ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, May 17, 2020

Beating Gammas for fun and profit

It's also highly educational, for the observer, if not the subject of The Kurgan's tender ministrations:
Beating gammas like dead horses can be entertaining if done with a view to educate those they try to fool with their assumed “superior intellect and knowledge”.

More importantly, it teaches people to think clearly and see through their never-changing methods, which can be listed as follows:
  • Conflation – mixing two or more topics together in an erroneous fashion in order to come to some new fake “conclusion” that pushes their narrative.
  • Sophistry – the endless arguing about the exact meaning of a word or phrase with a view to twisting it into some abomination if not its exact opposite. The general conflation of words and meanings to try and produce a new and false narrative that supports their lies.
  • Appeal to false authority – “I have a PhD in physics (or nose picking) therefore my ideas on physics (or nose picking) are correct” – No. No they are not. Correct ideas are correct. Wrong ones are wrong. 
  • Appeal to authority falsely – “Jesus said homosexuality/raping children/sexual slavery by Saracens/whatever perversion suits me personally is just fine” – No. No He did not. Not even hinted it might be ok. And specifically stated the opposite. 
  • False Charity – “Well, we can’t PROVE the man who raped that child to death meant harm. It’s an accident, we must be charitable” – No. Burn him at the stake.
  • Outright lying – This one is hard for normal people to actually believe because the lies can be so outrageous and in your face that it’s hard to believe anyone sane would even say such things. But they range the full gamut and can be subtle but insidious or blatant. And very often are based on the conflations and sophistry they laid down to begin with.
  • Gamma Forever – The general endless arguing without ever settling anything in order to frustrate as well as give the impression that the topic is too complex for normal people to care about or alternatively be able to follow. This activity can’t actually be helped by the gamma. They NEED to get the last word in no matter how obviously and thoroughly they have been shown to be wrong, liars and fakes, so that in their own minds (and nowhere else) they “won” and can continue being the secret king!
He then goes on to apply it to a Roman Catholic defender of "papal" heresy who has been resorting to a respectable amount of the aforementioned shenanigans.

Whenever you're dealing with someone who keeps resorting to "don't you think" and "isn't it really" and other justifications of redefinitions, ask yourself, "is this consistent with letting 'yes' be yes and 'no' be no" or is it more consistent with "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is." There are times when genuine complexities and gradations simply do not permit clear-cut answers, but words do have definite and distinct meanings nevertheless.

Labels: ,

177 Comments:

Blogger steb May 17, 2020 11:47 AM  

Common law doesn't derive from roman law. Even if it did, confusing one for the other would be an error, not a category error.
He says it's a monstrous lie that he's just citing snippets of canon law, then he goes on to cite the same snippet he cites in every post.

The argument he's dodging is a good one: you need to know what the framers of the law meant by 'defect' before you can say whether someone has done it. Kurgan can't and won't do that.

Blogger VD May 17, 2020 12:33 PM  

The argument he's dodging is a good one: you need to know what the framers of the law meant by 'defect' before you can say whether someone has done it.

No, you don't. You're ignoring the entire point of the Kurgan's piece and demonstrating that you have literally no idea what you're talking about.

The very concept that you need to know how a word was specially defined by the special boys before you can apply it is a peculiarly Talmudic concept now incorporated into US legal reasoning.

The Kurgan is pointing out that the very metric is wrong. It is a fundamental category error, being the confusion of a subset with the set.

Blogger Solon May 17, 2020 12:38 PM  

"Words do have definite and distinct meanings nevertheless."

Weird, there was a topic today on /pol/ discussing trannies and their insistence on forcing others to use whatever pronoun they decided they wanted to be referred to as. It got me thinking about a book my class had read in grade school, "Frindle."

If you've never heard of it, the plot is basically "young boy who is too clever by half (and probably Jewish) decides he doesnt like calling a pen a pen, so he convinces all his classmates to call pens 'frindles' instead, much to the chagrin of his teacher."

It was supposed to be a feel-good story about "being imaginative" and "not being bound by what other people tell you to think," but looking back on it 25 years later, it strikes me as extremely insidious.

It was humpty dumpty, "my words mean precisely what I mean them to," "who-whom" all over again. Think about it: if you can call a pen a frindle, why cant you call a dog a cat, an apple an orange...

Or a man a woman.

This was 25 years ago, well before trannies became mainstream, but with all the experience I've gained since then, I am most definitely convinced that it was a psy-op to get my generation used to the idea of "making words meaningless by defining things however you feel like."

As Q says, "these people are sick."

There needs to be a LOT of blood spilled, rivers of it, before we can set things right in the world.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 May 17, 2020 12:44 PM  

I have definitely experienced this with many Trad-Catholic Gammas in the past. When you confront them with their belief that Mary was a perpetual Virgin and how this is contradicted by Saint Matthew's Gospel (Matthew 1:25), they talk about how you have a "bad translation" or how the word is different in Ancient Greek.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 17, 2020 12:48 PM  

"you need to know what the framers of the law meant by 'defect'"

There's no ambiguity. That law set doesn't depend on the sophistic tribal "definition" of the word, but rather the most simple and ready one.

Defection is the result of defect. Defect is here used in reference to already established Catholic doctrine. The Catholics either have to hold their pre-Vatican II doctrine as entirely correct, and the Vatican II enactors and followers automatically deposed because it deviates, or they have to surrender everything attached to their brand name.

The Kurgan stomped Lovebirch.

Blogger Seeingsights May 17, 2020 12:49 PM  

Gammas are terrible communicators, both on the dialectical and rhetorical level.

Blogger Tetro May 17, 2020 1:00 PM  

Kurg the Sperg.

Blogger steb May 17, 2020 1:19 PM  

VD wrote:The argument he's dodging is a good one: you need to know what the framers of the law meant by 'defect' before you can say whether someone has done it.
The very concept that you need to know how a word was specially defined by the special boys before you can apply it is a peculiarly Talmudic concept now incorporated into US legal reasoning.


OK. Canon 188.4 rules on people who publicly defect from the Catholic faith. Clearly, Pope Francis hasn't done that according to the normal definition of those words (though you might argue that he has done so privately) so it doesn't apply. Sede Privationism is false.

Blogger Tetro May 17, 2020 1:28 PM  

"The Catholic Church’s position has ALWAYS been that a Pope, even validly elected, who then becomes a public heretic automatically vacates his office and ALL his decrees and edicts become null and void. Always has, always will be."

The Kurgan is too ignorant of theology and Church history enough to see how this puts him in a bind. He's too busy sperging and calling anyone and everyone who disagrees with him a 'gamma.' He doth protest too much.

This then puts the lie to the very clearly stated Roman dogma of 'infallibility' which officially applies to 'ordinary' magisterium as well as 'extraordinary' magisterium. That ordinary magisterium has been changed. By popes before and after Vatican II, and before and after Vatican I. In heretical ways. Which in an of itself blows out 'infallibility' as specifically defined by Rome, and which also, by Kurgan's own logic, makes all popes claiming papal supremacy and supporting filioquism... not "Roman Catholic." Which collapses the entire edifice of post-schism Rome and its claims. Which makes sedevacantism and sedeprivationism, or whatever, all moot points.

The guy didn't even know who, or what, 'Denzinger' is.

Blogger rognuald May 17, 2020 1:30 PM  

Excellent list. Thanks.

Blogger JG May 17, 2020 1:44 PM  

For those of you on SG2, see on-going gamma sperging on same topic by the object of the Kurgan's derision.

Blogger Damelon Brinn May 17, 2020 1:50 PM  

Catholicism is a religion that illiterate peasants could judge the truth of and follow for centuries, but the Modernists tell us that we can't reject their claims on it unless we have the equivalent of multiple theology and law degrees and can prove their heresies beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's handy for them, since they always use vague language that can be interpreted in a variety of ways that contradict each other.

Blogger tublecane May 17, 2020 1:57 PM  

False, specious, or misleading semantic argument is only one example of sophistry, I might point out. There are all kinds.

@1- "Common law doesn't derive from roman law"

Indeed. It derives from judges' decisions.

@2- "how a word was specially defined by the special boys"

The way I understand it is you go for the plain meaning of the text. If necessary, you allow for the fact that understanding of words changes over time. Because they do. We then seek for how the word was generally understood at the time the law was enacted.

For instance, snakes who either ought to know better or do know better pretend not to know what the 2nd amendment means. And it uses words like militia and regulated which differ from how they'd like to use them. But all we have to do is say: "Look, this is what they meant and what everyone with two ears would understand them to mean at the time, so shut up."

Doing so does not make the framers of the 2nd amendment Special Boys. Not any more than everyone in the country at the adoption of the Bill of Rights was adopted. Joe Plowright, if he were literate, would understand.

Obviously this is exploitable by snakes known as legislators, lawyers, and judges. Who enjoy talking in code or simply making things up as they go. Original meaning can't stop them, because they'll use any excuse or no excuse at all. But it is a way to do the opposite of whatever it is these people are up to.

Blogger Shane Bradman May 17, 2020 1:58 PM  

@8. The whole sede canon 188 argument is autistic legalism. The reality is that Pope Francis is shit and is damaging the Christian faith. I wish he wasn't. A lot of sedes and protestants wish harm for the Church because of their hatred of the Pope, which is wrong. They should wish for good come to the church and a swift correction of all the wrongs Pope Francis has done.

Blogger Tetro May 17, 2020 2:00 PM  

"Romans are not American wormtongue lawyers, and never were, nor ever will be. Roman law was created precisely so that everyone would know black is black, and white is white."

"Again this is obvious to Catholics because like the Romans, we call a spade a spade."

Ah yes, the saintly, untainted, noble Roman lawyers and lawmakers. Even in pagan times!

This. Guy. Talk about myth-making.

Blogger Tetro May 17, 2020 2:03 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:The Catholics either have to hold their pre-Vatican II doctrine as entirely correct, and the Vatican II enactors and followers automatically deposed because it deviates, or they have to surrender everything attached to their brand name.

Which means the entire papacy, as defined by Rome in Vatican I, has defected. Which means your precious papacy has fallen.

Blogger Tom d May 17, 2020 2:03 PM  

Has anyone else been enjoying the gamma smack down by the new press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany? It is one thing to be given the atomic wedgie or swirly from the God Emperor or Alapha jock - but judging from online responses, it appears to drive the gamma hives absolutely insane when it's done via the pretty cheerleader (especially from a sharped witted, blue eyed, blonde, Christian).

Blogger Unknown May 17, 2020 2:07 PM  

Yes, the end of the gamma is to fabricate the appearance that he has won. Kurgan covers the means.

It's often helpful to cut straight to the chase with dismissive mockery since gamma boy frequently doesn't actually care the topic at hand in any event. No pearls before swine.

Blogger Ransom Smith May 17, 2020 2:09 PM  

Does The Kurgan have a preferred blunt instrument?
He may get them in the mail, a la Preston Brooks.

Blogger Ranger May 17, 2020 2:09 PM  

Even applying the argument to Papapaco is putting the cart before the horse. You have to apply the argument to Popes Paul VI and, specially, to John Paul II. Because, if THEY did not publicly defect from the Catholic faith, the Code of Canon Law 1917 was revoked in 1983.
How many of "the public" would say, with very strong, legally binding, confidence, that John Paul II was not Catholic?

Blogger VD May 17, 2020 2:16 PM  

The way I understand it is you go for the plain meaning of the text. If necessary, you allow for the fact that understanding of words changes over time. Because they do. We then seek for how the word was generally understood at the time the law was enacted.

That's "originalism" and it is a defensive measure. It has also completely failed. Nor is it necessary if you insist on yes meaning yes and no meaning no.

Never engage in verbal or conceptual disputation with a dishonest man. Once you've determined that he's playing word games, just call him retarded and blow him out with rhetoric. It will be more effective and it's every bit as legitimate.

Blogger VD May 17, 2020 2:23 PM  

Exhibit A. The Kurgan is too ignorant of theology and Church history enough to see how this puts him in a bind. He's too busy sperging and calling anyone and everyone who disagrees with him a 'gamma.' He doth protest too much.

Exhibit B. The guy didn't even know who, or what, 'Denzinger' is.

This is all we need to know that you're a snake. You're going right to the rhetoric because you cannot fight on the field of dialectic.

I don't know what Denzinger is either. I could not possibly care less. But I know from observation that Pope Francis is evil and the Roman Catholic Church now serves the god of this world.

So, either Jesus Christ lied or you Catholic defenders incorrectly understood what he meant by "on this rock I will build my church". I'm entirely confident of the latter.

Blogger VFM #7634 May 17, 2020 2:26 PM  

I have definitely experienced this with many Trad-Catholic Gammas in the past. When you confront them with their belief that Mary was a perpetual Virgin and how this is contradicted by Saint Matthew's Gospel (Matthew 1:25), they talk about how you have a "bad translation" or how the word is different in Ancient Greek.

There have been Catholic theologians all through the ages who've pointed out repeatedly that "until" does NOT have the shade of meaning in English that implies he consummated the marriage after Jesus was born.

Blogger VFM #7634 May 17, 2020 2:29 PM  

OK. Canon 188.4 rules on people who publicly defect from the Catholic faith. Clearly, Pope Francis hasn't done that according to the normal definition of those words (though you might argue that he has done so privately) so it doesn't apply. Sede Privationism is false.

Francis has in fact done so repeatedly. For example with the Abu Dhabi declaration he gave with a Muslim imam, or in a speech he gave in Mozambique where he said "religious differences are necessary".

If those aren't public defections from the Faith, then nothing is.

Blogger VFM #7634 May 17, 2020 2:31 PM  

The whole sede canon 188 argument is autistic legalism.

@14 Shane Bradman

No Shane, the autistic legalism is trying to demonstrate that Francis has never defected from the Catholic Faith when any idiot can see he has. It can also be done with the other Vatican II antipopes, but Francis is the easiest and most obvious.

Blogger tublecane May 17, 2020 2:41 PM  

@21- As you say, "words do have definite and distinct meanings." How does one get a dishonest man to agree with that? You don't.

