Vatican Billions

[Budge]

I went to a doctor.

he didnt know what was wrong.

Then I went to the MERCK manual and read medical books and found a specialist and asked for a test in this case, and got diagnosed.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Budge' post='1048013' date='Aug 22 2006, 12:24 PM']
I went to a doctor.

he didnt know what was wrong.

Then I went to the MERCK manual and read medical books and found a specialist and asked for a test in this case, and got diagnosed.
[/quote]

The point is that you went to a specialist - who is an expert in his/her field - instead of trying to cure it yourself or going to Granny Clampett for her rheumatis' medicine that would also cure gout and baldness.

Don't look down on experts.

[Mitchell_b55]

[color="#CC0000"][b]Moribus antiquis stat res romanua virisque.[/b][/color]

[b]Logical Fallacy, Fallicious Debate[/b]

Internet Etiquette, this is a skill you drastically need to improve. Massive fonts, clearly express that you are unwilling to do anything but flame us, which is why I must rspond using form and system. First, I usually follow a certain line of attack when my faith, my brethren, or my person is defamed and abused visibly, [i]id est[/i] flamed. It is important to maintain the initiative, and that means focusing on the initial argument. The antagonist, in this case Budge and Eutychus, may persistently proceed back to the original insult, which may be actual or alleged; you must move relentlessly forward, while never losing the thread. That is the antagonist will attempt to argue using like insults, but will perhaps not keep a linear debate, which proceeds from one argument to the next. The antagonist may try to lead the argument awry, and by this deception avoid their initial argument, which they have found themselves insufficient to defend, even if this realization is subconscious and invisible under the sugar coating of conceit and absolute egoism. There are some procedures that are suggested - for example, when tempers are short, always be reasonable. I have both a short temper, and I believe I have been reasonable. Eutychus has been at least fair, in-so-much as he has responded with a compliment, I think, and gave his own distorted advice, which, far as my person is concerned, was sincere. Budge, however deviated from the argument, and instead of responding to a legitimate argument with another legitimate argument, proceeded not to progress, but to deviate, by arguing the fragmentation of the Christianity, the lack of unity, and the false preaching of the Gospel, which had no connection to an argument about material wealth and secular power of clerical individuals, most important the Vicar of Christ, and the servent of the servents of God.

[b]To those of little movement, the narrow, and the dry.[/b]

“Did you even read the scripture I posted?”

Yes, we all read your post of little consequence, and some may have feinted responding out of discomfiture, however I will speak clearly and unconcernedly, perhaps it is a lack of humility that motivates me in this respect, but while the meek will inherit the earth, the bold will pave the way for the meek.

[i]Conceivably, I should cease and desist, since it is people like you that the dictum applies[/i]:

“It is a sad creature, deserving of pity, not anger.
Any direct response simply feeds it,
but it will go away if you ignore it.”

I do indeed pity you, but I also despise your process of reasoning, your inexact and illogical fallacies. In this argument pity is superceded by motivated desire to eradicate error, a type of Iquisitorial motivation.

[b]Level 8, Sublevel 6, Caiaphas and Annas.[/b]

Now [i]Hypocrisy [/i] is about self-deceit, and little good will come out of forcing people to face unpleasant truths about themselves, however I feel an obligation in this instance to explain a certain hypocrisy that you embrace. First, you deny the primacy of ecumenism, or one world religion, that is the primacy of one truth, the logical foundation of one true branch of philosophy and understanding, where all other strands of philosophy are incomplete or misguided, or simply superfluous. You deny the support of this primacy, even when overwhelming and obvious historical data, exists to support this philosophy, and where scientific data supports the assumptions of this philosophical data, thus creating a clean and neat circle of support, not a vicious circle mind you, but a circle that shows the intertwining of understanding in the three spheres.

Three in one, as it would seem, [i]tria juncta in uno[/i]. I will not get into this support, it has clearly been maintained for centuries in Roman Catholic philosophy and has been carefully represented by many credible apologists, and I do not necessarily mean the admittedly weak apologetics that exist in some spheres, and are clearly idiotic, such as the scientific belief of Robert Sungenis, and other charlatan apologists of this type, who do not if I may, “Rep the Church.” We must remember that the Church must approve of the apologetics in use in its cause, otherwise they become the private judgment of individuals. Something that drastically denies that reason persists in a unified way.

