me a "pussy" is particularly rich. There are very few who communicate with you who stick their neck out and propose solutions, who risk getting abused for the ideas and who - like clockwork - get abused, but nevertheless stand my ground. You have some military veterans here, including me. US military veterans with long service are generally not pussies.

But if, in your Protestant and betrayed Republican rage, you want to tear apart a Catholic who dares to propose ideas, to engage with you people, well - don't hold back. It provides a beautiful, permanent written record of what Roman Catholic Independence versus Protestant Republicanism really MEANS in America.

You have a good night now. Hope you don't have too bad a hangover in the morning.

'm the hateful one because I proved you nave a thief philosophy. I should quote your rant where you said you wanted to murder everyone you hate.

Oh, but I DO want to murder everybody I hate! When I get worked up into a rage like you do, I do so without alcohol so my spelling and grammar remain legible. I'm a problem solver and a strategist, and the obvious solution to the people I hate is the final one: remove them from the world, with great prejudice.

Of course, I recognize that this is wrong, evil in fact, and once I have calmed down I do my best to return to my God, which requires me to step down from the hatred and try to see it their way. Even when I can't do that, I recognize that the judgments over life and death belong to God, not me.

So yes, you have called me out on being a sinner. Specifically, my overpowering sin is wrath - bloodyminded wrath. When under its emprise, I want to see my enemies DEAD. This isn't too terribly surprising from a Viking and Celtic brain, but the Catholic heart ultimately prevails and cooler reason comes, the rage deserts the sea, and I feel abashed for the degree of bloodyminded murderousness that is my urge.

I'm a sinner.

I write sometimes in that red rage, just as you seem to write sometimes when you're drunk. It's perfectly legitimate for you to quote me in those phases, to demonstrate that the heart of this Catholic cultist is some sort of admixture of blood-handed crusader and merciless inquisitioner. That's true, and I have to govern it.

I'll certainly own to being a bad person in that regard. But a coward? If I were, it would be a good thing, because fear would hold me back from doing harm. As it stands, though, it isn't cowardice that holds me back, but reason and the desire to not walk out on God.

If my writing is bad it is because I am on vacation using a piece of crap phone I can barely see. My fingers are to big for the keyboard and it is a pain in the ass. So I'm keeping my responses short and not going into everything.

You could make it easier on yourself and just type what you think of me like BorisY:

Poop follower. Asshole pussy cultist dead woman fool liar Marxist thief murderous idiot.

Enjoy your vacation. Hope that beating on me makes your day brighter.

How can someone who drinks like three times a year have a hangover? I can't even remember the last time I drank let alone got drunk.

Ok. So you're not a mean drunk. You're just mean - a mean Protestant Republican...but I repeat myself!

If you had the same views and didn't claim the catholic church is something it isn't I would go easier on you.

I basically attack positions of yours that I have scripture to contradict your beliefs. But you reject the simple truth found in the Bible, and go with something catholics teach that isnt in the word.

But Protestants can't talk to Catholics without being assholes.

The Bible is not the extent of God's revelation, you know. He didn't stop performing miracles and giving revelations in the first century. The Holy Spirit has been active since, and there are many things that clarify Jesus' love and will.

You ignore God.

My mind comes at this from three very different angles - a religious one, a secular/liberty-focused one, and a national security/cultural one.

You have taken the subject to be about immigration. I don't mind discussing that, however I first want to note that I believe that we are in the grip of a determined population reduction agenda -- from foundations like Gates' (et al - all of the big ones have a population program, sometimes disguised), to the abortion policy that just can't be shut down by Republicans, to the "cultural Marxism" (Gramscian subversion) used against the nuclear family structure.

The effect is, and has been, a lot of profoundly confused and mentally impaired people running around with no anchor to the society they live in; no common understanding; a bunch of uncouth savages fighting over access to whatever resources are readily available to satisfy their need for immediate gratification, often of irrational whimsy like trans-whateverism. Such detachment from reality and social commitments that used to be engendered by family responsibilities leaves us in a social morass that will not be able to defend itself from tyrannical predations because there is no social cohesion, no sense of commonality. At one time many people looked at slavery and were moved by seeing slaves try to hold their families together, just like them. Now that commonality is lost and not being replaced by anything rational.

Even our economic life reflects the lack of cohesion. It is easier to lie, cheat, and steal from people who are nothing but meat -- another competitor at the trough with whom there is not even a language in common. So the lack of births is the semaphore signaling a social fragmentation that is so atomized that "Balkanization" doesn't do it justice.