In either case, you have have resort to calling people names and blowing them out. Losers have paid original meaning lip service recently. But losers have said things like "words have definite and distinct meanings," too.

Anything could come off as an inherently defensive posture if it's in the hands of losers. Pick the same judges from the last 120 years or so and make them declare "words never change," and they'd lose just as often. Because "words never change" could so easily be used defensively.

Blogger Ranger May 17, 2020 2:59 PM  

Papapaco is evil. He's a bad sovereign. The RC canon law does not have a way to deal with a bad sovereign.
The solution is to break the law, not to subvert it.
You break the law and make your case about the very compelling reasons that led you to law-breaking, and you accept the judgement that comes from law-breaking, after the mitigating circumstances are taken into account.

What you DON'T do, if you think the law is a good one and even God-given, is to subvert it.
Breaking the law in hard cases does not make a new law. Subverting the law does.

Blogger BillHinDaytona May 17, 2020 3:02 PM  

"But I know from observation that Pope Francis is evil and the Roman Catholic Church now serves the god of this world.

So, either Jesus Christ lied or you Catholic defenders incorrectly understood what he meant by "on this rock I will build my church". I'm entirely confident of the latter."

I am certain you are entirely confident. You're wrong, but at least you're not in doubt.

Blogger SamuraiJeff May 17, 2020 3:06 PM  

Cointelpro techniques for managing fourms

Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'

If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be

quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of

unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of

these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum

slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called

upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum

slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into

each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a

simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum

list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view.

Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of

unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the

readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.

Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING'

A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at www.abovetopsecret.com) is 'consensus cracking.' To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.

Blogger SamuraiJeff May 17, 2020 3:07 PM  

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful

technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip

into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more

effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the

psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it

may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

>Flood Detected. Post Discarded
Technique #4 - 'INFORMATION COLLECTION'

Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a 'show you mine so me yours' posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your 'favourite weapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite 'technique of operation.' From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.

>lmao captcha

Blogger SamuraiJeff May 17, 2020 3:08 PM  

Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING'

Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to

present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP

location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power

against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement to 'stage' a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to 'lead' the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you 'do not care what the authorities think!!' inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution
Technique #6 - 'GAINING FULL CONTROL'

It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively

and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the 'ultimate victory' as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.

Blogger Tetro May 17, 2020 3:13 PM  

@VD

For clarity, I am commenting from the Orthodox perspective on a fight that I don't have a dog in.

Francis is a wack-job and of the spirit of antichrist. Papism is of the spirit of antichrist and the Roman Church has been serving the world for a long time. Peace out.

Blogger Stilicho May 17, 2020 3:19 PM  

>There are times when genuine complexities and gradations simply do not permit clear-cut answers, but words do have definite and distinct meanings nevertheless.<

It is rarely that complex, but even when it is precise language and honesty make discussion feasible. Sometimes a healthy dose of "I don't know" is called for as well, but good luck getting any of that out of a gamma.

Blogger Blue and Gold Bear May 17, 2020 3:21 PM  

Changing the meanings of words to mean something entirely different is how the second amendment has been attacked so much. Every one reading this blog should know better than to call a cat a dog.

Blogger weka May 17, 2020 3:24 PM  

Kurt aint a sperg. Functional != Psychopathology

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( according to the 13th Amendment, Slavery is neither Cruel nor Unusual: MSAGA ) May 17, 2020 3:26 PM  

20. Ranger May 17, 2020 2:09 PM
Because, if THEY did not publicly defect from the Catholic faith, the Code of Canon Law 1917 was revoked in 1983.


iirc, Kurgan says that every pope since Vatican 2 ( including John 23, who convoked it ) has been apostate.

Blogger Akulkis May 17, 2020 3:34 PM  

"The reality is that Pope Francis is shit and is damaging the Christian faith. I wish he wasn't. A lot of sedes and protestants wish harm for the Church because of their hatred of the Pope, which is wrong. They should wish for good come to the church and a swift correction of all the wrongs Pope Francis has done."

The BEST thing for Catholics would be for the Roman Church to be obliterated, so that you would then be forced to seek true Christianity, as opposed to the pantheistic Roman pagan religion which is ok with praying to statues of "saints", and which uses Christ as a sort of skin-suit.

Saint ABC, the benefactor of groups X, Y, and Z is LITERALLY a swap in replacement for pagan god QRS, the benefactor of groups X, Y, and Z.

Blogger Fozzy Bear May 17, 2020 3:35 PM  

Although The Kurgan is using the wrong term, he is correct about the difference between Roman Civil Law, such as the Napoleonic Codes, and English Common Law. European countries are generally Civil Law jurisdictions. Under Civil Law, the state codifies acceptable behavior in a “Code of Law”, and administers justice in an inquisitorial fashion. Under English Common Law behavior is unconstrained, unless the law is broken, as determined by a jury of your peers in an adversarial system.
The two systems are fundamentally different, and the gamma is wrong to assume his parochial knowledge is universal.

Blogger Akulkis May 17, 2020 3:46 PM  

"No Shane, the autistic legalism is trying to demonstrate that Francis has never defected from the Catholic Faith when any idiot can see he has. It can also be done with the other Vatican II antipopes, but Francis is the easiest and most obvious."

Francis has defected from Christianity. I'm not exactly convinced that Francis has defected from Romanism.

Blogger Tetro May 17, 2020 4:04 PM  

VFM #7634 wrote:When you confront them with their belief that Mary was a perpetual Virgin

She was. A point Roman Catholics and Orthodox agree on. And have for 2000 years.

Blogger Dole May 17, 2020 4:05 PM  

Debating with a gamma is even more infuriating than debating with leftists. They lie just like leftists, but when you give them the hint that it's not going to work, they just rant on - that's because they believe their own lies.

Blogger map May 17, 2020 4:08 PM  

VFM #7634 wrote:Francis has in fact done so repeatedly. For example with the Abu Dhabi declaration he gave with a Muslim imam, or in a speech he gave in Mozambique where he said "religious differences are necessary".

From a Christian perspective, there are only two religions in the world: Christianity and Satanism.
That which is not Christianity, is Satanism.

Any carousing with the other "faiths" of the world is a compromising of the Christian faith.

Heck, does the Pope not know what the Muslims actually worship? That, at the heart of Mecca, the Muslims bow and worship...a giant black cube.

https://www.google.com/search?q=black+cube+islam&sxsrf=ALeKk02Olg0RQxvt4RLHkPv3NmJmCVhSmw:1589745916917&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5tKSF2bvpAhUOOs0KHUXWCzEQ_AUoAnoECBAQBA&biw=1920&bih=969#imgrc=vUpwLY5G5Mem5M

But Pope Francis does know this...from his pulpit in the giant snake.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( according to the 13th Amendment, Slavery is neither Cruel nor Unusual: MSAGA ) May 17, 2020 4:15 PM  

23. VFM #7634 May 17, 2020 2:26 PM
There have been Catholic theologians all through the ages who've pointed out repeatedly that "until" does NOT have the shade of meaning in English that implies he consummated the marriage after Jesus was born.



yes, the verses which claim that Jesus had non-virgin birth brothers and sisters are rather more problematic for the Catholic position.

of course 'Perpetual Virginity', as defined by Orthodox and Catholic presents other obstacles altogether to a normal understanding of "Virgin".

for the official Ortho-Catholic position on Mary's Perpetual Virginity is that she was a virgin at all times, INCLUDING WHILE SHE WAS GIVING BIRTH TO CHRIST.

now, there are some rather bizarre consequences to adopting a belief this stupid. among them:

* - during the birth process, as the infant's head emerges from the canal, this is known as "crowning" ... which would make Christ the only human baby to have been "crowned" by an intact hymen.

* - if a baby passing through the hymen cannot render a woman "non-virgin", how on earth would a normal sized penis have any effect on her virgin status at all? i don't know about you all, but my penis certainly doesn't weigh +6 lbs.

so the 'Perpetual Virgin' doctrine results in a woman who can continually engage in sex ... and yet always have an intact hymen.

this is what comes of not refusing to abide by the Biblical requirements to hold authority in the Church ( married husband with children ... ie - NON virgin, all members of his family of good repute ) and purging those who fail to meet this standard.

you get a bunch of ascetics sitting around fantasizing about Mother Mary's vagina all day ... and calling that "respect".

now, certainly, on the scale of miracles a magical stretchy rubber Super Ball hymen is pretty low on the scale of what the Bible attests too. it's definitely something God *could* do if he wanted.

the question is: why is all this rigamarole supposed to be necessary?

Mary's Immaculate Conception is likewise logically absurd. the Church position here is that Christ COULD NOT be born without sin *if his mother had a normal sin nature*. ie - birth from a "sinful" woman conveys that "sinful nature" to all of her offspring.

for now we have the consequence that Mary's mother had a "sin nature" ... which would have been conveyed to Mary ... and this chain of sinful mothers would extend all the way back to Eve.

the original sinner.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch May 17, 2020 4:16 PM  

@14 yes

VD: "...and the Roman Catholic Church now serves the god of this world."

I disagree. The RCC includes the clergy and the laity. And it is not the entirety of the laity and the clergy who serve Satan. It is a large gaggle of evil men who have infiltrated the organization, as Bella Dodd informed us (among many others).

There are many good priests in the Church who are doing what they can. And within the laity, there is also a remnant who are fighting against the corruption in every way they can, resisting evil to whatever degree possible.

"It is self-evident that the Catholic Church and the anti-Church currently co-exist in the same sacramental, liturgical and juridical space. The latter, having grown stronger, is now attempting to pass itself off as the true Church, all the better to induct, or coerce, the faithful into becoming adherents, promoters and defenders of a secular ideology. Should the anti-Church succeed in commandeering all the space of the true Church, the rights of man will supplant the rights of God through the desecration of the sacraments, the sacrilege of the sanctuary, and the abuse of apostolic power.

Fr. Linus Clovis, Rome Life Forum on May 18, 2017"

Blogger Tetro May 17, 2020 4:30 PM  

BillHinDaytona wrote:So, either Jesus Christ lied or you Catholic defenders incorrectly understood what he meant by "on this rock I will build my church". I'm entirely confident of the latter."

I am certain you are entirely confident. You're wrong, but at least you're not in doubt.


Would love to see you telling Blessed Augustine of Hippo that he is wrong about the 'rock' meaning Peter's confession of faith he had just uttered. Augustine is only your number 2, maybe 3, theologian in your sect. And yet, he doesn't even agree with the Petrine Doctrine.

Blogger Tetro May 17, 2020 4:33 PM  

furor kek tonicus ( the 2nd Amendment exists so you can protect your daughter from molestation by Creepy Uncle Joe ) wrote:* - if a baby passing through the hymen cannot render a woman "non-virgin", how on earth would a normal sized penis have any effect on her virgin status at all? i don't know about you all, but my penis certainly doesn't weigh +6 lbs.

so the 'Perpetual Virgin' doctrine results in a woman who can continually engage in sex ... and yet always have an intact hymen.


Projection.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants May 17, 2020 4:35 PM  

Like most women, I'm terrible at argumentation. Instead of arguing in bad faith or making some hill to die on, I just say,maybe you're right, if I like the person. If I don't like them I tell them to stop talking to me.
I couldn't do that when I was under 25, it took growing older and maturity to realize that wasn't my arena, stay out.

Blogger Tetro May 17, 2020 4:44 PM  

Laramie Hirsch wrote:VD: "...and the Roman Catholic Church now serves the god of this world."

I disagree. The RCC includes the clergy and the laity. And it is not the entirety of the laity and the clergy who serve Satan.


You're right, there are some good laity. But it is clear, virtually the entire Roman hierarchy is one big money-laundering, pedo-protecting, child-trafficking network.

Now with SSPX being scandalized with fresh pedo-news, even the trads are having to question the Extraordinary Form being some magical talisman that purifies everyone and kept the pre-Vatican II Roman Church from any and all error. Not.

Ordinary/Extraordinary Magisterium... fallible. Papacy... fallible. The Extraordinary Form Mass... not protection from pedos or error (cause why would Vatican II have happened if the EF Mass was oh-so-powerful?).

No sane and loving person with any legal authority would let the Roman Catholic sect operate in its communities, towns, or nation. You are inviting pedophilia, abuse, homosexuality, and Democracy-Human Rights-Analism into the lives of your loved ones and neighbors.

There is no there there, kids.

Blogger Bibliotheca Servare May 17, 2020 4:53 PM  

@Furor Kek Tonicus

Since the first time I learned of the "perpetual virgin" thing, I thought it was weird, and didn't jive with scripture. But I'm not sure that "virgin" in this context necessarily implies "intact hymen". I don't know if the earliest Fathers of the Church believed that particular doctrine, but if they did, they had families, and they weren't ignorant of the logistics, so to speak. And even if they didn't believe it, the later Church leaders who *did* believe it were also not all blushing virgins with no knowledge of how sex and virginity work.

So I don't think they were referring to the intact state of Mary's hymen when they described her as a virgin, but rather to their belief that she had never been penetrated by a man/engaged in sexual intercourse.

This is complicated by the Old Testament emphasis on an intact hymen at the marriage bed being a crucial sign of bridal virginity (if there was no blood on the cloth, the bride was considered to not have been a virgin, iirc), but I think they decided that either that requirement/element was voided in Mary's case, or God miraculously repaired her hymen after the birth of Christ.

As to the Immaculate Conception thing, I got nothing. Not informed enough. Heck I'm not informed enough on the virgin thing, really.

Blogger VFM #7634 May 17, 2020 4:58 PM  

yes, the verses which claim that Jesus had non-virgin birth brothers and sisters are rather more problematic for the Catholic position.

IIRC, St. John is one of those claimed to be Jesus' brother, right? In that case, John 19:26-27 would be rendered meaningless, as there would be no need for John to explicitly accept her into his household, as she'd already be in it.

Blogger maniacprovost May 17, 2020 5:18 PM  

either Jesus Christ lied or you Catholic defenders incorrectly understood what he meant by "on this rock I will build my church". I'm entirely confident of the latter."

I am certain you are entirely confident. You're wrong, but at least you're not in doubt.


That's funny.

