A Faithful Catholic Posted April 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 I wonder what pope Innocent III would do? TWS Who cares? He's long dead.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted April 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 No, the sin of hypocrites willing to throw stones at others is the real SIN! Your post throws the blame of those that suffered in the catholic "convents" on the pregnant women, but not at the society or church that cast them there. People like you make me sick. The pregnant women are half to blame for the pregnancy and certainly are not innocent like you portray. The man is the other half of the blame. They both are to blame because they should have kept their pants on! What a concept, huh? They knew what type of society they lived in and threw caution into the wind! Look at our society now! Kids are having kids! Morality went into the toilet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted April 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 And AFC and religious fanatics are always at the ready to interpret his will and ensure who lives and dies based on their personal beliefs. Allah be praised! His will has already been stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted April 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 How about next time you need emergency surgery to save your life, we make sure there is a law in place preventing you from getting treatment and we allow nature and God's will to just take its course? And remember -- no pain killers either! I wouldn't want you to murder an innocent, unborn person, just to save my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted April 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 You suck. You really do. Not really. They went to work in the convents for food and shelter. They were treated poorly by not having decent burials and family notification is all. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Not really. They went to work in the convents for food and shelter. They were treated poorly by not having decent burials and family notification is all.0 @ I still don't understand what is the big deal. The baby's soul goes to god, what could be better. And the bible condones keeping a slave. Nice directive to follow. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Isn't it great that we live in a country where you can have your opinion and I can have mine? I may disagree with abortion, but since there is no real consensus as to when life begins, how would we determine what is and is no abortion? You may say it begins at conception, but others, even in the medical community, may say different. @ Most all in the medical community NOW agree that life does begin at conception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Who cares? He's long dead.... So is Hitler. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 The pregnant women are half to blame for the pregnancy and certainly are not innocent like you portray. The man is the other half of the blame. They both are to blame because they should have kept their pants on! What a concept, huh? They knew what type of society they lived in and threw caution into the wind! Look at our society now! Kids are having kids! Morality went into the toilet! That statement just demonstrated how really ignorant and piggish you are! Women do not always end up pregnant simply because they refused to keep their pants on! Have you heard of rape? Oh, yeah -- you have. As you stated earlier, women --- and little girls -- should die if necessary in order to bring a pregnancy to term -- even if raped. God's will, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 His will has already been stated. Yes. YOU have told us what HIS will is. YOU have told us what HE wants. YOU have told us what God's intent for sex is. Praise Allah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 I wouldn't want you to murder an innocent, unborn person, just to save my life. Is there a reason you cannot say FETUS? You suck. You really do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Not really. They went to work in the convents for food and shelter. They were treated poorly by not having decent burials and family notification is all. @ You are really sick. They did not "go" voluntarily to the convents. They were not just treated "poorly" by not getting decent burials. They were abused throughout their lives by YOUR CHURCH for giving birth out of wedlock. You're supposedly pretty big on your religion's history, but I see you turn a convenient blind eye to this part of it, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The West Sider Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Who cares? He's long dead.... So are the THOUSANDS of people that pope innocent iii ordered to be SLAUGHTERED during Albegensian Crusade. TWS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Satan Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 So are the THOUSANDS of people that pope innocent iii ordered to be SLAUGHTERED during Albegensian Crusade. TWS Yes, but according to AFC, since they weren't fetuses, they do not count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The West Sider Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Here is the action figure: http://www.gulker.com/wp/2007/11/24/pope-i...-action-figure/ I don't think that it is appropriate at all to do such a thing. BUT, it mentions all of the good that he did and the bad (4th Crusade and the slaughter of 1000's of people). AFC - does the good outweigh the bad? In your eyes? In the churches eyes? Also, one of the things that I never understood being a catholic is being credited to him - transubstantiation. Now, instead of this person told passed it on to that person to that person to Peter, can you honestly tell me that you believe that the actual 'transformation' takes place during mass? Even more so, do you think Jesus actually meant this or it was used as a parable/metaphor? I think that latter. Not that you care as I am a lowly heretic. Get ready for the cut -n- paste! TWS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted April 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 I still don't understand what is the big deal. The baby's soul goes to god, what could be better. The baby is left to God's mercy. And the bible condones keeping a slave. Nice directive to follow. 1.) That was the ISREALITES. 2.) Slavery in the bible is NOT the same slavery that was in the south. It was indentured servants. They had rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted April 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Most all in the medical community NOW agree that life does begin at conception. Where have they been? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted April 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 That statement just demonstrated how really ignorant and piggish you are! Women do not always end up pregnant simply because they refused to keep their pants on! Have you heard of rape? Oh, yeah -- you have. As you stated earlier, women --- and little girls -- should die if necessary in order to bring a pregnancy to term -- even if raped. God's will, etc. Murder of the INNOCENT can never be acceptable in any situation. Rape is a CRIME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted April 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Yes. YOU have told us what HIS will is. YOU have told us what HE wants. YOU have told us what God's intent for sex is. Praise Allah! His will has already been laid out for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted April 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Is there a reason you cannot say FETUS? You suck. You really do. It is an unborn BABY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted April 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 You are really sick. They did not "go" voluntarily to the convents. They were not just treated "poorly" by not getting decent burials. They were abused throughout their lives by YOUR CHURCH for giving birth out of wedlock. You're supposedly pretty big on your religion's history, but I see you turn a convenient blind eye to this part of it, eh? How were they abused by the Church? What about their families? What about working for a living? What about the men??? Hmmmmm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted April 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 So are the THOUSANDS of people that pope innocent iii ordered to be SLAUGHTERED during Albegensian Crusade. TWS If you actually KNEW your history, you wouldn't make such a ridiculous comment: The Albigensian movement in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was a heresy that grew in southern France. Albigensians rejected the sacraments and believed that the "evil god" of the Old Testament had created the physical world. In 1208, they killed a papal representative, and Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) called for a "crusade" against the heretical sect. Unfortunately, that’s what he got. Innocent had stressed education, confession, clerical reform and solid preaching as an answer to heresy, but the "Albigensian Crusade" quickly deteriorated into attacks by mobs, petty rulers, vindictive local bishops, and armies from northern France over the next twenty years, destroying the Albigensians. The papacy realized that it had to exerciser greater control over the treatment of heresy. This would allow for some measure of persuasion and conversion, rather than prosecution and slaughter by secular courts or mob rule. In 1231, Pope Gregory appointed the Dominican order to act as papal judges of heresy and to take control away from the local secular authorities. Over the next two decades, a series of canonical instructions were drawn up for conducting medieval inquisition courts. By the mid- to late-fourteenth century, however, these papal-commissioned inquisitors had disappeared from many parts of Europe. Inquisition courts themselves varied in use from prince to prince, kingdom to kingdom over the years. Though succeeding popes would attempt to exercise some control over these courts, a vast, papal-controlled singular inquisition never really existed in Europe. I think you owe Pope Innocent III an apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Faithful Catholic Posted April 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Here is the action figure: http://www.gulker.com/wp/2007/11/24/pope-i...-action-figure/ I don't think that it is appropriate at all to do such a thing. BUT, it mentions all of the good that he did and the bad (4th Crusade and the slaughter of 1000's of people). AFC - does the good outweigh the bad? In your eyes? In the churches eyes? Also, one of the things that I never understood being a catholic is being credited to him - transubstantiation. Now, instead of this person told passed it on to that person to that person to Peter, can you honestly tell me that you believe that the actual 'transformation' takes place during mass? Even more so, do you think Jesus actually meant this or it was used as a parable/metaphor? I think that latter. Not that you care as I am a lowly heretic. Get ready for the cut -n- paste! TWS I think you owe Pope INNOCENT III an apology and stop using garbage websites for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Geo Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Here is the action figure: http://www.gulker.com/wp/2007/11/24/pope-i...-action-figure/ I don't think that it is appropriate at all to do such a thing. BUT, it mentions all of the good that he did and the bad (4th Crusade and the slaughter of 1000's of people). AFC - does the good outweigh the bad? In your eyes? In the churches eyes? Also, one of the things that I never understood being a catholic is being credited to him - transubstantiation. Now, instead of this person told passed it on to that person to that person to Peter, can you honestly tell me that you believe that the actual 'transformation' takes place during mass? Even more so, do you think Jesus actually meant this or it was used as a parable/metaphor? I think that latter. Not that you care as I am a lowly heretic. Get ready for the cut -n- paste! TWS I know that you were talking to AFC about this (transubstantiation) but I hope you won't be offended if I stick my own two cents in ... Transubstantiation, the changing of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is a cornerstone of Catholic belief. Jesus told the apostles "this is my Body" and "This is my Blood." And then he told them to, "Do this in remembrance of Me." He did not say that the bread symbolized His body or that the wine symbolized His blood He said that it is His actual body and blood, Mk 14: 22-24, Lk 22: 19-20. I could never understand why Protestants have such a hard time believing this, after all, they profess to believe every word in Holy Scripture. Perhaps the King James version of the Bible says that the bread and wine are only symbols? Is that the reason? I'm not trying to be a smart a$$ here ... I really want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Truth Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Didn't Christianity consist of the Catholic Church for the first 1500 years? No. While the Catholic Church was seeking to control the world through religion, true Christians were running for their lives from the Catholic holocaust that ran for centuries. God has always had His people, faithful to Him and His Word. They had no part in the Roman Catholic Church. Through much of history, organized religion has hunted and slaughtered God's people. Finally the Truth Be Told!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.