In the past I had not opposed immigration from the south, mostly out of naiveté (I did oppose H1-B indentured servitude because I saw its immediate economic effects first hand). I believed that the propositions that this nation was founded on were what they came seeking to adopt for themselves, as friends of mine from Eastern Europe, Turkey, and Iran did -- enthusiastically! (If anything they were more conservative both in terms of political freedom and social/family issues). In the last 10 years I have had experiences that showed me the contours of the cultural clash between the old Germanic US and the Hispanic/Aztec/Mayan mix that were/are coming in such numbers that they are not assimilating, instead organizing to lobby for preservation of their cultural identity (e.g. Spanish documents and labels). I have seen a lot of dishonesty in their behavior towards me personally. They are not my countrymen. They don't even know what the founding propositions are, an ignorance shared by many North Americans now.

Language sharing is the easy part. Respect for honesty, quality ethic*, and property rights are among the cultural behaviors that made European-American culture so successful, yet are lacking south of the border. That is not something that can be overcome by learning a language. What makes it worse is the cultural destruction that the Gramsci and Frankfurt School Jews have been pursuing for the last ~100 years have left us with a far weaker culture than we had when waves of immigrants came ashore from Southern and Eastern Europe to work in the booming late 19th century US and found that Americans knew the proposition:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

Many men were alive who had fought in a terrible internecine war that on one side sought to abolish the government, and on the other to fight for the proposition of equality and liberty for all. Today, at best, we have a handful of people who were active in the Civil Rights movement, a small minority who are historically literate, and the vast majority ignorant of the propositions of the founders. Many people today are openly hostile to Natural Law and the individual rights recognized by it. How are immigrants going adapt to a culture that no longer exists?

*(migrants from south of the border work hard enough, but their quality discipline is as bad or worse than the ignorant white Confederate flag waving southerner who bellows "git 'er done!")

History has shown that it requires extraordinary pressure to amalgamate different cultures, or a long period of prosperity and an abatement of immigration. I'm hoping for the latter, on only the basis of Faith, Charity, and Hope. The former is likely to be a disaster of biblical proportions.

In closing I will mention I agree that we are obligated to take care of those who need help. In a post that Stone made to you regarding charity he mentioned that it should be at the local level, in fact from hand to hand. I agree with Stone on this, with the acknowledgement that it will have to be organized. There is no reason why local government should not work with charitable private organizations (NGOs - uhggly phrase) by serving as promoter -- using the "one stop shopping" convenience and megaphone of officialdom to organize and facilitate fund-raising efforts, and to honor those who give with public recognition. Yes, that last bit is not Christian, but it is effective among some people who give only to enhance their image.

The other option is secular. France and Iceland are the only First World "Christian" countries in Europe or North America to be nearly at replacement rate for fertility. They do this by the sort of comprehensive economic support for families: housing, child care, education, health care, income support necessary for First World people to have enough children to sustain the population.

Leaving France aside; smaller more homogeneous polities like Iceland, Finland, or Norway can organize social welfare by government much more successfully partly because they are smaller so the bureaucracy is smaller, but mostly because of the commonality of their identity. People who live in what amounts to an extended clan are more willing to care for their "brothers and sisters" than completely strange people who look and behave differently.

In large mixed polities social welfare at a large scale is more damaging than helpful. At some point there needs to be the face to face human check to see that the help is needed and effective.

The only people not having huge families are white people,and in some cities they are already becoming minorities.

Look at Playboy and Cosmo magazines to find the value systems that are the problem. Meanwhile we're subsidizing trash races to have hyper-aggressive feral out of wedlock children.

There is no arguing with the truth.

It may not be PC or pretty,but it is still the truth.

I'm a minority in this country. We have never ruled, never run the show. The closest we got was JFK, and that lasted only a couple of years.

Sometimes we just got lucky.

In large mixed polities social welfare at a large scale is more damaging than helpful. At some point there needs to be the face to face human check to see that the help is needed and effective.

That will never happen until we pass a law making it illegal for people on welfare to vote,and we all know that is not going to happen.

It also has political instincts the most similar to America. Sure, the English speak English, and we've kept some facets of their common law, but the French had a political revolution to overthrow their monarchy in the same era that we had ours - their Revolution started a mere 5 years after the end of ours, and their republicanism and ours fed off many of the same philosophical roots (and their revolution was fought by and led by many of the same French soldiers who had fought in ours).

France's example cannot be discarded, because France is the most "like us" demographically in Europe, and it has the same republican instincts.