Here's what I don't get:

The meaning of the words is absolutely clear, not used in any kind of legalistic “American” way
...
In civilised countries (which the USA demonstrably is not by any stretch of the imagination) words already have precise meanings


It seems pretty clear that American English is uncivilized and has unclear words with legalistic interpretation required. Therefore, if the debate is in American English, the words don't mean what we think they do and need to be defined. On the other hand, perhaps the debate is in UK English, in which case I can't follow it; the words mean something clear and civilized. Or, it's implied that one interlocutor is speaking American and the other is speaking British, in which case of course you're going to disagree on the meaning of words.

I have a feeling the Kurgan is correct on the underlying issue. The difference between American law and Roman / Catholic law is also a good point. But most of his rhetorical attacks this past week are off base.

Blogger Matthew May 17, 2020 5:19 PM  

I know exactly what you mean. I see this sort of thing go down alot online. There is definitely an overlap between Gammas and Bible-lawyers.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( according to the 13th Amendment, Slavery is neither Cruel nor Unusual: MSAGA ) May 17, 2020 5:22 PM  

40. Tetro May 17, 2020 4:04 PM
She was. A point Roman Catholics and Orthodox agree on. And have for 2000 years.



false.

the PERPETUAL virginity doctrine did not exist until the late 2nd century.

Blogger RedJack May 17, 2020 5:49 PM  

And that point, you have to question if Original sin Means what the Western church has typically held.

Thank God I am in a Confessional Lutheran church. We can say "I don't know ". When it comes to Mary

Blogger VD May 17, 2020 6:04 PM  

I disagree. The RCC includes the clergy and the laity. And it is not the entirety of the laity and the clergy who serve Satan. It is a large gaggle of evil men who have infiltrated the organization, as Bella Dodd informed us (among many others).

Again, I have no interest in pedantic quibbling. When one refers to the organization, one refers to the people who run it and make decisions for it.

Sure, Google is also the interns and testers, but when Sundar Pichai speaks, he speaks for Google, the corporation as its CEO.

The RCC organization is now infested and converged. Either get your Inquisition on already or shut up and stop crying about people who simply observe what is happening.

Blogger M Cephas May 17, 2020 6:26 PM  

From St. Thomas Aquinas:

"Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above (A[1], ad 1,3) that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the judgment will be faulty and unlawful. First, when it is contrary to the rectitude of justice, and then it is called "perverted" or "unjust": secondly, when a man judges about matters wherein he has no authority, and this is called judgment "by usurpation": thirdly, when the reason lacks certainty, as when a man, without any solid motive, forms a judgment on some doubtful or hidden matter, and then it is called judgment by "suspicion" or "rash" judgment".

Although I basically agree with The Kurgan about the Pope, I do believe he is still actually the Pope until he is actually put on trial and judged formally as a heretic by the proper authorities.

Catholics need to come to terms with the satanic infiltration and do something about it. Sedeprivationists saying he's not the Pope is about as useful as liberals chanting "Not my President!"

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 17, 2020 6:40 PM  

"Which means the entire papacy, as defined by Rome in Vatican I, has defected. Which means your precious papacy has fallen."

You really are a straw man throwing retard. I'm not Catholic.

Blogger Ranger May 17, 2020 7:17 PM  

An Inquisition can't save the Latin Church from its converged and infested head, because it's authority is a legal one derived from the Pope; a revolution and a coup might do it.

It would probably bring the Latins' belief about Papal Infalibility, Universal Jurisdiction, and full immunity to all human authority to its breaking point.

Which is a good thing all the rest of the Christian world is waiting for.

Blogger Newscaper312 May 17, 2020 7:40 PM  

@54 re Original Sin

I think a non-religious analog of the concept a some sort of inherent human flaw, is the fact that we are neither creatures of instinct - in which case everything we did would be in accordance with our nature, nor do we have completely unfettered, unaffected by circumstances, free will -- in which case it would be much, much easier to 'do the right thing'.

Blogger Jay Will May 17, 2020 7:59 PM  

Lying is a part of your skill set, lying to yourself is a handicap.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 17, 2020 8:41 PM  

"I do believe he is still actually the Pope until he is actually put on trial and judged formally as a heretic by the proper authorities."

By what justice, authority, and prudence was he seated as Pope in the first place? If not proper, then nothing further is needed to remove him from a seat in which he has not been seated.

Blogger Azimus May 17, 2020 8:42 PM  

Sophistry and outright lying - yes. It is my contention they are learning this behavior from the social-imperialism crowd at HuffPo, the other Vox, Yahoo, etc. They're being programmed by the media more than just talking points, but actually how to think, the very process and foundation of what constitutes thinking. Individually it makes them more or less useless, but they have innoculated them against reason of information from outside approved channels - its like the mark of the beast, and just as damning.

Blogger Cobblestone May 17, 2020 8:44 PM  

@23 - VFM #7634

There have been Catholic theologians all through the ages who've pointed out repeatedly that "until" does NOT have the shade of meaning in English that implies he consummated the marriage after Jesus was born.


First, there haven’t been Catholic theologians all through the ages. If James White’s debates with Roman Catholic apologists have proved anything, it’s that they can’t prove anyone believed in what they are required to believe in today in the first multiple-centuries if not over 1,000 years after the death of Christ.

Second, you and they are wrong about the meaning of the word “until”. 99.9% of the time, the word “until” necessarily means that whatever was/was happening up to that point in time ceases or is reversed. Granted, there’s a microcosm of exceptions to this rule, like in II Samuel 6:23. When it says that Michal bore no children “until” she died, obviously that doesn’t mean she had kids after she had died. But RC’s leap from that exceptional use of the term and insert it into Matthew 1:25. They argue that the mere statement that Joseph didn’t consummate their marriage “until” Mary gave birth isn’t a problem since “until” doesn’t say anything about what happened afterwards. The problem is that it does, and only in a situation like in II Samuel 6:23 do we have reason to think otherwise since dead women can’t give birth.

Third, why is her having sex with Joseph even a problem for Roman Catholics? According to them, Mary remained a physically intact virgin prior to, during, and after the birth of Christ. Her giving birth to a baby didn’t remove her virginity, so why on earth would having sex with Joseph do the trick??

Blogger Lazarus May 17, 2020 9:39 PM  

Cobblestone wrote:Third, why is her having sex with Joseph even a problem for Roman Catholics? According to them, Mary remained a physically intact virgin prior to, during, and after the birth of Christ. Her giving birth to a baby didn’t remove her virginity, so why on earth would having sex with Joseph do the trick??

Here is where references to Madonna come in.

Blogger Matt May 17, 2020 9:55 PM  

"I do believe he is still actually the Pope until he is actually put on trial and judged formally as a heretic by the proper authorities."

Ah, that's the trick. Even under pre-Vatican II dogma, there are no such authorities. The Pope is judged only by God. You can justifiably say his actions have made him not really the Pope, but there's not anyone who can say that with any force of authority. It's a problem for traditionalist Catholics.

Of course if only God can judge him, well, God is good at that sort of thing. I wouldn't want to be in Francis' white shoes.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch May 17, 2020 9:57 PM  

@48 "You're right, there are some good laity. But it is clear, virtually the entire Roman hierarchy is one big money-laundering, pedo-protecting, child-trafficking network."


Not necessarily. There are definitely centers of corruption, but there's also good priests throughout---priests who've dared to have laity at private Mass, when everything is supposed to be shut down. There are even holy, saintly priests in various parts of the United States, France, Poland, and other places that I know of. They are not a part of this evil.

VD: "Again, I have no interest in pedantic quibbling. When one refers to the organization, one refers to the people who run it and make decisions for it."

If the father and uncles of a family are drunk bigamists, that doesn't mean the rest of the family is a lost cause and should disband. Easy divorce solves nothing---as Christ taught. In fact, as you probably know, there were even those secret Catholics in Japan who had no access to the hierarchy for a long time, and families had to pass down tradition until the restrictions were lifted in the 1800s.

The Church is a nation that transcends the bonds of death, and it is comprised of its people, regardless of the culturally corrupt geopolitical flirtations of the hierarchy. Plus, Heaven has already told us this corruption would happen. We should rejoice that God is so outside of time and that He is in firm control. The story is not over.

Blogger Yossarian May 17, 2020 10:35 PM  

Tetro wrote:She was. A point Roman Catholics and Orthodox agree on. And have for 2000 years.

True though "agreement" here is not the same for both parties.

Catholics: Mary was a perpetual virgin, anyone who says otherwise shall be excommunicated and banned from the Kingdom of Heaven immediately.
Orthodoxs: Whatever, nobody cares. If we agree will you shut up about it?

From all my experience with Christianity I can say that Catholics are obsessed with any sort of minutiae they can find. Some literally dedicate their whole life's work to the interpretation of one word in some sentence in the Bible. Orthodox however don't give a fuck. When you inquire further on their theology or practices their response always boils down to: "We don't really know, we've been doing things the same for 2000 years, if it ain't broke don't fix it." If you ever find an outspoken Orthodox theologian you'll soon find out they used to be a former Catholic.

In a room full of Catholics you only have to paraphrase some sentence from the Bible and it's like a nuclear chain reaction going off. Someone has to disagree, then they explain why, then someone else disagrees with the explanation and they explain why, then someone else disagrees with the explanation as to why that previous person disagreed with the first explanation and so on.

Blogger VFM #7634 May 17, 2020 10:40 PM  

Second, you and they are wrong about the meaning of the word “until”.

In English, sure. But are you an expert on what Latin, Greek, or Hebrew words were used in that context? English is not the original language. It's a translation, or even a translation of a translation. That was my entire freaking point, which you ignored.

Third, why is her having sex with Joseph even a problem for Roman Catholics? According to them, Mary remained a physically intact virgin prior to, during, and after the birth of Christ. Her giving birth to a baby didn’t remove her virginity, so why on earth would having sex with Joseph do the trick??

Oh good grief, you're qualifying her virginity literally? How's that for sperging? That's not what we mean at all. We mean "virgin" as in "never had sex", not as in "has an intact hymen". /smh

Blogger Dwayne Thundergrit May 17, 2020 11:26 PM  

". . . a revolution and a coup might do it."

Crown some Hungarian King and he'll pop the Pope right outa there as other kings have done to anti-Popes in the past. Maybe a Pole would be better on second thought. They shine at saving Europe periodically.

Blogger Tupla-J May 17, 2020 11:34 PM  

@56 It isn't Kurgan and his authority declaring the pope heretic, but the Canon law 188.

Blogger Shane Bradman May 18, 2020 12:55 AM  

@44. Protestants love to say, and correctly so, that "the church is the people". Why isn't this being applied to the Catholic Church? And surely, looking at the Catholic population, it is an even greater worry than whatever is going on in Rome. Most Catholics don't believe that the Jesus Christ is present at the Eucharist. That gives us a better cause to go on an inquisition than what the confused Pope is saying in a aeroplane interview.

Blogger James Lovebirch May 18, 2020 12:56 AM  

Let it be known I didn't run from the Kurgan.

Blogger Ranger May 18, 2020 1:45 AM  

Subtracting all the rhetoric, the debate on SG went like this:
1- I pointed out that 188.4 does not say how people publically defect from the Catholic faith, only established an IF-THEN situation; IF they publically defect, THEN they lose office, no declaration required
2- that the Code of Canon Law is not silent on the question of how they publically defect, it's established on canons 2314-2319
3- Controversy then was about the meaning of Canon 2314.3. Apart from minor translation differences, it goes like this:
"If they have given their name to a non-catholic sect or publically adhered to it, they are infamous by the very fact. With due regard for the prescription of canon 188.4, that the clerics, after an innefective admonition, be degraded"
So, this canon is about those who "give their names to a non-catholic sect or publically adhere to it". The subsequent canons all require admonitions before any other penalty may occur.
The irreconcilable difference was that my interpretation of "publically adhere to a non-Catholic sect" means to publically join a non-Catholic sect, so I asked Kurgan which sect it was. Kurgan's interpretation is that it means saying things that agree with a non-catholic sect, and that the sect in question was protestantism in general.
I think my interpretation is the one that doesn't require redefinition of simple to understand words, while the Kurgan's is a bizarre meaning of "to adhere to".
Since there was an irreconcilable difference of interpretation, I then pointed out that the exclusive right to interpretation of the Code belongs to the Comission established by the same Pope who published it. I asked the Kurgan whether the Comission had given any such ruling. He never answered the question.

Blogger Jose Miguel May 18, 2020 2:20 AM  

@63 Cobblestone

I'd take your stance more seriously if you claimed that Michal gave birth after she died. Looking in the New Testament at verses that have the same use of "until" include 1 Cor 15:25, Phil 1:10, 1 Timothy 6:14. If you propose Christ will cease to rule after his enemies are under his feet, on the day of Christ the redeemed are no longer considered blameless in His sight, and after the return of Christ we are free to not keep His commandments, I'd respect the claim as consistent.

While I know the ever-virginity of Mary can't be pulled from the Scriptures alone with 100% certainty, every ancient church from England to Spain to Ethiopia to India to China taught that she was a virgin. I'd expect one of those ancient traditions to break with that yet they don't, be it Roman, Orthodox, Coptic, Syriac, Malankara or the defunct Church of the East. Even the reformers held to this teaching!

If I was the Jose who was with Mary, I'd have a healthy fear of consumating with the woman who was/is the fulfillment of what the Ark of the Covenant foreshadowed, especially considering what happened to that guy who touched it trying to prevent it from falling.

Blogger Sargent.matrim May 18, 2020 2:59 AM  

Regarding gammas. I was "actually'd" online today, on a youtube comment I think I made sometime last year maybe. Can't remember to be honest. But the interesting thing was the gamma "actually'd" me, then proceded to write a wall of text that completely missed the point I had made. It was so ridiculous, I just laughed while reading it, and kept walking on my treadmill.

That double ability of being completely wrong, and smugly superior in their wrongness, is truly a disgusting trait. No wonder women find these guys gross.