I will agree that a perception of truth can be different, but that perception cannot undermine the fundamental basis of that truth, therefore changing the truth and multiplying the truth. The Church possesses a mystical unity, while have a multiplicity of rites, orders, lay associations, cannot be considered to be broken into denominations or sects, since denominations all have separate hierarchy or authority, these orders, or rites, or associations [which may have patriarchs, bishops, or superior generals]show an underlying principal of the hierarchy shows the subservience of each of these individuals to a single individual thus casting them out of the sectarian conflict. It is plural unity, an oxymoron, which by the way is effective rhetoric. [i]Pluralistic Uniformity[/i], seemingly contradictory, it actually expresses a well-known truth, that is unity of fundamentals, and pluralism of expression or perception without deviation from the fundamental.

But I digress, you are a hypocrite, you say that you believe in this unified pluralism, by exclaiming that every Christian religion possesses a different perception of truth, but it is nonetheless unified in the Christ, however [i]virtute, no verbis[/i], deeds or valour, actions of men, speak louder than words of men. Conduct is expressive of truth, and you continue, Eutychus, to attend that Baptist Church, even though you say all Christians possess the truth. If they all possessed the truth then you would not attend the Baptist church, since we know that Baptists and Episcopalians believe drastically different doctrines, and likewise with Lutherans and further more evangelicals, fundamentalists, transcendentalists, and what do you know Catholics. Your policy of private interpretation doesn’t apply to Catholics? This is funny, considering we qualify in the sola scriptura bin. Have you ever read a Catholic Biblical Commentary [i]verse-by-verse[/i], which shows an unified and uncontradictory interpretation of scripture which supports every practice of catholicity.

And you too Budge, you say that we preach the [i]polar opposite[/i], which is very extreme in the majority of cases, polar meaning that we preach the word of Satan, however we possess the same Bible [Translation taken from the literal Latin that is, which in many instances the King James Bible is just as clear as the Douay-Rheims the clearest of translations, try a comparison of translations at [url="http://unbound.biola.edu"]Unbound Bible @ Biola[/url]], [i]which by the way the Deuterocanonical books have little value doctrinally[/i], even for purgatory which is more or less understood through New Testament texts, and the application of reason, not to mention the observation of historical instances of the Jewish, Old Testament religion and the Orthodox tendencies in modern, rabbinical Judaism. Again, however, I digress, in conduct the two of you and every “[i]Universal Truth of all Christians[/i]” believer claims that that every Christian possesses Christ’s word, but again you go to that Baptist Church.

[u]Wait, you don’t listen to that pastor on every topic do you?[/u] [i]Quod erat demostrandum[/i], [u]you [/u] have [u]become the authority[/u], the truth and again this in conduct denies the truth of every other individual, as I said perception has boundaries, and once beyond those boundaries it becomes personal opinion. There is no truth in your line of reasoning, only opinion, and salvation cannot rely on opinion, if that were the case, Christ would never have become incarnate or would never have had to die upon a bloody Roman cross, and we would never have to receive the body and blood of the paschal lamb, which is sacrificed for our sins on the altar of God, and consumed. We would just have to be convicted to our own principles. Again, they named your well, Protestants, against authority, [i]rebelling against God[/i].

[b]Saint Mark and the sinfulness of men.[/b]

It is amusing, Budge, your quote of St. Mark, you see only the literal linguistic meaning of scripture, you cannot find the complexity of understanding and expression of God's inspired word. [u]The pope is not indefectible[/u], the [u]Church is indefectible[/u], since it is the [u]mystical body of Christ[/u], the pope is just another man with sins, do you deny that the apostles sinned and spoke against Christ, even after accepting him, [i]thrice before the pickle crows and all that jazz[/i], the pope can sin, but he is given infallible authority only when speaking in a manner that will define a subject regarding faith or morality. A an can accept Christ and still in moments of weakness speak against him or deny him, but the virtue of forgiveness, which no Protestant, in his in absolutist compassion, will grant a sinner if he belongs to that despicable institution, the Whore of Babyolon, the Pagan idolators, the Catholic prestidigitators. Again you preach that you love us, but you do not love the men you use against us as defense for your love, and they are your neighbors also.

Do you know that I pray for the soul of Hitler, that in some freak incident he was capable of perfect contrition, and that he is being cleansed of his sins. I cannot deny even the most brutal men the opportunity to see the face of God, even if his iniquity is great. [As for the suicide, you never can know if a photograph, blurry and inconcise given to you by the Nazi party, whom claims that their leader committed suicide.]

As for the interpretation of that particular phrase, I will put serious thought into it, and I have sources, commentaries, and other resources to pour over before I can give you an official, or at least acceptable assertion in regard to Mark, but I feel that the way in which you “privately judge” the passage, is fallacious and ignores the reality of human nature. And who said that Popes, or priests work miracles, the sacraments are the work of Christ, infallibility is the clarity of understanding received from the Holy Ghost who prevents error, these miracles, while supernatural are not the work of man, nor the work of men who publicly proclaim the justification of an obviously sinful act.