Importantly, France is not an ethnic state. Germany is. Holland is small, and it is. England is. Scotland is. Ireland is. Spain and Italy are. Scandinavia is - as you've pointed out.

France is actually a geographic region where six separate ethnic groups have their "edge of expansion". The French Center and West is Celtic. The Southeast and Corsica is Italian. The Southwest is Basque. The East is German. The Northeast is Flemish (Dutch), and the North is Scandinavian (Viking Norman). Each of these ethnicities except for the Basques has its own clearly defined ethnic nation-state outside of France, and the people in each of these regions recognize that their root stock came from those other ethnicities (just like Americans recognize they're all "from somewhere else").

The Normans know they are Viking in origin. The Alsatians know they're German. The Center know they're Gauls and the West knows they're Breton. Provence knows that its Gallo- Roman/Italian. And the Basques know they're Basque. But none of them identifies primarily with the ethnicity and language from which they come. Rather, all of these ethnicities have turned towards the old royal center, and are French by culture - by choice. "French" is a superimposed, additional cultural norm, just like American, though an older, royal model. The Kings have all departed, but the cultural center created by the throne and crown remains.

So, France is the country that transcended ethnic tribalism. No other country in Europe ever did to that extent. America has done this on a continental scale, thanks to immigration. But both France and America share this multi-cultural, complicated, diverse history, and history of politics, as opposed to blood, forming the basis of the culture itself.

That is why France is absolutely THE best European country to use as a model for the United States. It is the most LIKE the US, and it always has been. It's the most ethnically diverse, with the most regionalism. It's the most naturally republican nation. It has the same flavor for militarism and pride. It's large. It has a people who have not bent the knee (or the mind) to a king for a long, long time, and it has been a republic with an overlaying super-wealthy class forever.

It's also large - a Texas-sized country, not a postage stamp.

It has an overseas presence and operates aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines and has ICBMs - France is the third most powerful country in the world, after the USA and Russia. The French have more nuclear weapons than anybody but those two.

These similarities are not superficial. England is a very class-based society. France is much more republican.

We can't set France aside, because France is the most "like us". France has an incredibly diverse economy, like us. So when we look at the way programs work in France, in particular, we are looking at the thing in Europe that is "most similar" to the USA. I have compared my father-in-law's Social Security to American Social Security and Medicare - it's very similar stuff, practically the same in terms of benefits.

So no, we can't leave France aside. In fact, France is the most American of all European nations in many ways, and we should set the rest of the smaller, ethnically-based countries aside and look at the nuclear, maritime, diverse republic in Europe that is most like us for the best European example of us. And that's France, by a country mile, by a provincial league.

And when we do that, we see a social welfare model designed for a diverse country, like ours, that performs better at delivering social welfare at a lower cost than our social welfare model does. That's why looking at France, in particular, is so valuable.

My mind comes at this from three very different angles - a religious one, a secular/liberty-focused one, and a national security/cultural one. You have taken the subject to be about immigration. I don't mind discussing that, however I first want to note that I believe that we are in the grip of a determined population reduction agenda -- from foundations like Gates' (et al - all of the big ones have a population program, sometimes disguised), to the abortion policy that just can't be shut down by Republicans, to the "cultural Marxism" (Gramscian subversion) used against the nuclear family structure.

The effect is, and has been, a lot of profoundly confused and mentally impaired people running around with no anchor to the society they live in; no common understanding; a bunch of uncouth savages fighting over access to whatever resources are readily available to satisfy their need for immediate gratification, often of irrational whimsy like trans-whateverism. Such detachment from reality and social commitments that used to be engendered by family responsibilities leaves us in a social morass that will not be able to defend itself from tyrannical predations because there is no social cohesion, no sense of commonality. At one time many people looked at slavery and were moved by seeing slaves try to hold their families together, just like them. Now that commonality is lost and not being replaced by anything rational.

Even our economic life reflects the lack of cohesion. It is easier to lie, cheat, and steal from people who are nothing but meat -- another competitor at the trough with whom there is not even a language in common. So the lack of births is the semaphore signaling a social fragmentation that is so atomized that "Balkanization" doesn't do it justice.