Blogger Sargent.matrim May 18, 2020 3:10 AM  

Wouldn't the existence of Jesus' brothers later on in the gospel be the more important contextual point. According to my Greek Analytical Lexicon (I am not a Greek expert I admit, but nor am I a novice) 'eos' means 'until', in the same sense the English word means 'until', 'until this day', 'as far as', 'even to', 'to the bottom', etc, etc. But the clincher, Matthew 5:46-47 - "46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

That is always the passage which has made me wonder: Why do Catholics not accept Jesus's mother had sex after he was born?

Am curious to know how Catholics answer this one, because I must admit I have never asked a Catholic this question.

Blogger Kiwi May 18, 2020 4:13 AM  

I can't wait until we have virtual reality where actual punches can be thrown and felt. Gone will be the keyboard warriors haha.

In fact, that should be a future mandatory requirement for all online communication.

Hang on, sjws will take it over and make it equal somehow. Ugh, they ruin everything!

Blogger BalancedTryteOperators May 18, 2020 4:45 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger FrankNorman May 18, 2020 6:00 AM  

"Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife - but don't ever have sex with her!"

Blogger James Lovebirch May 18, 2020 6:07 AM  

The way I came off to Vox and Kurgan is on me. I'll do better in the future.

Blogger Tetro May 18, 2020 6:12 AM  

As an offering of peace for the Romanists here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm3pNx3kCss


Blogger Ranger May 18, 2020 6:37 AM  

@67, Yossarian, your description of how you've experienced Orthodox and Catholics, reminded me of Vox's distinction between Engineering and Scientistry
@69 Dwayne Thundergrit, hear, hear as long as the law is not subverted and it's fully admitted that the person being deposed now is the Pope. We can then lay to rest the papacy's claims of infalibility, universal jurisdiction, and immunity to human authorities.
@70 No. 188.4 declares that those who publically defect from the Catholic faith lose their offices immediately with no need for further declaration. It's an IF-THEN statement that passes no judgement on the IF. It is completely silent about who has done that, that determination comes from elsewhere. This "elsewhere" is laid out by canons 2314-2319, the chapter on "Crimes against the Faith and the Unity of the Church", which deals with the crimes of Heresy, Schism, and Apostasy.

Blogger Ranger May 18, 2020 6:52 AM  

But, in the end, the subject of Vox's post is not sedeprivationism and canon law, but the Kurgan's exposition of dishonest debating rhetoric.

Kurgan is clearly an expert on the subject, and he sure is not afraid to use that expertise. He missed a few, though:

1- constant insulting and straight up false accusations: this works wonders in predisposing those listening against your opponent, even if he doesn't care about the insults. Preferably, you will use this when the audience trusts you. Better when you START your argument with it. Make sure people see your accusations BEFORE they can read your spin on your opponents argument, they will have believed the acusations and read it through these lenses.
2- accusing the opponent of saying the exact opposite of what he'd just said: this is the most disconcerting one, and very effective, it completely disorients the other debater if he's made the mistake of assuming that you are arguing in good faith. He will try to prove you are wrong, and that just makes him look weak.
3- false appeal to "reason and logic" as a talisman: instead of laying out a logical case you just say that anyone who uses reason and logic will see that you are right. It plays straight up to the audience's desire to feel smart and judicious, awaking in them the desire of "by swift agreement to seem wise themselves", as Saruman's wizardry was described.
4- using false comparisons: "what he says is the same thing as *totally different thing from what's being said*"; if the audience is not paying attention or just not very dialetically capable, they will think "well, that's absurd, that other guy sure is stupid, and maybe even autistic, this is so obviously false that only a sperg would miss it".

There are probably others I've missed, but it was definitely a masterclass in dishonest debating.

Blogger FrankNorman May 18, 2020 7:06 AM  

78. BalancedTryteOperators May 18, 2020 4:45 AM
Your obstinate refusal to become Catholic is really about Mary. We all know your attitudes about women. Nobody who believes what you do about women is psychically capable of believing Mary is the Seat of Wisdom, or Queen of the Universe, or co-redemptrix. (How could someone who believes women aren't good at mathematics then go to church and sing "O Mary Seat of Wisdom"?!) That's why you're all like "Mary was just an ordinary woman!" whenever you talk about her.


No, it's because we're Christians, who believe in one God, the Father, and one Mediator between God and man - Jesus!

All that idolatrous Mary-worship is just one of the many problems with Roman Catholicism.


This is why when the Catholic Church predominated Scotland, women were encouraged become nuns in order to engage in intellectual contemplation, but when Presbyterianism took hold, nuns were banned and women were only allowed to be homemakers, textile workers, or other low-class vocations.


So under Popery, women of intelligence or spiritual leaning were selected out of the gene-pool by recruiting them into roles where they would not have any offspring - making every generation more stupid, incurious, and unspiritual that the previous one?

While the Presby's wanted women to stay home and have children, so there would be another generation of Scots. Which for some reason Papists think horrible.

Blogger BalancedTryteOperators May 18, 2020 7:21 AM  

So under Popery, women of intelligence or spiritual leaning were selected out of the gene-pool by recruiting them into roles where they would not have any offspring - making every generation more stupid, incurious, and unspiritual that the previous one?

God doesn't need your help making spiritual, logical, and reflective people. He made you! He doesn't need your help for anything! If all of them voluntarily left the genepool for religious vocation, why, he could command rocks to turn into a new generation of the smartest Scots that ever were.

All that idolatrous Mary-worship is just one of the many problems with Roman Catholicism.

We do worship Mary. And we are a cult. Some of us even make our own personal cults to worship other saints. (I proudly have my own private cult for St. Kateri. St. Kateri, ora pro nobis!) But what we don't do is offer spiritual sacrifices to them. In the Old Testament, that is what characterized all theistic worship: offering a sacrifice to whoever you rightly or wrongly considered to be God. This is also why Catholics refused to offer even so much as a pinch of incense to Caesar in Ancient Rome: that theistic worship is a sacrifice (even if just a pinch) reserved only to God.

Blogger VFM #7634 May 18, 2020 7:36 AM  

So under Popery, women of intelligence or spiritual leaning were selected out of the gene-pool by recruiting them into roles where they would not have any offspring - making every generation more stupid, incurious, and unspiritual that the previous one?

While the Presby's wanted women to stay home and have children, so there would be another generation of Scots. Which for some reason Papists think horrible.


There's also the fact, which I think all of us will admit, that there is a certain small subset of women who are definitely unsuitable for being anyone's wives. In past times, they may have been sent to nunneries, but nowadays they simply end up screeching harpy feminists. Which do you think is probably better for their mental health, a nunnery or feminism?

I should also point out that feminism was much less of a factor in Catholic societies than in Protestant ones until after Vatican II. Where was Mary Wollstonecraft from, I wonder?

Blogger The Kurgan May 18, 2020 7:46 AM  

Well, it's good to see there is still no shortage of Dyer-inspired gammas coming to pay their respects to me here too.
And some people think I am not loved, I mean look at

Tetro - talking deeply about Vatican I and Papal infallibility which he clearly has zero understanding of, not to mention accusing me of saying Common law DERIVES from Roman law, which I never said, I said Common Law has it's origins in Roman law, and it does, I suppose the secret king who points out I *should* (you know for absolute clarity for people of 70 IQ and gammas) have added the word "primitive" before the word "origins" in there would be the true winner!
And of course also lying through his teeth in that enderaing gamma way, but not to be outdone by my biggest fan of all:

Ranger, who literally cannot type a single sentence without including a false thing if not three, he really is the true secret king of secret kings with his constant outright lying in your face, even when faced with the actual documents that show no difference in translation he still maintains the opposite. Awesome gamma power there ladies and gentlemen, let's have a round of applause for Ranger, who outgammas all...oh...wait...no, he has yet to beat Scalzi. Sclazi uses his real name so he actually wins. Never mind Ranger, you get noble second prize. You're used to it anyway aren't you, coming in 2nd in a race of 2. Never mind. You and Spielberg, buddy, you and Spielberg. You'll be great. Just great.

But let's not forget the pretend Catholics like Shane who can't bring himself to abandon Bergoglio or Laramie, who, is on record in writing, at his own blog, (commented by yours truly at my blog for those who enjoy Kurgan public square education) as wanting to literally kiss Bergoglio's ring.

Indeed, know that the fawning attentions of the gammas are the only way they know to show love. That's right, they are my biggest fans. Which is not to say that every woman who knows one shouldn't get a pre-emptive restraining order and practice drawing and firing their weapon regularly, of course.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 18, 2020 7:51 AM  

"Oh good grief, you're qualifying her virginity literally? How's that for sperging?"

His statement is too fair and naive in that it takes the whole thing seriously in the first place, assuming that he's not actually mocking it.

For example, why would it be important that she remained a perpetual physical virgin? Good luck not sperging.

"If I was the Jose who was with Mary, I'd have a healthy fear of consumating with the woman who was/is the fulfillment of what the Ark of the Covenant foreshadowed, especially considering what happened to that guy who touched it trying to prevent it from falling."

To raise just the obvious old law argument, Joseph's marriage would eventually be correctly held as nonexistent were that the case, even by the law at that time. Wife? Nah. In addition the woman isn't the fulfillment, she only carried him for a while.

"men are just male women and women are just female men."

Yeah, this is indeed the greatly distinguished level of argumentation where all this has been leading. I'm not licensed to operate the short bus deserved by simultaneous statement of A = A+!A and !A = !A+A as if anything of significance was said. You'll have to find a qualified nihilist driver. Anyway, I think you dropped this, https://infogalactic.com/info/Isis.

Deuces, I'm getting popcorn/setting up a lawnchair.

Blogger God Emperor Memes May 18, 2020 7:59 AM  

Brilliant.

Blogger God Emperor Memes May 18, 2020 8:00 AM  

"The Pope isn't Catholic"

... something about Satan casting out Satan...

Blogger Up from the pond May 18, 2020 8:03 AM  

Other have noted this gamma tell: ending a comment with the phrase "Honest question." It's a concern troll phrase, but concern trolls and gammas have a lot of overlap. "Hey buddy do you really believe those ideas? Honest question." I dismiss anyone who says it.

Blogger Ranger May 18, 2020 8:15 AM  

Free demo here, for those who missed it at SG, of the masterclass in dishonest debating by the self-acknowledged master.
In that short post, we have dishonest tactics that I outlined 1 and 2, with an added extra, the "why don't you doxx yourself if you want to be taken seriously"?
Join SG for the full course! Admissions open.

Blogger Sargent.matrim May 18, 2020 8:20 AM  

Many early feminists in the 19th century were from Catholic societies. Indeed the birth place of modern socialism came straight out of the French revolutions. The feminist movements overlapped with socialism.

The decadents are a good example. They invoked many Satanic Feminist themes in their art and had a major impact on English tourists in France.

A lot of these French feminists are much less known in the English speaking world, today, but were famous in their day inside and outside France.

One famous example is Sarah Bernhardt, a French actress who went out of her way transgress gender roles. Indeed, looking at her character, stage theatrics, and the way she lived, and in some photos even looked, she reminds me a lot of Marina Abramovich.

So, we have not heard about them as much today, but feminism was pushed hard in and from France, a Catholic society.

Blogger Ranger May 18, 2020 8:26 AM  

One word of caution to all those who are waiting for a response that actually addresses the argument dialetically, and not the arguers rhetorically: you won't get it, Kurgan doesn't do dialetics on this subject; MAYBE, if you agree to doxx yourself, he'd do it, but before you take the risk, consider: why would doxxing yourself be relevant if you are not the point of the debate, the argument is? What do you think would be the result of that in a debate with someone who has already SHOWN himself to engage solely in ad hominens, misrepresentations, false accusations, and nothing more?

Blogger Shane Bradman May 18, 2020 8:41 AM  

@87. Oy vey, come join my secret sect of "True Catholicism". It's easy to disassociate yourself with the Catholic Church when it's wrong, but that doesn't help when we want inquisition. Sedevacantism is not true and it is not useful. If you call yourself a Catholic, you own Pope Francis just as much as the secular Catholics who never go to church. Stop saying "Not my Pope" and start saying "Step down, Pope."

Blogger Tetro May 18, 2020 8:49 AM  

The Kurgan wrote:Tetro - talking deeply about Vatican I and Papal infallibility which he clearly has zero understanding of, not to mention accusing me of saying Common law DERIVES from Roman law, which I never said,

Kurg the Sperg is also illiterate! I never mentioned Common versus Roman Law. Other commenters did. But, ya know, calumny and slander ain't that big of a deal to the oh-so-Catholic Kurgan while he's spergin.

To those who disagree with The Spurg, we are even lying while being silent on a particular topic.

As a long-time reader, I truly hope Vox ditches his support for this clown. The Kurgan is a stain upon Vox's otherwise stellar record and reputation for sussing out con-men and amateurs. I have no idea what Vox sees or hears in him. I hear sperging, shrieking, gamma-obsessing, and a deafening ignorance of Church history, theology, and yes, CANON LAW. Prepare for incoming sperging from Kurgy after reading that one.

The guy is a total clown. I'm with Ranger on this one. Lovebirch wrote a weak article, yes, but I've seen Lovebirch write many others comments that are erudite and well-written, beyond any sperging I've heard from the low-level autist Kurgan.

Blogger Tetro May 18, 2020 8:51 AM  

Ranger wrote:What do you think would be the result of that in a debate with someone who has already SHOWN himself to engage solely in ad hominens, misrepresentations, false accusations, and nothing more?

He actually believes screaming assertions is a form of argumentation. I suppose his mother can't hear from the basement as he's screaming?

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( according to the 13th Amendment, Slavery is neither Cruel nor Unusual: MSAGA ) May 18, 2020 9:02 AM  

46. Tetro May 17, 2020 4:33 PM
Projection.



*shrugs*

it had never in my life even occurred to me to wonder about Mary's magical stretchy rubber Super Ball hymen
UNTIL
i started reading about the Orthodox / Catholic position on Perpetual Virginity ... and found that this was the official doctrine of both churches.

you people are freaks.

you also can't logic.


49. Bibliotheca Servare May 17, 2020 4:53 PM
But I'm not sure that "virgin" in this context necessarily implies "intact hymen".


take it up with the "doctors of the Church", they're the ones who went out of their way to make clear that they are talking about the hymen.

the freaks.