A logical fallacy is an error in logical argument which is independent of the truth of the premises. It is a flaw in the structure of an argument as opposed to an error in its premises. When there is a fallacy in an argument it is said to be invalid. The presence of a logical fallacy in an argument does not necessarily imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Now you present premises in your interpretation, that we must accept on assumption as a hypothesis. A postulate must be carried over and supported itself, thus you must also support your interpretation using philosophy, not just historical basis of fallible words, it is not the words that are infallible, but the meaning of the words. Interpretation is an act of reason, thus give us a reason for you interpretation on a philosophical basis, and a study of human nature which supports your postulate.

[b]The fortunate man from Troas.[/b]

By the way, I went and got that espresso, it was very nice. I end with a proverb directed to Eutychus, “Skepticism is the beginning of faith.” All of the questions that I have asked have lead me here, and there are very few questions that I have left, skepticism led me to the True faith, it showed me the right path. Blind faith is ignorance, which can be blissful, since God doesn’t punish invincible error or ignorance, the ignorance I apply to you, who I apologize for the disrespect I owe to your aged person, youthful zealot that I am, the fraternal corrector, is an ignorance that is self-induced, an ignorance you maintain because of a hardness of heart or something of that nature. But I cannot remain in blissful ignorance, I ask too many questions, and these questions, by the way, were received how ever heterodox with charity and understanding, which is more than I can say for my Protestant fellows. I came to know orthodoxy, through reason, since faith comes from our ability to accept the first premise via reason, the second premise, though obscure, via support of the first, and to understand the conclusion, however mysterious, via faith in the acceptance of the first two premises. Reason becomes subservient, but not useless.

[color="#CC0000"][b]Pax vobiscum,[/b][/color]

[b]Petrus Scholasticus, in apologia pro vita sua et fidei.[/b]

[i]Post Scriptum[/i]. Saint Paul once said in Ephesians, [i]Unus Dominus una fides unum baptisma unus Deus et Pater omnium[/i] One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all.”

Or since you insist on using the King’s English, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all.” [i]Oh, wait… it doesn’t change.[/i]

[Mitchell_b55]

By the way, must we return to English Class:

Expert – it comes from the Old French word for experience, which in turn came from the Latin word expertus, which is the past participle of expiri, to try.

An expert has tried his whole life to become a master in or to understand one, or numerous subjects. A precise definition would be, “A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.” Or more literally, “Having, involving, or demonstrating great skill, dexterity, or knowledge as the result of experience or training.”

An amateur is one engaging in a pursuit but lacking professional skill: a musician who is a gifted amateur, not a professional; a dabbler in the stock market; a sculptor but a mere dilettante.

I place the miniscule portion of faith that is reserved for men, in the experts, the devotees, I am an amateur, a novice, a neophyte, a nobody.

Again, conduct, not one thing you say hasn’t been said before, by someone else, you place your faith, be it as small as mine or not, in men and their assumptions, I place my faith in the divine gift of reason, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in understanding revelation.

I do ask that all people who accept the conclusion of an experts argument at least attempts to take the same steps that he took, coming to your own conclusion.

I won't be on again until tomorrow, I sahll have a conclusive comment on the passage then, ciao.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1047974' date='Aug 22 2006, 10:57 AM']
That's why I do my own medical treatments.

But what about my question a few posts above?
[/quote]
I again ask my question, Budge. Why are you avoiding answering a question from an avowed non-Catholic?

How do you interpret Mark 9:36-41?
Why do you say that the Caths cut it out of their bible when I found it quite easily in the NAB?

[Eutychus]

[quote]Hahaha. You mean you believe in snake handling and drinking poisons (link)? I love "Bible-based" churches. Like so many Ethiopian eunuchs... [/quote]

Hmm, apparently God and Paul did. { Could that verse just be a prophetic utterance of THIS event to come? }

[quote]Acts 28:3 (KJV)[color="#660000"] [b]And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid [them] on the fire, there came [u]a viper [/u]out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.[/b][/color]

[u]4 And when the barbarians saw the [venomous] beast hang on his hand,[/u] they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.

[u]5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.[/u][/quote]

It THAT the reason God put the verse into the bible?

To show that He, God, would perform this act?