In the past I had not opposed immigration from the south, mostly out of naiveté (I did oppose H1-B indentured servitude because I saw its immediate economic effects first hand). I believed that the propositions that this nation was founded on were what they came seeking to adopt for themselves, as friends of mine from Eastern Europe, Turkey, and Iran did -- enthusiastically! (If anything they were more conservative both in terms of political freedom and social/family issues). In the last 10 years I have had experiences that showed me the contours of the cultural clash between the old Germanic US and the Hispanic/Aztec/Mayan mix that were/are coming in such numbers that they are not assimilating, instead organizing to lobby for preservation of their cultural identity (e.g. Spanish documents and labels). I have seen a lot of dishonesty in their behavior towards me personally. They are not my countrymen. They don't even know what the founding propositions are, an ignorance shared by many North Americans now.

Language sharing is the easy part. Respect for honesty, quality ethic*, and property rights are among the cultural behaviors that made European-American culture so successful, yet are lacking south of the border. That is not something that can be overcome by learning a language. What makes it worse is the cultural destruction that the Gramsci and Frankfurt School Jews have been pursuing for the last ~100 years have left us with a far weaker culture than we had when waves of immigrants came ashore from Southern and Eastern Europe to work in the booming late 19th century US and found that Americans knew the proposition:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." Many men were alive who had fought in a terrible internecine war that on one side sought to abolish the government, and on the other to fight for the proposition of equality and liberty for all. Today, at best, we have a handful of people who were active in the Civil Rights movement, a small minority who are historically literate, and the vast majority ignorant of the propositions of the founders. Many people today are openly hostile to Natural Law and the individual rights recognized by it. How are immigrants going adapt to a culture that no longer exists? *(migrants from south of the border work hard enough, but their quality discipline is as bad or worse than the ignorant white Confederate flag waving southerner who bellows "git 'er done!")

History has shown that it requires extraordinary pressure to amalgamate different cultures, or a long period of prosperity and an abatement of immigration. I'm hoping for the latter, on only the basis of Faith, Charity, and Hope. The former is likely to be a disaster of biblical proportions.

In closing I will mention I agree that we are obligated to take care of those who need help. In a post that Stone made to you regarding charity he mentioned that it should be at the local level, in fact from hand to hand. I agree with Stone on this, with the acknowledgement that it will have to be organized. There is no reason why local government should not work with charitable private organizations (NGOs - uhggly phrase) by serving as promoter -- using the "one stop shopping" convenience and megaphone of officialdom to organize and facilitate fund-raising efforts, and to honor those who give with public recognition. Yes, that last bit is not Christian, but it is effective among some people who give only to enhance their image.

For some reason I missed your longer discussion when I looked through the thread yesterday, only seeing the short "tag" about leaving France aside and commenting on that. I didn't see the longer piece, above.

I am headed out on a road trip today, so I cannot write right now, but I'll be thinking about what you said as I drive. You make many good and interesting points. I can agree with much of it, including the pragmatism of it.

We're farthest apart on the ethnic aspects of it, but ethnic affinities (Germanic versus Latin, for example) do not lend themselves to logical analysis: people prefer what they prefer, and there isn't much one can say about it. Which is "better", England or France? Germany or Italy? Poland or Germany? Spain or Scotland? One can quantify differences and assign "better" based on what one thinks is most appealing, and one can follow the pre-1914 model of ascribing these differences to fundamental national character. But one can just as easily ascribe the differences to the differences in weather between regions. I know that two world wars were fought over the prospect that certain cultures were superior to others. Not being a fan of racialist theory, my response to it is to note that the victor in both of those world wars was the most ethnically mixed nations: the United States in both wars, the USA and the USSR in the second war. And I note that the much self-vaunted German and Japanese military virtues ended in catastrophic defeat and mass death for the populations that believed it about themselves. It is fair to say that, when talking with me, any attempt to vaunt any particular ethnic culture as superior to the rest will result in a merry-go-round of ridicule in reply. I am not particularly impressed by ANY ethnic culture. I have a great many in my own background and I enjoy them all on the positive side - I see the good in them - until one vaunts itself, THEN I take the mickey out of them because I know all of their flaws. I would say that, on balance, the most successful cultural model in Europe is the French, and that that is precisely because France ISN'T an ethnic monoculture but an amalgam of different ethnic regions. The German region of France contributes its part and is delightful, but it is improved by being connected at the head to the Celtic, Italian and Basque parts. Go east into pure Germany, and the culture becomes much coarser, the food and drink and pretty much everything else becomes less interesting, and the people less convivial. This is a commonly felt view - there's a reason Paris is the leading destination of tourists all over the world (including Germany), rather than Dusseldorf or Leipzig.

Vienna, at the heart of the old multi-cultural Austro-Hungarian Empire, was likewise enriched by the combination of cultures, and was the better model of civilization in its long day than the purely German Reich that eroded it.