"Pope Martin's definition of her virginity at the moment of birth means that this caused no physical injury to her virginal seal, "


68. VFM #7634 May 17, 2020 10:40 PM
Oh good grief, you're qualifying her virginity literally? How's that for sperging? That's not what we mean at all. We mean "virgin" as in "never had sex", not as in "has an intact hymen". /smh



take it up with your church fathers, they're the ones who spent all this time fantasizing about it.

they even have an apocryphal story about a midwife who got her hand burnt off.

why did she get her hand burnt off? because she was trying to verify Mary's virginity and was sticking her finger up Mary's cooter.

there's 1800 years of perversity in the Ortho / Catholic church.


76. Sargent.matrim May 18, 2020 3:10 AM
Am curious to know how Catholics answer this one, because I must admit I have never asked a Catholic this question.



Catholics claim that the "brothers and sisters" in question are either children from a prior wife of Joseph, that the term is figurative speech or that the children were adopted.

basically, they throw the kitchen sink at the clear meaning of the verses.



78. BalancedTryteOperators May 18, 2020 4:45 AM
That's why you're all like "Mary was just an ordinary woman!" whenever you talk about her.



i've been in protestant / evangelical churches my whole life.

i have NEVER ONCE heard anyone say that Mary was "just a woman".

Blogger HoosierHillbilly May 18, 2020 9:04 AM  

@78. There have been many arguments lobbed at the Reformed here over the years, some with merit. But the claim we're against Catholics because we're secret sexists is completely new and novel. Not strong. Or compelling. Or logical. But certainly new...well done.

Blogger John Rockwell May 18, 2020 9:04 AM  

Tetro wrote:BillHinDaytona wrote:So, either Jesus Christ lied or you Catholic defenders incorrectly understood what he meant by "on this rock I will build my church". I'm entirely confident of the latter."

I am certain you are entirely confident. You're wrong, but at least you're not in doubt.


Would love to see you telling Blessed Augustine of Hippo that he is wrong about the 'rock' meaning Peter's confession of faith he had just uttered. Augustine is only your number 2, maybe 3, theologian in your sect. And yet, he doesn't even agree with the Petrine Doctrine.


Augustine was completely wrong in regards to the place of sexual passion within Wedlock.

And his absolutely erroneous view that original sin involved sexual activity within the Garden of Eden. And that reproduction would have involved asexual reproduction absent the fall. And plenty of other heresies.

http://thebodyissacred.org/origin/augustine.asp

Plenty of quotes from the man himself.

As for the Rock in the New Testament that Rock is referred to as Christ(1 Corinthians 10:4) who accompanied Israel in the Wilderness.

Therefore the Rock he is building the church on is Himself. Jesus is the foundation of the church as the rock.

God called himself Rock in the OT as well

Blogger Up from the pond May 18, 2020 9:05 AM  

Laramie Hirsch wrote:The story is not over.

That's what every abused wife says.

More seriously, the institution is not the beliefs. The institution is corrupt.

Consider the following thought process: I know that the restaurant corporation is a criminal racket, but food is a good thing, and the local franchise not only serves food but also resists the restaurant corporation, therefore I support the restaurant corporation.

You see the mental and moral fail when it's restaurants. Do you see it when it's Holy Church?

Blogger Shane Bradman May 18, 2020 9:07 AM  

@93. The liberal movements in France, Great Britain and America were spearheaded exclusively by Freemasons. You can find all of the core beliefs of feminism in the writings of John Stuart Mill, one of the biggest pansies in the history of philosophy.

Blogger John Rockwell May 18, 2020 9:15 AM  

@Azure Amaranthine

The catholic position of Joseph and Mary has no functional difference than roommates.

Likewise there is the wordsmithing that involves the argument that "Brother and Sister" doesn't really mean in Greek what they mean because they are a translation from Aramaic.

Since the Authors knew their Greek they could used have different words to refer to non-sibling relatives of Jesus other than the words they actually used.

But they didn't. Anyway there is a good PDF that talks about the Catholic position:

https://www.ichthys.com/bartek-sylwestrzak.htm


One of the links is a refutation of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

And I find the argument that Mary as Ark of the Covenant as Bizarre.

The implication is that Mary would also serve as God's Throne since the Ark is symbolically God's Throne as well as a place where the atoning blood was applied.

Blogger FrankNorman May 18, 2020 9:35 AM  

85. BalancedTryteOperators May 18, 2020 7:21 AM
We do worship Mary. And we are a cult. Some of us even make our own personal cults to worship other saints. (I proudly have my own private cult for St. Kateri. St. Kateri, ora pro nobis!) But what we don't do is offer spiritual sacrifices to them. In the Old Testament, that is what characterized all theistic worship: offering a sacrifice to whoever you rightly or wrongly considered to be God. This is also why Catholics refused to offer even so much as a pinch of incense to Caesar in Ancient Rome: that theistic worship is a sacrifice (even if just a pinch) reserved only to God.


Does inventing arbitrary rules like that make you feel clever?

Blogger The Kurgan May 18, 2020 9:51 AM  

Mea maxima culpa Tetro, quite right, it wasn't you who specifically said "derives" I'm so sorry, all gammas start to look the same after a while, but don't you worry, you are a special prince all on your own, so different from all the other special princes/dyer-zombies, etc etc.
And don't you let anyone tell you otherwise! You keep hammering that Papal infallibility and Vatican I stuff you don't understand just like Jay tells you and you'll get the REAL secret king crown in the end!

Blogger BalancedTryteOperators May 18, 2020 9:52 AM  

Does inventing arbitrary rules like that make you feel clever?

It isn't arbitrary because that was the first understanding of theistic worship. The bastardization "veneration = worship" is a bastardization.

Blogger Stilicho May 18, 2020 10:04 AM  

>The liberal movements in France, Great Britain and America were spearheaded exclusively by Freemasons.<

Who were these freemasons and what ideas were they promoting?

Blogger Cobblestone May 18, 2020 10:14 AM  

Jose Miguel wrote:I'd take your stance more seriously if you claimed that Michal gave birth after she died. Looking in the New Testament at verses that have the same use of "until" include 1 Cor 15:25, Phil 1:10, 1 Timothy 6:14. If you propose Christ will cease to rule after his enemies are under his feet, on the day of Christ the redeemed are no longer considered blameless in His sight, and after the return of Christ we are free to not keep His commandments, I'd respect the claim as consistent.

You’re a shill for one of the most evil religions to ever exist. I don’t care if you take my stance seriously at all.

Second, the texts you cited are clear and obvious examples where the context necessarily indicates an exceptional use of the English word “until”. The problem is that Matthew 1:25 isn’t one of them, so your point is moot.

Blogger Cobblestone May 18, 2020 10:30 AM  

VFM #7634 wrote:Second, you and they are wrong about the meaning of the word “until”.

In English, sure. But are you an expert on what Latin, Greek, or Hebrew words were used in that context? English is not the original language. It's a translation, or even a translation of a translation. That was my entire freaking point, which you ignored.


Your point was that, “"until" does NOT have the shade of meaning in English that implies he consummated the marriage after Jesus was born.” I pointed out that it does, and you don’t have warrant to believe otherwise unless the surrounding context indicates an exceptional use of the word. You don’t need to be an expert in English, let alone Latin, Greek, or Hebrew to see the B.S. for what it is.

VFM #7634 wrote:Oh good grief, you're qualifying her virginity literally? How's that for sperging? That's not what we mean at all. We mean "virgin" as in "never had sex", not as in "has an intact hymen". /smh

Speak for yourself. You may not mean that, and that’s fine. There are plenty of RC’s who say exactly that.

Blogger Jose Miguel May 18, 2020 10:55 AM  

@103 John Rockwell
And I find the argument that Mary as Ark of the Covenant as Bizarre.

Inside the ark of the Covenant was Manna, Aaron's Rod, and the Law. Mary bore the Bread of Life, the Great High Priest, the Good News.

I find it bizarre people who supposedly value Scripture so much don't see the parallels and foreshadowing between the Old and New Testament. The Scriptures have four levels of interpretation, each building on the other starting with the literal/historical events as the foundation, and they don't contradict. That is what sold me on the Scriptures, impossible to happen by chance across so many authors across so much time. It's as if it was planned!

John, do you have a clan? All my cousins are my brothers, as would any half-brothers if my father fathered them. That verse still isn't the killshot you want it to be.

@67 Yossarian

"We don't really know, we've been doing things the same for 2000 years, if it ain't broke don't fix it."

That is sums it up wonderfully. I have no idea, nor any Orthodox believer I know know how the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Jesus said a couple of lines about it, the Apostles taught it and we just keep doing it. Same with baptism and the other mysteries. They are called mysteries for a reason, and we're fine with that, seeing through a glass darkly and all.

@98 Furor Kek Tonicus

it had never in my life even occurred to me to wonder about Mary's magical stretchy rubber Super Ball hymen

Virgin conception and birth you can see God doing, but keeping a woman's hymen intact is beyond His Divine abilities?

i've been in protestant / evangelical churches my whole life.

i have NEVER ONCE heard anyone say that Mary was "just a woman".


Most evangelical churches I had grown up in/attended, including fundamentalist, Pentecostal, Evangelical and Reformed, I've heard that explicitly taught by the pastors/elders. The congregation I grew up in required agreeing to that very line in their statement of faith for new members.

My experience might be explained in that I grew up in Latin Protestantism, maybe Anglo-Saxon Protestants don't have an ax to grind with Mary.

Blogger BalancedTryteOperators May 18, 2020 10:56 AM  

Yeah, this is indeed the greatly distinguished level of argumentation where all this has been leading. I'm not licensed to operate the short bus deserved by simultaneous statement of A = A+!A and !A = !A+A as if anything of significance was said. You'll have to find a qualified nihilist driver.

A pirate is a sea raider and a raider is a land pirate. And I am not a nihilist.

Blogger Daniel May 18, 2020 11:21 AM  

"I truly hope Vox ditches his support for this clown."

Gamma is a mental disorder. Despite the dozens of posts emphasizing how "DISAVOW" will most assuredly not result in the virtue signal they crave, the poor things really can't help it.

Blogger Akulkis May 18, 2020 11:29 AM  

"Nobody who believes what you do about women is psychically capable of believing Mary is the Seat of Wisdom, or Queen of the Universe, or co-redemptrix."

Marianism is nothing more than Diana-worship with a vaneer of Christianity thrown on top of it.

The first Churches dedicated to Mary-worship were directly CONVERTED from the worship of Diana (in the Eastern Med) and of local equivalents elsewhere.

Jesus never told us to pray to Mary... he told us to pray directly to our Father in Heaven.

Blogger BalancedTryteOperators May 18, 2020 11:33 AM  

Your obstinate refusal to become Catholic is really about Mary. We all know your attitudes about women. Nobody who believes what you do about women is capable of believing Mary is the Seat of Wisdom, or Queen of the Universe, or co-redemptrix. (How could someone who believes women aren't good at mathematics then go to church and sing "O Mary Seat of Wisdom"?!) That's why you're all like "Mary was just an ordinary woman!" whenever you talk about her.

The Catholic Church had always taught that:

1. Men and women were created for different social roles.
2. That man were made in the glory of God and women were made in the glory of man.
3. ...but also that men are just male women and women are just female men. More specifically speaking, Catholics are not gender realists. We do not believe that there are certain thoughts and values are unique only to women and not men, or vice versa.

This is why when the Catholic Church predominated Scotland, women were encouraged become nuns in order to engage in intellectual contemplation, but when Presbyterianism took hold, nuns were banned and women were only allowed to be homemakers, textile workers, or other low-class vocations.

EDIT: I eliminated an occult word. I have nothing to do with the occult and never will.

Blogger Akulkis May 18, 2020 11:36 AM  

"We do worship Mary. And we are a cult. Some of us even make our own personal cults to worship other saints."

Which makes you pagan, not Christian, as I've been arguing in these comments for quite some time.

It's good to see one of you finally admit what the Roman church actually is -- Greco-Roman pantheistic paganism.

Blogger Akulkis May 18, 2020 11:56 AM  

>>i have NEVER ONCE heard anyone say that Mary was "just a woman".

> Most evangelical churches I had grown up in/attended, including fundamentalist, Pentecostal, Evangelical and Reformed, I've heard that explicitly taught by the pastors/elders. The congregation I grew up in required agreeing to that very line in their statement of faith for new members.

Strange. All of the Protestant churches I've been in have specifically stated two things about Mary:

1) She's NOT a deity -- so don't pray to her. See the First Commandment and The Lord's Prayer for clarification.

2) She was CHOSEN to be the bearer of Christ, which means she should be held in high esteem, as God wouldn't pick just any girl for this purpose.

Blogger Akulkis May 18, 2020 11:58 AM  

"
A pirate is a sea raider and a raider is a land pirate. And I am not a nihilist."

False equivocation.

Blogger Ranger May 18, 2020 12:00 PM  

@96, Tetro, don't feel bad, Kurgan is actually incapable (willfully, culpably, and maliciously, incapable, but incapable nonetheless) of understanding what others write when he's debating this.

In SG, he managed to misunderstand my sentence "I had never heard of Jay Dyer before his debate with the Kurgan".

I know it's hard to believe, but he read that and triumphantly concluded it contradicted my earlier claim that I had read the Kurgan's AFTER-debate report.

And that is the guy who thinks he is the sole infallible interpreter of Canon Law and Catholic Dogma.

As to Vox and him, I don't mind at all. They're real-space friends. When a real-space friend goes insane and it's hard to let go, all you can do is indulge him and try to keep it to your shared interests, like the SSH.

Blogger Jose Miguel May 18, 2020 12:59 PM  

@108 Cobblestone
You’re a shill for one of the most evil religions to ever exist.
I will shill for the faith delivered once and for all that Christ delivered to the Apostles. If you find that evil, you are in the same boat as Paul when he was Saul!

the texts you cited are clear and obvious examples where the context necessarily indicates an exceptional use of the English word “until”.

It isn't exceptional if it happens multiple times in the New Testament alone. Can you admit that you are bringing in your own assumption in how you interpret that verse? I can and have.

