Catholicplanet.com

[kafka]

[quote name='picchick' post='1732462' date='Dec 20 2008, 02:14 AM']Again, not to beat a dead horse but this is not really what you think...because if that were true then you would not have been so inconsistent in your other posts when I confronting you about the same thing.[/quote]
you are beating a

[picchick]

[quote name='kafka' post='1732522' date='Dec 20 2008, 08:04 AM']you are beating a[/quote]

...

[Galloglasses' Alt]

Picchick take it easy, Kafka's post got cut off on him.

[dairygirl4u2c]

he predicts April 9, 2009 to be monumental to the world.
we will soon see.

he also is famous for predicting PJII's death. people made fun of him for being wrong, but he was only a year off. and, he even guessed B16 would be called B16 back when JP2 was alive.

(hillary is in line ot be pres as per vice pres then sec of state etc, and might e in the future... if that's the case, then he might not be too far off. at any rate, even he acknowledges some of his points will be in err)

he predicts firmly that jesus will return, the year.
and the other dates he's firm about.

personally, he seems liek a Dbag. hard core types, are always fun to watch suffer being wrong.
i think he might be right on a lot, but he's still a Dbag, and it will still be fun to watch him squirm when he's wrong.

Edited December 20, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[mortify]

Funny, I was just about to post about his [b]April 10, 2008[/b] prediction for something to occur that will affect the world.

Edited December 20, 2008 by mortify

[dairygirl4u2c]

you mean, that it was merely a coincidence i posted about it?

or, are you saying he made a prediction that was wrong? ie, you said 2008, not 09.
i wasn't aware he made one back then if that is the case.

his reasoning for april 09 is based on garabandal and some other prophesiies, and he says if it's not to occur then, then it'd be like another fiftten years, he hints at that anyway.

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1732700' date='Dec 20 2008, 05:43 PM']you mean, that it was merely a coincidence i posted about it?

or, are you saying he made a prediction that was wrong? ie, you said 2008, not 09.
i wasn't aware he made one back then if that is the case.

his reasoning for april 09 is based on garabandal and some other prophesiies, and he says if it's not to occur then, then it'd be like another fiftten years, he hints at that anyway.[/quote]


My mistake, I meant April 10, [b]2009[/b]

[Noel's angel]

Kinda reminds me of Old Moore's Alamanc. BTW, that's NOT a good thing....

And also, wearing trousers is not leading me away from God. Nor would having short hair. This boy's ideas are a bit loopy.

Oh goodness, you HAVE to read this bit:
[b]
"Modesty is a separate issue. A woman wearing modest pants still offends God, not by lack of modesty, but by dressing like a man. A woman wearing an immodest skirt or dress offends God less than a woman wearing a modest pair of pants."[/b]

WHAT!?


[b]Women should not be on the parish council, for this is a leadership role which assists the pastor, much as the Twelve Apostles assisted Christ. [/b]

Edited December 20, 2008 by Noel's angel

[mortify]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1732713' date='Dec 20 2008, 06:32 PM'][b]
"Modesty is a separate issue. A woman wearing modest pants still offends God, not by lack of modesty, but by dressing like a man. A woman wearing an immodest skirt or dress offends God less than a woman wearing a modest pair of pants."[/b]

WHAT!?


[b]Women should not be on the parish council, for this is a leadership role which assists the pastor, much as the Twelve Apostles assisted Christ. [/b][/quote]

Maybe he's right

[Noel's angel]

Or not.

How can wearing a skirt in which others can see your bottom be more modest (and less sinful) than wearing well-fitting trousers? It makes no sense.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Noel's angel

[mortify]

[quote name='Noel's angel' post='1732717' date='Dec 20 2008, 06:42 PM']Or not.

How can wearing a skirt in which others can see your bottom be more modest (and less sinful) than wearing well-fitting trousers? It makes no sense.[/quote]

I don't think he had mini skirts in mind.

[Noel's angel]

He said that it is better to wear an immodest skirt than to wear trousers. In that, he mentioned the length of the skirt. Now, a miniskirt is an immodest skirt which is lacking in length. He is therefore stating that it is better to have your butt hanging out than it is to wear trousers.

[b]
By comparison, when a woman wears a short skirt, or a tight dress, her offense is only a matter of degree (the same skirt, if lengthened, might be considered modest).[/b]

Edited December 20, 2008 by Noel's angel

[mortify]

Well, I guess he's saying a woman dressing like a man is more offensive than her being immodest.

This may or may not be true, I'm not discrediting it immediately because I have heard something similar from traditional Catholics.

[Noel's angel]

'Traditional' Catholics....think about that phrase. All Catholics are Traditional in a sense, and those who claim to be more traditional than the rest of us, usually end up being less than orthodox.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]"Modesty is a separate issue. A woman wearing modest pants still offends God, not by lack of modesty, but by dressing like a man. A woman wearing an immodest skirt or dress offends God less than a woman wearing a modest pair of pants."

WHAT!?[/quote]

you can tell he's just being contrary.
there's no way one can say skirts are more immodest than a dress.
maybe more progressive, in the sense it's not identifying gender roles, and in a stretched sense, immodest.

but i'm just rationalizing for him.
totally irrational.
just trying to be contrary. it's his personality default.