But, as I say, these ethnic things are matters of taste and don't lend themselves to intellectual discussion.

What DOES lend itself, and what I will discuss in my next, is the really different way that Catholicism (and Catholics) looks at what Christianity is, versus Protestantism and Protestants.

You and I seem to be closer on pragmatics than we are to Stone, and yet it is clear that you think that his view of what Christianity "is" is closer to yours than mine is.

Christianity DOES lend itself to discussion, because there are intellectual, and written roots of the divergent views. I get frustrated because it seems to me that the Protestants don't even COMPREHEND the Catholic view. I understand where the Protestants are coming from, but I don't think it stands up to intellectual analysis of Scripture or tradition. The disconnect there is interesting. Where I stand on these things IS Catholic, but the Protestant voices do not recognize it as even being Christian. THIS difference is susceptible to education, and that's what I am going to think about today.

Likewise, I agreed with Stone on one comment. Lighten up on the "I am an island" verse. Sheesh.

Smaller more homogeneous polities like Iceland, Finland, or Norway can organize social welfare by government much more successfully partly because they are smaller so the bureaucracy is smaller, but mostly because of the commonality of their identity.

But ONLY to a point. The sound you hear suddenly a Camel's Back breaking (yes, pun intended.)

THE actual reason socialism was working (to a point) in those smaller nations, was a result of the Baby-Boomers remaining in the work-force. That is n longer the case in *those* nations, thus socialist societies within even those relatively tiny, homologous nations is impossible the maintain beyond NOW.

As to the identity -- yes, well THAT is changing as well, isn't it? Muslims do NOT want to work, will NOT work, this a tinderbox is about to explode. Muslims are of the opinion that these God-less, European Socialists are their (near) future slaves.

People who live in what amounts to an extended clan are more willing to care for their "brothers and sisters" than completely strange people who look and behave differently.

True.

That said, ONLY to a point are the clan willing to compensate for healthy, lazy parasites -- even IF they are their brothers and sisters.

The Western European socialist model will not nor can survive economically, ideologically, nor every other which-way as they've invited rapidly breeding self-entitled Muslim barbarian-parasites who believe their host-nations are "Allah's Gift" to *them*.

Btw -- WHY must populations levels necessarily be "sustained" in an age "robotics"? I believe this notion is nothing but globalist-propaganda that hope will justify the invasion of fake Muslim "refugees".

THIS entire charade is about nothing but enslavement of the native European middle class as well as creating a neo-Royalty class.

Christianity DOES lend itself to discussion, because there are intellectual, and written roots of the divergent views.

I get frustrated because it seems to me that the Protestants don't even COMPREHEND the Catholic view.

YES, WE DO INDEED "comprehend the Catholic view." And THAT my friend is *your* problem, not ours.

The Vatican is an evil, counterfeit *commercial* enterprise. Always have been. They have been controlling ancient and not-so-ancient history itself, hiding it, and both Evil and Truth within the bowels of the Vatican.

There have been precious few Popes who've taken the spreading of the Gospel seriously. The current "Pope" is an anarchist, a liar -- which is tantamount to working for the devil himself.

This is not to indict all RCCs at all. many are good, decent, moral/ethical God-fearing people. But tell me -- just how do Catholics justify remaining "Catholic"? WHAT are THE tenets that are held so near and dear to your heart that affect your Eternal Reward? OR....IS mortal power here on earth part of the attraction?

Muslims do NOT want to work, will NOT work, this a tinderbox is about to explode. Muslims are of the opinion that these God-less, European Socialists are their (near) future slaves.

This amounts to a mindless rant against Muslims. I have known many Muslims -- Turks, Persians, and east Africans, most of whom were good hearted people. The only exception in my experience were the Semites -- Arabs from UAE and SA -- that I dealt with in the late '70s and early '90s.

they've invited rapidly breeding self-entitled Muslim barbarian-parasites who believe their host-nations are "Allah's Gift" to *them*.

Today the Muslims are a pissed off population, and I wouldn't want them around me because of that. I don't forget that it was the Jews who pissed them off by destroying their countries and driving them into Europe and trying to get them here. If we put a stop to the Zionist terrorism and constant manipulation of Christian and Muslim, then they could go back home and we could live in peace.

Which is not the topic of this thread.

The Vatican is an evil, counterfeit *commercial* enterprise. Always have been. They have been controlling ancient and not-so-ancient history itself, hiding it, and both Evil and Truth within the bowels of the Vatican.