@105 The Kurgan

Worry not, I'm working on a taco that will horrify Tetro's Southern sensibilities, it'll be ready for this upcoming Christmas feast. I'm going to name it El Tetro, so that his name lives forever among Texans, Dixie and Latins!

@116 Akulkis

I think most WASPs would find Latin Protestantism to be as strange to them just as European Catholics discovered how strange the Latin Catholic Church is. Pachamama barely scratches the surface of what's been happening for 500 years and now the Trad's suddenly notice. Syncretism is rampant everywhere.

Blogger Yossarian May 18, 2020 1:07 PM  

@The Kurgan

Your Jay Dyer debate basically boils down to:
Dyer: I have read the Dogmas and they say X about Y.
Kurgan: I have read Canon law and they say Z about Y.

What's the difference between Dogmas and Canon Law, and which supersedes the other when confusion arises? If one supersedes the other why have both? If neither supersedes neither why have both?

Blogger VD May 18, 2020 1:16 PM  

Your obstinate refusal to become Catholic is really about Mary. We all know your attitudes about women. Nobody who believes what you do about women is capable of believing Mary is the Seat of Wisdom, or Queen of the Universe, or co-redemptrix.

It really isn't. It's not even in the top 20 reasons I'm not a Roman Catholic. But yes, that alone would be sufficient.

Co-redemptrix?

Blogger VD May 18, 2020 1:18 PM  

As a long-time reader, I truly hope Vox ditches his support for this clown.

You were with me until I went against Crowder....

And what support? I'm not a Catholic of any kind.

Blogger Ranger May 18, 2020 1:24 PM  

@Akulkis, remember how big the Roman Church and its Marian cults are in Latin America, the reaction of the Latin Protestants is understandable (this is no comment on the merits of either the cults or the reaction, it's a sociological observation). Anglo-Saxon protestants don't have to deal so directly with the elephant in the room.

@all those debating Mary's perpetual virginity; unless one of the first things you will want to do if you get to Heaven is to verify it for yourselves, I think it's probably more profitable for your souls to meditate on other matters. Does it make any difference to your experience of Christ, or is it just a club to beat someone of "the other side" with?

Interesting that this particular post got so quickly to a debate on the meaning of "until"...

Blogger Shane Bradman May 18, 2020 2:09 PM  

Akulkis, asking the saints to pray for us is not paganism. It is not idolatry. It is exactly the same as asking your friends, family and community to pray for you when you're in a time of need. Saints are people like us, and our goal as Christians is to be saints. We learn from the lives and the actions of the saints to guide ourselves closer to Jesus Christ. Of all the protestant delusions about Catholicism, this is one of the dumbest.

Blogger BalancedTryteOperators May 18, 2020 2:10 PM  

Mary participated in the suffering of Christ unlike any other creature and because of that she is the mediator of all graces to Christians. If any mother saw one of her sons suffer what Jesus did she would have died immediately of grief and shock. The fact that she was there for three full hours and survived proves that she is worthy to bring sinners to salvation and provide all graces.

And Adam was the worse sinner, not Eve. Adam blamed Eve and accused God of making a mistake ("the woman that YOU gave me..."). Adam's second sin was being a misogynist. He believed that the woman was a strictly inferior version of himself and so God was to blame for giving him a creature with brain of squirrel only good for reproduction, domestication and lustful pleasure. He felt shameless and emboldened enough to approach God without fear like he was one of his fratboy buddies sharing porn.

There's a reason Wisdom is a woman in Proverbs, because she obviously couldn't have been a man!

If you wish, read St. Edith Stein's work on gender. She beat all the gender studies majors before they existed.

Blogger The Kurgan May 18, 2020 2:43 PM  

@120 Yossarian,
thanks for what I think is a genuine question. Which I answered in my after report but it's like 30 pages, so I get it... Anyway, Denzinger, as in the books of "Catholic Dogma" compiled by the man of the same name are essentially a list of various items, writings, encyclicals etc that state this or that position. In the old days before 1917 theologists and priests would have to navigate through many documents to try and fathom the absolute position of the Church. So the code of canon law of 1917 was commissioned and compiled the distillation of all the rules of the Church and put them in one place with all relevant references to the original documents where required.

In short, Canon Law is HOW Dogma is actually played out. You use Canon Law to determine HOW to interpret and actively enforce/follow/obey Catholic dogma. That's the whole point, it doesn't matter at ALL what Denzinger, or Thomas Aquinas for that matter wrote or said. How you APPLY it is by the use of Canon Law. You literally don't need to know anything any doctor of the Church wrote if you simply follow Canon Law.

This is a point good old Jay had to concede in the actual video debate and you can see the fear in his eyes for a split second when he realises he has just admitted to the very point I argued from the start.

Hope that clear it up.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 18, 2020 3:24 PM  

"I am not a nihilist."

It's honorary, 'cause there's nothing but nothing in your skull. How accomplished! You make the nihilists proud.

Blogger Yossarian May 18, 2020 3:37 PM  

@126

Thanks for the answer. I think I got it now: Canon law is the userguide to the software that are the Dogmas.

Blogger Akulkis May 18, 2020 4:15 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger God Emperor Memes May 18, 2020 4:17 PM  

Explain Luke 16:26, then.

Blogger God Emperor Memes May 18, 2020 4:19 PM  

"Mary participated in the suffering of Christ unlike any other creature and because of that she is the mediator of all graces to Christians. If any mother saw one of her sons suffer what Jesus did she would have died immediately of grief and shock. The fact that she was there for three full hours and survived proves that she is worthy to bring sinners to salvation and provide all graces."
Complete nonsense.

Blogger Akulkis May 18, 2020 4:22 PM  

"Akulkis, asking the saints to pray for us is not paganism. It is not idolatry."

*cough* BULLSHIT! *cough* *cough*

Did Jesus instruct you to pray to Mary?

How about praying to Solomon?
Moses?
Abraham?
Noah?

No. When asked how to pray, his instructions are to pray to God directly. He certainly did NOT tell you to pray to someone who is dead and buried in the ground.

If you have trouble with A, then pray to Saint B... if you have trouble with X, then pray to Saint X.

If you can't see how this is Greco-Roman paganism with some Christian-themed frosting on top, then you are blind to the truth.

Blogger Ransom Smith May 18, 2020 4:59 PM  

If you wish, read St. Edith Stein's work on gender. She beat all the gender studies majors before they existed.
Oh boy. Of course John Paul would make a Jewish woman a saint and lie about why she was killed.

Blogger Maidels May 18, 2020 5:59 PM  

@Tetro

"Which means the entire papacy, as defined by Rome in Vatican I, has defected. Which means your precious papacy has fallen."

As long as the church still has valid bishops (unfortunately there are many fewer than 60 years ago), the college can elect a new pope. Each bishop is a pope "in potens". For that matter, each priest is a pope "in potens".

The seat of Peter has been empty before, whether it's been occupied by an anti-pope, competing claimants, or the pope has died. After Clement IV, the seat was empty for almost 13 years. As long as she has valid bishops, the church still exists and will continue.

Blogger wgmeisheid May 18, 2020 6:34 PM  

As to Matthew 1:25, the Greek word translated until is ἕὠς, which as a preposition means literally "marking the continuance of an action up to the time of another action." It is used a few verses earlier to mark a change (17 "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations" In 1:24-25 the statement "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know [word meaning sexual relations] her until she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus." This also marked a change from "not knowing" her to "knowing" her. The meanings are the same in both cases, a demarcation point to something different. People can jump through all the hoops they want but the biblical meaning and intention was clear to anyone who read it without any preconceived notions.

Blogger BillHinDaytona May 18, 2020 7:32 PM  

No. When asked how to pray, his instructions are to pray to God directly. He certainly did NOT tell you to pray to someone who is dead and buried in the ground.

LOL. Mary was not buried in the ground. She was bodily assumed into heaven. It's the 4th glorious mystery of the rosary. Hope that clarifies things.

Blogger Akulkis May 18, 2020 7:52 PM  

"Mary participated in the suffering of Christ unlike any other creature and because of that she is the mediator of all graces to Christians. If any mother saw one of her sons suffer what Jesus did she would have died immediately of grief and shock. The fact that she was there for three full hours and survived proves that she is worthy to bring sinners to salvation and provide all graces."

No more so than Noah, Abraham, Moses, Solomon, David, or Samson. Which is to say, not at all.

STOP with this blasphemous worship of Diana-wearing-a-cross.

Blogger Ransom Smith May 18, 2020 8:49 PM  

Mary was not buried in the ground. She was bodily assumed into heaven.
God above that's the kind of idiot theology that makes me wonder if you're all insane.
Only Enoch and Elijah ascended into heaven having never died.
Even Jesus himself died.

Blogger John Rockwell May 18, 2020 10:06 PM  

Jose Miguel wrote:@103 John Rockwell

And I find the argument that Mary as Ark of the Covenant as Bizarre.

Inside the ark of the Covenant was Manna, Aaron's Rod, and the Law. Mary bore the Bread of Life, the Great High Priest, the Good News.

I find it bizarre people who supposedly value Scripture so much don't see the parallels and foreshadowing between the Old and New Testament. The Scriptures have four levels of interpretation, each building on the other starting with the literal/historical events as the foundation, and they don't contradict. That is what sold me on the Scriptures, impossible to happen by chance across so many authors across so much time. It's as if it was planned!

John, do you have a clan? All my cousins are my brothers, as would any half-brothers if my father fathered them. That verse still isn't the killshot you want it to be.

@67 Yossarian

"We don't really know, we've been doing things the same for 2000 years, if it ain't broke don't fix it."

That is sums it up wonderfully. I have no idea, nor any Orthodox believer I know know how the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. Jesus said a couple of lines about it, the Apostles taught it and we just keep doing it. Same with baptism and the other mysteries. They are called mysteries for a reason, and we're fine with that, seeing through a glass darkly and all.

@98 Furor Kek Tonicus

it had never in my life even occurred to me to wonder about Mary's magical stretchy rubber Super Ball hymen

Virgin conception and birth you can see God doing, but keeping a woman's hymen intact is beyond His Divine abilities?

i've been in protestant / evangelical churches my whole life.

i have NEVER ONCE heard anyone say that Mary was "just a woman".


Most evangelical churches I had grown up in/attended, including fundamentalist, Pentecostal, Evangelical and Reformed, I've heard that explicitly taught by the pastors/elders. The congregation I grew up in required agreeing to that very line in their statement of faith for new members.

My experience might be explained in that I grew up in Latin Protestantism, maybe Anglo-Saxon Protestants don't have an ax to grind with Mary.


Why do you think I posted that Link? All your arguments have been answered.

Blogger John Rockwell May 18, 2020 10:08 PM  

Jose Miguel wrote:Inside the ark of the Covenant was Manna, Aaron's Rod, and the Law. Mary bore the Bread of Life, the Great High Priest, the Good News.

Here is the problem. Was Mary God's Throne? Did the Blood of Christ get sprinkled on her so that we are redeemed?

Blogger John Rockwell May 18, 2020 10:18 PM  

Yossarian wrote:Tetro wrote:She was. A point Roman Catholics and Orthodox agree on. And have for 2000 years.

True though "agreement" here is not the same for both parties.

Catholics: Mary was a perpetual virgin, anyone who says otherwise shall be excommunicated and banned from the Kingdom of Heaven immediately.

Orthodoxs: Whatever, nobody cares. If we agree will you shut up about it?

From all my experience with Christianity I can say that Catholics are obsessed with any sort of minutiae they can find. Some literally dedicate their whole life's work to the interpretation of one word in some sentence in the Bible. Orthodox however don't give a fuck. When you inquire further on their theology or practices their response always boils down to: "We don't really know, we've been doing things the same for 2000 years, if it ain't broke don't fix it." If you ever find an outspoken Orthodox theologian you'll soon find out they used to be a former Catholic.

In a room full of Catholics you only have to paraphrase some sentence from the Bible and it's like a nuclear chain reaction going off. Someone has to disagree, then they explain why, then someone else disagrees with the explanation and they explain why, then someone else disagrees with the explanation as to why that previous person disagreed with the first explanation and so on.


In this case as a Prot I'd rather be Orthodox. I am absolutely fine with a lot of their rituals if they have a sound biblical basis.

Their worship is far better than many cringy evangelical worship services.


At least I won't be condemned for not believing in certain ridiculous dogmas.

Blogger BillHinDaytona May 18, 2020 10:41 PM  

Oh, I see. So it is reasonable that Enoch and Elijah ascended into heaven having never died, but it is unreasonable for Enoch, Elijah, and Mary to have never died?

LOL. OK.

Blogger Akulkis May 18, 2020 10:53 PM  

"LOL. Mary was not buried in the ground. She was bodily assumed into heaven. It's the 4th glorious mystery of the rosary. Hope that clarifies things."

So if Jesus didn't instruct his followers to ask for her to intercede on their behalf while she was alive, by what logic are you asking her to do the same now that she sleeps and cannot hear you?

Oh yes, because Marianism is just Christian letters scratched into the frosting of a Diana-worshipping cake.

Blogger Jose Miguel May 18, 2020 11:25 PM  

@135 wgmeisheid

As to Matthew 1:25, the Greek word translated until is ἕὠς, which as a preposition means literally "marking the continuance of an action up to the time of another action."

As a preposition, ἕὠς is used as "as far as, up to, as much as, until" according to Strong's concordance.

The meanings are ... a demarcation point to something different.

Apply this to verses I mentioned previously with ἕὠς: 1 Cor 15:25, Phil 1:10, 1 Timothy 6:14. Throw in 1 Timothy 4:13 and some from the Old Testament LXX like Psalm 71(72):27, Psalm 109(110):1.

Besides the odd literal interpretations I pointed out in comment 74 that result from this new meaning imparted to ἕὠς, you'd then have to conclude on top of those that Christ will cease being at the right hand of the Father and at some future time He will abandon the redeemed!

People can jump through all the hoops they want but the biblical meaning and intention was clear to anyone who read it without any preconceived notions.

You can jump through the hoops and use your own meaning instead of those who wrote and spoke Greek to get your preconceived result.