Edited August 22, 2006 by Eutychus

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1048080' date='Aug 22 2006, 02:46 PM']
Hmm, apparently God and Paul did. { Could that verse just be a prophetic utterance of THIS event to come? }[/quote]Apparently you don't realize that the link describes a sect which incorporates snake handling and drinking of poisons into their worship services as a way to prove their faith.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1047955' date='Aug 22 2006, 11:34 AM']
Excellent. I'm going to pick up the next Bible I find. [/quote]
Well, that's all fine and dandy for you, Winchester... What about the poor illiterate saps who couldn't do so for several hundred years? I guess God didn't care about them....

Now....
The topic of this thread has to do with the Church and money. Let's stay on topic, shall we?

[Budge]

Anomaly [in regards to Mark 9] because obviously you folks dont believe it, since you complain about all those THOUSANDS of churches...



[quote]What about the poor illiterate saps who couldn't do so for several hundred years? I guess God didn't care about them.... ohno.gif[/quote]

Ever notice its the Catholic nations historically with the highest rates of illiteracy, there is a reason for that...

Im sure all those peasants had great fun listening to LATIN, a language they didnt even know.

Only a church ran by the devil would put the services in a language the people have no clue about.

[ruso]

[quote name='Budge' post='1048160' date='Aug 22 2006, 11:08 PM']
Anomaly [in regards to Mark 9] because obviously you folks dont believe it, since you complain about all those THOUSANDS of churches...
Ever notice its the Catholic nations historically with the highest rates of illiteracy, there is a reason for that...

Im sure all those peasants had great fun listening to LATIN, a language they didnt even know.

Only a church ran by the devil would put the services in a language the people have no clue about.
[/quote]
Poland, Ukranie,Spain,France,Ireland,Belgium,Portugal,Malta,Hungary,Croatia,Italy, souht Germany...............Truly they were illiterate? .
It was preached since in the church only in latin?.
Perhaps who they studied, so much in secular as religious schools, they did not study latin? .
They do badly the protestant reverends in studying latin? , before and now.
They showed your protestant friends Dutch , Britanics, Nordics, Germans of north. ........contempt by the latin?

Edited August 22, 2006 by ruso

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Budge' post='1048160' date='Aug 22 2006, 04:08 PM']
Anomaly [in regards to Mark 9] because obviously you folks dont believe it, since you complain about all those THOUSANDS of churches...
Ever notice its the Catholic nations historically with the highest rates of illiteracy, there is a reason for that...

Im sure all those peasants had great fun listening to LATIN, a language they didnt even know.

Only a church ran by the devil would put the services in a language the people have no clue about.
[/quote]
Just as a point of interest... in what language was your church devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer during the Middle Ages?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Budge' post='1048160' date='Aug 22 2006, 05:08 PM']Ever notice its the Catholic nations historically with the highest rates of illiteracy, there is a reason for that...[/quote]An emotional argument that has no basis in fact. Literacy rates rose with the introduction of technologies such as the printing press (a Catholic invention). Some more facts are here:
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy[/url]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...y_literacy_rate[/url]

[quote name='Budge' post='1048160' date='Aug 22 2006, 05:08 PM']Im sure all those peasants had great fun listening to LATIN, a language they didnt even know.

Only a church ran by the devil would put the services in a language the people have no clue about.[/quote]More ignorance. Most Catholics still speak a Latin-based language. So, please don't speak of people not having a clue, when you yourself don't know much about the subject.

If you don't want to listen to a Catholic, listen to Martin Luther, who argued for the preservation of Latin (albeit among other languages) as a liturgical language:
[quote][b]I do not want in anywise to let the Latin tongue disappear out of Divine Service; for I am so deeply concerned for the young[/b]. If it lay in my power, and the Greek and Hebrew tongues were as familiar to us as the Latin, and possessed as great a store of fine music and song as the Latin does, Mass should be held and there should be singing and reading, on alternate Sundays in all four languages-German, Latin, Greek and Hebrew.[/quote]Martin Luther saw Latin as a language that "peasants" (as you call them) could benefit from, because of its "great store of fine music and song."

Martin Luther, anxious to call any Catholic teaching "from the devil," seems to have seen Latin as a blessing to the faithful.

[Anomaly]

Budge,
You still haven't answered my question. BTW, I am an ex-Catholic, so don't BS me with make believe stuff. Either deal with intellectual honesty or pound sand.

How do you interpret the passages of Mark 9?

[homeschoolmom]

Budge is on a sabbatical.

[Winchester]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1048296' date='Aug 22 2006, 06:27 PM']
Budge is on a sabbatical.
[/quote]

Why? For the "devil" comment.

He resorted to that because he was on the ropes, having made his stupid comment to me about not relying on experts.


BTW: MERCK manual is written by experts.