More Jewish propaganda. They have been successful in their efforts to manipulate the Protestant and Evangelical churches. Divide and conquer.

Your comment is propaganda.

Edit: Actually, yes it is. I am promoting awareness of the behavior of the Jews. I can make the case for it.

(original post below)

No, I am not promoting the Catholic Church (I am not a Catholic). What I'm combating is unproven and unprovable aspersions cast on it.

If there were a reasoned discussion about it, then I would acknowledge well made points. I've not seen any reasonable comments that could form the basis for a discussion.

WHAT are THE tenets that are held so near and dear to your heart

This will take awhile to unpack.

If there were a reasoned discussion about it, then

Since that's never going to happen, may as well use your time for something more fruitful.

Elsewhere there's an article about the death of the Church of England. Of course it's dying!

Elsewhere still, there's an article about the PM of Hungary decrying the Islamicization of Europe. Of course it's Islamicizing! Nature abhors a vacuum, and in Europe now there is a yawning vacuum of faith. Enter: Islam.

And in the end, it's not worth the bother. I've never in my life ever seen anybody convinced by a religious argument.

I once held many of the views of the Catholic Church that are (crudely) expressed here. It was argument with FRiends whose intellect I respected that got me started in the direction of learning more about it. Eventually I even had an epiphany about the Trinity.

Faith, Hope, Charity.

I know this is a radical idea, but women actually LOVE to be at home with their children, and would also LOVE to work part time or not at all if they could only afford it. Since 54% of all college graduates are now women, this would also affect enrollment rates in University pushing them downward, making tuition less expensive.

I know this is a radical idea, but women actually LOVE to be at home with their children...

I know that. It is an integral constituent of their sex drive. But don't tell that to the Playboy philosophers or the members of the Woman's lib movement or they will try to chop off your head.

in Europe now there is a yawning vacuum of faith...

It's not a vacuum of faith. It's a vacuum of IQ. People who will believe one stupid brand of bull shit on pure faith can not be trusted not to believe in another if it is doctored up with enough pleasant adjectives and exhortations. Enter Islam.

If we have less children being born to fill jobs the wages rise. As the wages rise, one person in the family can once again feed, clothe and house the family on his pay. When that begins to happen, females will once again choose to be a housewife and have more children.

I know this is a radical idea, but women actually LOVE to be at home with their children, and would also LOVE to work part time or not at all if they could only afford it. Since 54% of all college graduates are now women, this would also affect enrollment rates in University pushing them downward, making tuition less expensive.

Of course. But, you see, rising wages cut deeply into profits across the board, because at a certain point you cannot raise prices on consumer goods anymore. There comes a point where the price reduces the demand curve.

The way to maximize profits is to have cheap exploitable labor. That is the bottom line for the billionaires who own the society. And they will not - WILL NOT - accept the redistribution of their wealth through higher wages. They won't accept it through taxation either, of course, but the tax burden is shifted to the upper middle class and professional class, and does not touch the upper-upper class relatively speaking. High wages DIRECTLY take money out of the pockets of the riches.

The political pressure from the top - for cheap labor, and from the Democrat party - for numerous voters, is a steady, relentless pressure. And, lest we forget, the Republican Establishment itself opposes Trumpism with regards to immigration control.

So yes, what you say is true about wages. BUT to get to that and maintain it will require a lifelong fight of many generations, and both the Democrat party and the top echelons of the Republican Party will always resist it.

So, unless we see a new party arise in America, the political will to sustain the fight on a permanent basis does not exist.

It's not a vacuum of faith. It's a vacuum of IQ. People who will believe one stupid brand of bull shit on pure faith can not be trusted not to believe in another if it is doctored up with enough pleasant adjectives and exhortations. Enter Islam.

I disagree - not to be disagreeable, but because I don't think that is what is happening.

The Europeans are not becoming Muslims. They have already become secular. They have no God other than their bellies, and the economic pressures are such that they don't have children either. Islam is pouring into the labor vacuum there for the same reason that Hispanics are pouring into America.

Islam is not convincing the Europeans to believe it, it is bodily replacing the Europeans en masse because the Europeans believe in nothing and don't have babies, while Muslims have great numbers of babies, who have babies.