Blogger Jose Miguel May 18, 2020 11:48 PM  

@138 Ransom Smith

God above that's the kind of idiot theology that makes me wonder if you're all insane.
Only Enoch and Elijah ascended into heaven having never died.


What do you think the other ancient Churches, Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonic alike, thought of the Roman doctrine of Mary's Assumption declared infallibly in 1950 when they'd been guarding Mary's tomb for 1909 years at that point?

Blogger Akulkis May 19, 2020 12:58 AM  

"but it is unreasonable for Enoch, Elijah, and Mary to have never died?

LOL. OK."

If
a) Mary never died, and ascended directly into heaven as Enoch and Elijah did, and
b) this fact is as important as you believe it is...

why isn't there the slightest mention of it by ANY of the authors in the new testament, not even in any apocryphal book which the Roman church chose to add on to the standard set of recognized books?

Blogger Ranger May 19, 2020 1:53 AM  

@134 Maidels, true, any baptized Catholic man can be elected Pope. But is this "college" you are talking about that can elect the Pope the "college of Cardinals" or is it something else?

Blogger wgmeisheid May 19, 2020 2:30 AM  

Jose Miguel wrote:@135 wgmeisheid

...You can jump through the hoops and use your own meaning instead of those who wrote and spoke Greek to get your preconceived result.


Actually, all I did was use the same preposition used by Matthew less than 8 verses apart. It is called usage consistency by the same author in the same context. Your examples don't apply and literally do injustice to this text as written. You see what you want to see while the text in this context is clearly not what you want it to be.

Blogger Yossarian May 19, 2020 3:05 AM  

John Rockwell wrote:In this case as a Prot I'd rather be Orthodox. I am absolutely fine with a lot of their rituals if they have a sound biblical basis.

Technically speaking they try to keep in line with all the beliefs and traditions of the people who wrote the Bible. Thing about Orthodoxy is that it's a nationalist religion meaning each branch is meant for its specific nation. This is something Catholics and Protestants will never grasp because their type of Christianity is meant to be spread worldwide. Russian Orthodox churches in the US are not exactly there to spread the religion, they are there to help the Russian community worship God properly.

Roosh V turned Orthodox and in a livestream talked about him visiting an Orthodox monastery. When the monks found out he's Armenian Orthodox he was pretty much sent at the back of the bus in liturgical terms. He felt offended but that's because he was looking at it through American eyes. A Greek Orthodox can't expect to be treated the same as a Russian Orthodox in the same way a Greek person cannot expect the same rights he has in Greece while living in Russia. You're free to join the church just as you're free to become a Russian citizen, but you'll never be seen as a Russian national.

Blogger Tetro May 19, 2020 3:36 AM  

Jose Miguel wrote:I'm working on a taco that will horrify Tetro's Southern sensibilities, it'll be ready for this upcoming Christmas feast. I'm going to name it El Tetro, so that his name lives forever among Texans, Dixie and Latins!

While certainly a devious plot, including the spectacular choice of name, could this end up being used for Good? Could it be that White Hispanics and Gringos finally lay down their arms and unite in Fraternité all because of a taco?! Is this the key to the Gringo heart that Bolivar did not discover? The seal of peace treaties, the offer to end all negotiations, the joyous cessation of all war? One muses...

A Christmas taco at that. Know you no shame?!?

Blogger FrankNorman May 19, 2020 3:38 AM  

What do you think the other ancient Churches, Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonic alike, thought of the Roman doctrine of Mary's Assumption declared infallibly in 1950 when they'd been guarding Mary's tomb for 1909 years at that point?

Which raises a question: why are there keeping quiet about that?

Is Rome paying them off, or do they simply not want to have half of Latin America come stomping through there on pilgrimage?

Blogger Vaughan Williams May 19, 2020 3:45 AM  

Asking the (dead) saints to pray for you is necromancy. Necromancy is forbidden in scripture. Most of what happens in the financial world is necromancy also; communing with beings (corporations) which are not alive but which are ascribed the rights and privileges of the living.

Blogger Dan Karelian May 19, 2020 6:29 AM  

@149
Roosh was appointed to the narthex the same way any other schismatic would have been in that situation. It had nothing to do with his ethnicity as such.
Oriental Orthodoxy is not Eastern Orthodoxy any more than Roman Catholicism is.
If you are part of the Eastern Orthodox Church it doesn't matter what ethnicity you are, though you may not be able to understand the particular language the liturgy is conducted in.

Blogger VFM #7634 May 19, 2020 7:12 AM  

Second, you and they are wrong about the meaning of the word “until”. 99.9% of the time, the word “until” necessarily means that whatever was/was happening up to that point in time ceases or is reversed. Granted, there’s a microcosm of exceptions to this rule, like in II Samuel 6:23. When it says that Michal bore no children “until” she died, obviously that doesn’t mean she had kids after she had died. But RC’s leap from that exceptional use of the term and insert it into Matthew 1:25. They argue that the mere statement that Joseph didn’t consummate their marriage “until” Mary gave birth isn’t a problem since “until” doesn’t say anything about what happened afterwards. The problem is that it does, and only in a situation like in II Samuel 6:23 do we have reason to think otherwise since dead women can’t give birth.

@63 Cobblestone
You and every other liberal out there think that asserting something is factual makes it factual.

Let's try again? Are you absolutely certain that "X didn't happen until Y" necessarily means that after X happens, Y does happen? Not just in English, but in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew?

Heck, it didn't even mean that in early modern English. "Until we meet again" doesn't actually mean we will meet again either.

Blogger wgmeisheid May 19, 2020 8:43 AM  

Interesting to watch the flow of these arguments and see how many times the clear meaning of the text is contorted to mean something it appears not to say by any common, honest reading, especially when comparing text with text and being consistent about context. I must admit however that I am operating on the fundamental belief that God does not try to trick us, since as God He is an honest communicator, but is clear and direct in what He says. He is not trying to confuse us but tells us plainly what He wants from us and what He expects us to know. That still allows for things like allegory and prophetic language that only becomes clear when the events actually occur, since prophecy has never been meant to be fortune telling but rather validation of what God says. It also allows for things that take a little thought and maturity to fully grasp since as Hebrews 5:12-14 reminds us there is milk and there is meat in what God says. Milk you can drink straight down, but meat you have to chew on for a while.

That said, reading all of this reminds me of Matthew 23:24 "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!" I am surprised a lot of you aren't suffering from severe gastric distress, trying to keep those camels down and all. I know, I have had to throw up a number of camels in my lifetime. Try it, it is a liberating experience and brings you closer to Throne of Grace as only an honest heart can.

God's best blessings to you all and may the spirit of Truth (the Holy Spirit) richly abide in you, guiding you to the knowledge and love of God and His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Blogger BillHinDaytona May 19, 2020 8:59 AM  

@146
"but it is unreasonable for Enoch, Elijah, and Mary to have never died?

LOL. OK."

If
a) Mary never died, and ascended directly into heaven as Enoch and Elijah did, and
b) this fact is as important as you believe it is...

why isn't there the slightest mention of it by ANY of the authors in the new testament, not even in any apocryphal book which the Roman church chose to add on to the standard set of recognized books?


I didn't get the RCC teaching correct. Whether Mary died was an open question for a long time, maybe yes, may no ... but now the teaching is yes, she died and her body was assumed into heaven. It's really a long discussion ... and honestly I don't know all the ins and outs of it. It's not central to my faith and I'm OK delegating all of that to the Church.

As far as why this or that is or isn't in the New Testament. I don't know. I don't know why Jesus founded a Church instead of leaving us a book with all we need to know. He entrusted the Gospel to the Church to spread through preaching and healing. His wisdom, not mine.

@143:

"Oh yes, because Marianism is just Christian letters scratched into the frosting of a Diana-worshipping cake."

You don't see any essential differences? Nude Diana, with bow and arrow, goddess of the hunt, with a completely different origin story, personality characteristics, and cult characteristics? But hey, Diana was a virgin, so that's enough to be the same.

Read the wedding feast at Cana. Mary leads us to Jesus. Always.

You may also want simply to test the spirits. I do not know which denomination your faith is, but simply go into a Catholic Church and see if the spirit there is the same or different from the one you experience in your Christian faith.

Peace in Christ. -- Bill

Blogger Joe Smith May 19, 2020 9:38 AM  

Obviously this is a fraught subject, but you guys seem to know what's going on, even if you all disagree. I don't know that much about it. Can anyone tell me why the RCC necessarily has to accept Vaticans I and II? Vatican I has clearly messed everything up, so why can't the RCC just rewind to before that?

Blogger Tetro May 19, 2020 11:45 AM  

Yossarian wrote:Russian Orthodox churches in the US are not exactly there to spread the religion, they are there to help the Russian community worship God properly.

False. I was baptised in a Russian Orthodox parish, which is full of converts.

Yossarian wrote:Thing about Orthodoxy is that it's a nationalist religion meaning each branch is meant for its specific nation.

True and False. In that EACH BRANCH is part of a WHOLE which is meant to save ALL nations. Orthodoxy recognizes that God seeks out both individuals and nations. And through them, all nations. There is nothing anti-missionary about this.

People need Holy Scripture and Liturgy in their own native tongue. This has been Church Tradition since day one, to serve not only each individual but each nation in seeking out and "working out" their salvation. Why did Cyril and Methodius go outside their nation to evangelize the Slavs? And why then did the Russian Church send missionaries to Alaska and many other places? How about Greeks evangelizing parts of Africa? Many such cases!

Yossarian wrote:When the monks found out he's Armenian Orthodox he was pretty much sent at the back of the bus in liturgical terms. He felt offended but that's because he was looking at it through American eyes. A Greek Orthodox can't expect to be treated the same as a Russian Orthodox in the same way a Greek person cannot expect the same rights he has in Greece while living in Russia. You're free to join the church just as you're free to become a Russian citizen, but you'll never be seen as a Russian national.

Completely wrong interpretation of events. Roosh was told he could not partake in certain aspects of worship services not because of his ethnicity, but because Armenian Orthodox are not in communion with the Holy Orthodox Church, aka 'Eastern' Orthodox. It had nothing to do with his ethnicity of language skills. Again, I am an American who has worshipped in and been duly embraced by and accepted by several Orthodox parishes of various ethnicities. Once the priest knows you are in communion with them, that you are a member of the Church, you can partake of the Holy Mysteries. And like anywhere else, it may take a bit of time, but people will get to know you and soon you'll find a core group of believers that are like family. This has happened with me several times. I can go anywhere on earth and I know I have my Orthodox family there.


Blogger Jose Miguel May 19, 2020 11:54 AM  

@140 John Rockwell

Here is the problem. Was Mary God's Throne? Did the Blood of Christ get sprinkled on her so that we are redeemed?

Where was Christ seated when He was in Mary's womb? Was not the blood shed for us all in her literally as well for that time?

I'll add one more scriptural parallel then ask you a question. In Luke 1:43 Elizabeth asks "But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Mary then worships God, staying with her cousin Elizabeth three months, then went to Bethlehem, the City of David.

King David asks in 2 Samuel 6:9: "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" And the Ark stayed in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite for three months, David worships God, then brought the Ark to the City of David.

My question for you, why is it wrong for me as an individual, or for the Church to recognize the parallels between the Ark of the Old Covenant and the role Mary played in the New Covenant?

Blogger Jose Miguel May 19, 2020 12:00 PM  

@151 FrankNorman

why are there keeping quiet about that?

They aren't and haven't. Most of the Orthodox world doesn't speak English, and much of it was being hammered by Communism when Mary's Assumption was decreed, yet they still opposed it and asked then what have we been guarding since 41 AD?

do they simply not want to have half of Latin America come stomping through there on pilgrimage?

The Protestant Latins are already stomping through there on pilgrimage to take photos and share them with their Latin Catholic family members.

Blogger Jose Miguel May 19, 2020 12:12 PM  

@155 wgmeisheid

Interesting to watch the flow of these arguments and see how many times the clear meaning of the text is contorted to mean something it appears not to say by any common, honest reading

You reject what the people who spoke and wrote Koine Greek natively believed that text clearly says, and inject your own meaning to get a desired doctrine. If the meaning you want in that verse is true, apply it to the others I listed.

the biblical meaning and intention was clear to anyone who read it without any preconceived notions.

Will you admit that you have your own preconceived notions you are bringing to the text?

One of my own preconceived notions is that the people who wrote and spoke Koine Greek in daily life knew the language better than either of us do. Another preconceived notion I have that it is statistically improbable for the early Church to have taught that Mary wasn't ever Virgin if all the ancient Churches from Ireland to Ethiopia to India, even the Reformers 1500 years later, held to Mary's ever-virginity and did not see conflict with Matthew 1:25. Not impossible, but highly improbable.

Blogger BillHinDaytona May 19, 2020 12:38 PM  

Jose Miguel: I don't know what you are talking about ... no one is guarding Mary's body. The Catholic and Orthodox have traditionally believed Mary died and her body was taken into heaven. The Orthodox celebrate it as the Dormition; we call it Assumption; in either case, Mary's not there. They are "guarding" a holy site, not Mary's grave. Sheesh.

The Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalam allegedly contains the tomb of Jesus. Yet no says Jesus's remains are there.

There's no knockout factor here. Tradition has always held Mary was taken to heaven, not just spiritually, but bodily, whether a resurrected body, I don't know.

Blogger wgmeisheid May 19, 2020 2:26 PM  

Jose Miguel wrote:@155 wgmeisheid

Interesting to watch the flow of these arguments and see how many times the clear meaning of the text is contorted to mean something it appears not to say by any common, honest reading

You reject what the people who spoke and wrote Koine Greek natively believed that text clearly says, and inject your own meaning to get a desired doctrine. If the meaning you want in that verse is true, apply it to the others I listed.

Reply: Please point out who those people are and what they said so your argument can be given its proper do. Saying so doesn't make it so. The only time you do reference anything at all is biblical text and not early Koine Greek speakers (I see no such references that I can validate for your arguments). By the way, I minored in Ancient and Koine Greek in college, so I have some experience with the languages and early writers.