Religiously speaking, the Europeans have nothing to hold on to. Secular philosophy simply causes them to pursue sex and recreation, uninterested in spiritual matters. There is no theology to challenge Islam among the young ethnics being born there and rising in numbers, so they retain their Islam, and a sense of rising to power. The Europeans feel essentially confident that their secular "risen above religion" will hold the day, because they cannot imagine crawling back down into darkness and superstition - and they won't. But they don't have babies, so they're dying out. The Muslims don't want European secularism. Christianity has been a dead letter in Europe since the World Wars.

I once held many of the views of the Catholic Church that are (crudely) expressed here. It was argument with FRiends whose intellect I respected that got me started in the direction of learning more about it. Eventually I even had an epiphany about the Trinity.

But they were friends, and you respected them.

Also, did they not already share your political viewpoint, so you already had a key point of convergence, where you already agreed, on basic Republican politics?

Also, you strike me as a reasonable person who was never a flaming firebrand, full of hatred towards that which you did not understand. You had certain of the ideas you see expressed here, but you weren't out there in public carrying a torch for them, were you?

It was possible to talk to you without getting spat upon, was it not? And when some sort of evidence was presented to you for you to consider, you looked at it and considered, did you not?

Do you think that any of those conditions exist here, were I to make an attempt to do what your friends did for you? Was it not more YOUR character that made you receptive to them, then THEIR information and teaching?

Faith, Hope, Charity, yes. But after a certain point, one has to shake the dust off his sandals and walk away.

Truth vic learn it.

Today's challenge. Why do Catholics disrespect God by calling a sinful man holy father? If you swallow your pride you will admit that it is a sin. But you will not you will dodge and give some catholic dogma. Then say I'm hateful because I shared the truth to you.

Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.

You are referring to Jesus' quote in which he told the Jews listening to him to call no man father, for we have only one Father, in heaven.

Read literally (which is to say, wooden-headedly) Jesus told you to not call you own father "father" - he is, after all, a man, and Jesus is quotes as saying "Call NO man 'father'".

Read correctly, Jesus was speaking to a specific group of Jews, about the Jewish practice of honoring learned Jews, who were actually teaching them things that caused them to go astray. In the same context, Jesus told THEM (his Jewish audience) not to call anyone "teacher" (rabbi/master), for the same reason.

The LESSON of this teacher was "Whoever exalts himself shall be abased, and he that humbles himself shall be exalted." In the same passage Jesus says "He that is greatest among you shall be your servant."

This is why a title of the Pope is "Servant of the servants of God."

If you read this woodenheadedly, you will stop using the word "father" except as applies to God, and stop using the word "teacher" also - again except as a name for God.

Is that what Jesus meant? No it isn't.

When Jesus reminded people of the duty to honor their fathers and mothers, he was not speaking of The Father in Heaven. Jesus sent out his disciples and apostles telling them to be teachers. Paul referred to himself as the father of Onesimus, and also as the father of the members of the Church in Corinth.

So no, actually, Jesus did not prohibit the use of the word "father" or "teacher". He was teaching a polemic lesson about the lack of authority of the Pharisees as teachers and fathers, for they were leading men astray.

To call the Pope, head of Christ's Church on earth, "father", is to do no more than Paul did. It wasn't a sin when Paul did it. It's not a sin when we do it. And it wasn't a SIN when the Jews called rabbis "teacher" and "father". It was a MISTAKE - Jesus is pointing out a MISTAKE - he's not giving a commandment, a divine law.

This is obvious, just like it's obvious from just reading it that the whole Law of Moses - the Torah - applied to Hebrews only, not Gentiles, and Jesus didn't MAKE IT apply to Gentiles.

Paul was not showing disrespect for God when he referred to himself as the spiritual father of many. And Catholics are not showing disrespect for God when they refer to the human head of Jesus' Church as "Holy Father".

No Catholics think that the Pope is God. No Catholic ever did.

"Profession themselves to be wise, they became fools"? Back at ya.

Truth vic learn it.

And why, exactly, do you think that YOU possess the truth?

I know God is with me because of the miracles, very great and small. God is with me.

Why do you think he's with you when you come after me?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That sentence is one of the most fallacious and attractive statements of entrapment in existence. Years ago, I had a close friend who was one of the top produce men in the the country. He said there were people of such low intelligence that if they couldn't eat it, drink it, drive it, or fuck it, they didn't understand it and didn't want any part of it. He made millions of dollars offering them good produce to eat.

To this I will add a fifth category. Any left wing politician who gives them permission to steal gives them right to address income inequality and pursue their version of happiness. Hence the success of the Hillarys and Obamas.

Now we are immigating genetic low IQ mental defectives by the millions into this country in the name of offering income equality.

I know God is with me because of the miracles, very great and small. God is with me.

What miracles? The ravings of a hallucinogenic nutcase?

What miracles? The ravings of a hallucinogenic nutcase?

Ive talked about them with you before. Hallucinogenic? No. Not only do I not cause hallucinations (the actual meaning of the word hallucinogenic), but I've never used hallucinogens or any other illegal drug.

Instead, you could tell me why it is that you think that the Bible is the sole source of revelation, and why the King James Version, specifically, is the correct translation.

Ive talked about them with you before. Hallucinogenic? No. Not only do I not cause hallucinations (the actual meaning of the word hallucinogenic), but I've never used hallucinogens or any other illegal drug.

You didn't need to. You spent a lifetime creating your own brand of insanity. You label it a form of superior intellect.

No rush. No need for a response to what I have written.

Instead, you could tell me why it is that you think that the Bible is the sole source of revelation, and why the King James Version, specifically, is the correct translation.

I think the Bishops Bible is also correct.

I compared it to King Jammes. Admittedly a very limited comparison. But they were pretty much identical and also completely identical.

I think that because God promised that people would have his word in their language. I can't remember chapter and verse but I think you know what I am talking about. So do you think a fake translation would come first?

Do you think the King James is incorrect or fake?

This was easier than your previous statement so I started with the easy stuff.

Bible is the sole source of revelation

No I think God reveals stuff to people. I think that the things he reveals to people through prayer would never contradict the Bible. I don't think there is any new revelations that we need to know. Everything we need to know is in the Bible. Doesn't it say it is finished at the end of the Bible or something like that?

Also I thought I asked you another question from my phone earlier today but I guess it didn't get sent. But my question was what is the definition of holy, and is the pope holy?

You didn't need to. You spent a lifetime creating your own brand of insanity. You label it a form of superior intellect.

I've spent a lifetime living a life that has, at times, had contact with the divine. This is not insanity. It's the reason I'm alive at all, actually. It's why I am certain about certain things (such as the existence of God), and why I am as brave and stubborn as a stone wall when those things that I know are challenged.

I don't label it superior intellect. That's your label. What it is, in the case of the existence of God, is simply a matter of superior knowledge. You don't believe God exists. Others believe he does. I know it, from direct experience. This doesn't make my intellect superior to anybody. It simply means that I have greater certitude.

The people who have not seen and yet believe have had to reason their way to belief without the proof. You have reasoned your way to unbelief because of the lack of proof satisfactory to you. You can bicker with them over intellectual superiority. I can tell you that their basic conclusion: God is, is the truth, and if you believed that I am telling the truth, you could engage your own intellect to figure out how to fit what you know into a framework in which God exists, as opposed to your preferred view, that he does not.

But beyond that, I would say that it's not very smart to come after anybody and say "You did not experience that, because I don't believe that exists." That is extraordinarily narrow- minded, and really looks very dumb from the perspective of anybody who really did experience what you don't believe exists. Your belief is wrong. But you're so very certain of it that you cannot imagine a world in which it is wrong, even though you live in one.

That's not me having a superior intellect, it's you mistaking your own belief system about the world for truth.

I think that because God promised that people would have his word in their language. I can't remember chapter and verse but I think you know what I am talking about.

You can't remember the chapter and verse because there isn't one that says that. The closest you can get is the statement that God's word endures forever, but that's not the same thing, first, because God's word is not a written thing, and second, there's no promise of a Bible or a translation thereof.

Also I thought I asked you another question from my phone earlier today but I guess it didn't get sent. But my question was what is the definition of holy, and is the pope holy?

"Holy" means "set apart as sacred".

The papal office is certainly set apart and intended to be sacred. Whether it is or not depends on the character and behavior of the man seated in it.

I don't think there is any new revelations that we need to know. Everything we need to know is in the Bible. Doesn't it say it is finished at the end of the Bible or something like that?

No. The end of the Book of Revelation, which is placed at the end of the Bible only by tradition, says that if anybody adds or takes away from "this book" then the calamities described in the book will be visited upon them.

"This book" is not the Bible. There was no Bible when Revelation was written at the end of the 1st Century. The first Bibles did not exist until the 4th Century, after Christianity had been legalized by the Emperor Constantine and could come out of hiding and organize monasteries to copy them out.

The "add nothing to and subtract nothing from this book" language in Revelation refers to Revelation itself. It isn't the only self-referential part of the book of Revelation. It certainly doesn't refer to a Bible that would not exist for another two and a half centuries.