In 1 Cor 15:25 Paul says, "For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet." You say some gobblygook conflating three passages in some untoward meaning. Don't you understand that 1 Cor 15:25 begins the argument that the Son, when He has completed His mission turns everything back to the Father with the until respecting that transition. As to Phil 1:10, it says we should work to approve what is excellent until the day of Christ, because afterward comes the judgement and nothing will be able to be changed, so no inconsistency there. Even your last point, 1 Timothy 6:14, supports the same argument as Phil 1:10. Duh! So the until is consistent and supports the Matthew 1:17 and 1:25 arguments I have made without any textual, linguistic, or theological problem. Your own references actually support my argument. Wow!


the biblical meaning and intention was clear to anyone who read it without any preconceived notions.

Will you admit that you have your own preconceived notions you are bringing to the text?

Replay: Of course, but after 45 years of study I think I have disabused myself of the ones concerning this particular textual argument. You, not so much.

One of my own preconceived notions is that the people who wrote and spoke Koine Greek in daily life knew the language better than either of us do. Another preconceived notion I have that it is statistically improbable for the early Church to have taught that Mary wasn't ever Virgin if all the ancient Churches from Ireland to Ethiopia to India, even the Reformers 1500 years later, held to Mary's ever-virginity and did not see conflict with Matthew 1:25. Not impossible, but highly improbable.


Reply: Problematically, you cite no one and no documents and then interject something I never said. I believe the biblical argument that Mary was a virgin and Jesus had a virgin birth. The only question here was did she and Joseph consummate their marriage afterward, which the text clearly says. Joseph waited at the behest of the angel so there could be no argument over Jesus' paternity.

I find your statements problematic, filled with the conflation of incompatible premises, and unsupported in the main. You have presented nothing that contradicts anything I have said.

Blogger Yossarian May 19, 2020 2:58 PM  

@158

Read my whole comment before making assertions I have already addressed in said comment. If you think Orthodoxy and ethnicity have nothing to do with each other then you're most likely a recent convert. The only reason why the Russian Orthodox church exists in America is because of Russian nationals. I've been to many Orthodox churches and monasteries in my home country and they never asked if I believe in God, if I was an Orthodox, or what was the deal with the Satanic imagery on my rock-band t-shirts. I'm certain this won't be the case if I go to an Armenian Orthodox church.

The Orthodox church can trace its roots thousands of years in their respective nations. The orthodox mindset is so interwoven with the national mindset they're seen as the one and the same. Orthodox priests are employees of the state, receiving the majority of their salary from the state. If you think you can replace hundreds of generations of your family's mindset by just joining a church go ahead. People who have never gone to church a day in their lives will identify as Orthodox because that's what their parents were.

You are not a Russian. Russian citizenship does not make you a Russian. Choosing the Russian Orthodox faith does not make you Russian Orthodox. Your parents were not Russian Orthodox. Their parents were not Russian Orthodox. These are facts no amount of paperwork can change. Saying you're a Russian Orthodox because you have the paperwork is the same civic-nationalist bs we've heard over and over. There is a reason why in Orthodoxy they have to place Russian/Greek/Romanian/Armenian/etc in front. There is a reason why someone from Ghana cannot open a traditional Sushi restaurant.

Tetro wrote:Roosh was told he could not partake in certain aspects of worship services not because of his ethnicity, but because Armenian Orthodox are not in communion with the Holy Orthodox Church, aka 'Eastern' Orthodox. It had nothing to do with his ethnicity of language skills. Again, I am an American who has worshipped in and been duly embraced by and accepted by several Orthodox parishes of various ethnicities. Once the priest knows you are in communion with them, that you are a member of the Church, you can partake of the Holy Mysteries. And like anywhere else, it may take a bit of time, but people will get to know you and soon you'll find a core group of believers that are like family. This has happened with me several times. I can go anywhere on earth and I know I have my Orthodox family there.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying Armenian Orthodox and Russian Orthodox are inimical to each other. Or that not allowing converts is an Orthodox tenant. I'm making the argument as to why Orthodoxy was so strong against getting converged. In Orthodoxy you are born in the faith, having a choice in this matter is not an Orthodox mindset. Americans who go church shopping cannot conceive of such a thing. This has its advantages and disadvantages. Orthodoxy is not against missionary work but they're not exactly gun-ho about it like how Catholics and Protestants are. Russian Orthodox only care about their Russian Orthodox community, they don't care about what the Catholics do, or the Protestants, or the Greek Orthodox for that matter. It's all about jurisdictions. If the Pope literally turns out to the the Antichrist, and you ask the Greek Orthodox for help they'll go "Not our problem. That's the Catholics' business."

I'm not saying you should stop taking Russian Orthodox communion. I'm just saying you cannot choose your heritage, and religion is part of your heritage. However heritage always has to start somewhere.

Blogger Tetro May 19, 2020 3:31 PM  

Yossarian wrote:Read my whole comment before making assertions

I did read your whole comment and it sounds to me like you are making an accusation that Orthodox churches are nationalistic AND therefore not missionary in nature as well. This is a common accusation from Romanists. I replied that while each Local Church focuses on the salvation of that nation, those churches do send out missionaries into the world to evangelize and they are all separate parts of the Body of Christ, the Universal Orthodox Church, which can clearly be seen as spreading to ALL nations. The Apostles were told to evangelize to all nations, not all 'individuals'.

I don't see how I misread you and the intention of your post. I am not denying a national aspect to a Local Church, I am denying that this means that the Universal Orthodox Church, all the local churches taken together, work together to evangelize the world and minister to the 'nations' (The Great Commission) while they work out their salvation in fear and trembling.

Yossarian wrote:I'm making the argument as to why Orthodoxy was so strong against getting converged.

Ok, I did miss this. It did not seem to me you were arguing that, though I see it could be the case. I still disagree with this statement though: Yossarian wrote:This is something Catholics and Protestants will never grasp because their type of Christianity is meant to be spread worldwide. Russian Orthodox churches in the US are not exactly there to spread the religion, they are there to help the Russian community worship God properly.

The way it is framed, it seems you are trying to say that we Orthodox do not believe Christianity is to be spread worldwide, in the way that Prots and Catholics do. Yes, you are right that many Orthodox parishes were set up to serve their respective ethnic communities who had moved from the Old Country to the New World. Many laity and priests have been guilty of not evangelizing enough , true. Our vision of evangelization is somewhat different but we still believe in evangelizing the entire world. The Russian Church's first parishes in North America were purely missionary and not set up to serve ethnic Russians.

Blogger Tetro May 19, 2020 3:43 PM  

Yossarian wrote:Russian Orthodox only care about their Russian Orthodox community, they don't care about what the Catholics do, or the Protestants, or the Greek Orthodox for that matter. It's all about jurisdictions.

There is some truth to this statement, especially in modern times. Again, it's a fault of the practice of the faith, be it in laity or the priesthood, and not in Orthodoxy itself. Modernism, which has relativism and therefore an ecumenist spirit at its heart, has taken its toll on modern, nominal Orthodox, especially those who moved to the West or began interacting with the West in academia, government, etc. Not to mention Marxist persecutions that saw two generations of Eastern Orthodox children be propagandized into mocking and seriously doubting anything supernatural, anything to do with the Faith and the Church.

Most cradle Orthodox I know who take the Faith seriously are those who had some sort of reversion story or experience. The rest are just nominally Orthodox and will often have this jurisdictional mindset. Because they don't really believe. Nor do they obey.

Blogger Jose Miguel May 19, 2020 4:20 PM  

@162 BillHinDaytona

Forgive me Bill if I wasn't sufficiently clear. I was contesting the Roman doctrine referred to earlier that Mary never tasted death and was assumed into heaven like Enoch and Elijah. If this indeed happen, my question was why would Mary's tomb exist and be a holy site to this day? I did not mean to say that her body was there like how Jesus' body is not in His tomb either. I defer to the OC on Dormition.

@163 wgmeisheid

I cited several other verses that have the same Greek word where it doesn't mean the definition you claimed. You claimed that the definition you gave: "marking the continuance of an action up to the time of another action" requires to mark a change. The change you claim in this verse is from not knowing to knowing. The meaning of ἕὠς I cited was from Strongs Concordance, ἕὠς being number 2193.

The point of disagreement is does this one verse in Matthew 1:25 mean that consummation after Jesus birth must have happened? Does Matthew 1:25 mean that Mary was definitely 100% not a virgin after she bore Christ?

My claim that counters yours is that ἕὠς doesn't necessitate a change in status, and gave multiple verses as textual examples where it doesn't. This does not mean that thus Mary was always a Virgin, but it also does not mean she for sure wasn't either. Do you understand what my argument is better now?

Blogger Tetro May 19, 2020 5:32 PM  

Yossarian wrote:Choosing the Russian Orthodox faith does not make you Russian Orthodox.

Of course it doesn't make me ethnically Russian. It most certainly does make me Orthodox. And it most certainly does mean that my Orthodoxy is flavored, so to speak, with Russian liturgical practices, traditions, and hagiography, all of which are just as Orthodox as Serbian Orthodoxy, Greek Orthodoxy, etc., and their small-t traditions, hagiography, and hymnology.

In the Old World these terms have a more definitive weight and meaning to them, and thusly as an American convert you say you were baptised IN a Antiochian/Russian/Serbian parish, if they ask or if you care to explain more in detail. I just say I'm 'Orthodox.' I don't say, and nor would most converts I know, that I'm "Russian Orthodox" to anyone really. In Europe I say I was baptised in a Russian parish because I know saying I'm 'Russian Orthodox' makes them wonder for a few moments if I'm Russian or not. Heck most Americans don't even know any of the differences and every American convert I know would just say 'Orthodox' in the first place when speaking to any Prot, Catholic, or non-Christian.

Blogger Yossarian May 19, 2020 7:59 PM  

Tetro wrote:In Europe I say I was baptised in a Russian parish because I know saying I'm 'Russian Orthodox' makes them wonder for a few moments if I'm Russian or not.

That's the idea I was trying to convey. I am from Eastern Europe, I've got decades of experience with the Orthodox faith, and even when I was a full on atheist me and my other atheist friends would still engage in Orthodox practices without giving it a second thought. These are all positives as you cannot converge a religion that is so engraved in society. However I knew next to nothing about Orthodoxy itself until I checked out some YT channels. Then I noticed that all Orthodox proselytization was coming from recent converts like you. Missionary work may be a mission statement to Orthodoxy, but it's just not something that is done.

Theoretically the orthodox nations should care about spreading the faith but practically they couldn't care less. I don't see this as a good thing because they do seem to be taking their stability for granted. Plus there are so many opportunities to spread to the West each time a Pope is accused of being the Antichrist (which is always).

Blogger Ranger May 20, 2020 12:48 PM  

@168 and @169
I may be way off-base here, and am open to correction from a more knowledgeable Orthodox if I'm wrong, but from what it seems to me, this is also a result of the Papacy's falling away from the Church.
My impression is that the Orthodox, though denying and considering even heretical the claims of the Popes, still act as if the Bishopric of Rome, if restored to Orthodoxy, would have canonical jurisdiction over the lands of the West, and are therefore reluctant to proselytize too directly on these pastures. They will let Converts come to them, they will not do active outreach.

Blogger wgmeisheid May 20, 2020 2:45 PM  

Jose Miguel wrote:@162 I cited several other verses that have the same Greek word where it doesn't mean the definition you claimed. You claimed that the definition you gave: "marking the continuance of an action up to the time of another action" requires to mark a change. The change you claim in this verse is from not knowing to knowing. The meaning of ἕὠς I cited was from Strongs Concordance, ἕὠς being number 2193.

The point of disagreement is does this one verse in Matthew 1:25 mean that consummation after Jesus birth must have happened? Does Matthew 1:25 mean that Mary was definitely 100% not a virgin after she bore Christ?

Yes, she was 100% not a virgin after she and Joseph consummated their marriage. Joseph was commanded to do so by the Angel (take her as your wife), which he did when in 1:24-25 it says "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and [i]did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus."

To take her as his wife required consummation, which he did not do "until" after Jesus was born. There are interesting word choices that also point to a normal marriage and other children since there was no reason to call Jesus her first-born son if he was her ONLY child. Matthew would have been expected to note that if it were true, but the implication is she had other children. Also the textual note to "knew her not until" says "kept her a virgin until". You are trying to support a non-biblical and I would argue anti-biblical position.

If you can't see that by this point, then stop wasting my time with bogus arguments.

Blogger wgmeisheid May 20, 2020 4:23 PM  

Oh, and by the way, having a baby doesn't remove virginity. Only having vaginal sex removes virginity, which is necessary to consummate a marriage. The hymen is irrelevant except historically as the best available evidence off no vaginal penetration. If a virgin gives birth, as Mary did, the hymen becomes irrelevant and its absence due to birth does not take away virginity. Only vaginal sex can do that.

Blogger Akulkis May 21, 2020 2:09 AM  

"
Let's try again? Are you absolutely certain that "X didn't happen until Y" necessarily means that after X happens, Y does happen? Not just in English, but in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew?"

Moron.

If the marriage was NEVER CONSMMATED *AT* *ALL*, *EVER*, then the word UNTIL wouldn't be in the sentence to begin with.

The scriptures would just say that Joseph never consummated his marriage with Mary. Period. Full Stop.

The fact that the word "until" is included means that there was a temporal dividing point, that there was one condition BEFORE the dividing point, and afterwards, that condition was transformed into another.

Blogger samcarter806 May 21, 2020 8:30 PM  

Wow! this is Amazing! Do you know your hidden name meaning :D I just found out my name meaning from this website, what is your name meaning xD

Blogger Jose Miguel May 22, 2020 2:21 PM  

All hail Pope Wgmeishied! For He understands all!

All hail Philosopher Akulkis, for only he Logicith right!

Where do I sign up for your cults?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 23, 2020 3:37 AM  

You aren't worthy, Jose. Go crack open a dictionary.

Blogger pedrosuarez42069 May 23, 2020 10:49 PM  

Wow! this is Amazing! Do you know your hidden name meaning ? Scratch here to find your hidden name meaning …████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts