help wanted: Catholic apologists
#31
(01-23-2012, 06:55 PM)dahveed Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 10:58 PM)McNider Wrote: I never watched the whole Hitchens/Fry debate because basically they were permitted to lie, yet nobody ever called them on it. Fry's entire opening about St. Thomas More and people being executed because they had Bibles in English was ridiculous.
This

I'm certainly a rank amateur here, but I can't help but think of two, aside from St. Thomas Aquinas, for my dream team, at least among the living: Cardinal Burke, and Robert Sungenis. Either way, you're right, McNider. It does not seem that the debate was a proper one, in the regard.
that particular debate was a complete setup with an audience stacked with antireligionists and liberal cranks and effete elites.
Reply
#32
(01-23-2012, 08:14 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 06:55 PM)dahveed Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 10:58 PM)McNider Wrote: I never watched the whole Hitchens/Fry debate because basically they were permitted to lie, yet nobody ever called them on it. Fry's entire opening about St. Thomas More and people being executed because they had Bibles in English was ridiculous.
This

I'm certainly a rank amateur here, but I can't help but think of two, aside from St. Thomas Aquinas, for my dream team, at least among the living: Cardinal Burke, and Robert Sungenis. Either way, you're right, McNider. It does not seem that the debate was a proper one, in the regard.
that particular debate was a complete setup with an audience stacked with antireligionists and liberal cranks and effete elites.

Greetings voxxpopulisuxx,

I agree. When the audience is already a group prejudiced against the Catholic Church, a reasonable argument means nothing. They will still hate the Catholic Church and claim their side 'won' regardless.

Blessings,

TraditionalistThomas.
Reply
#33
(01-23-2012, 10:24 PM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 08:14 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 06:55 PM)dahveed Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 10:58 PM)McNider Wrote: I never watched the whole Hitchens/Fry debate because basically they were permitted to lie, yet nobody ever called them on it. Fry's entire opening about St. Thomas More and people being executed because they had Bibles in English was ridiculous.
This

I'm certainly a rank amateur here, but I can't help but think of two, aside from St. Thomas Aquinas, for my dream team, at least among the living: Cardinal Burke, and Robert Sungenis. Either way, you're right, McNider. It does not seem that the debate was a proper one, in the regard.
Why .....greetings to you as well fine sir!  :tiphat:
that particular debate was a complete setup with an audience stacked with antireligionists and liberal cranks and effete elites.

Greetings voxxpopulisuxx,

I agree. When the audience is already a group prejudiced against the Catholic Church, a reasonable argument means nothing. They will still hate the Catholic Church and claim their side 'won' regardless.

Blessings,

TraditionalistThomas.
Reply
#34
(01-23-2012, 10:24 PM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 08:14 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 06:55 PM)dahveed Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 10:58 PM)McNider Wrote: I never watched the whole Hitchens/Fry debate because basically they were permitted to lie, yet nobody ever called them on it. Fry's entire opening about St. Thomas More and people being executed because they had Bibles in English was ridiculous.
This

I'm certainly a rank amateur here, but I can't help but think of two, aside from St. Thomas Aquinas, for my dream team, at least among the living: Cardinal Burke, and Robert Sungenis. Either way, you're right, McNider. It does not seem that the debate was a proper one, in the regard.
that particular debate was a complete setup with an audience stacked with antireligionists and liberal cranks and effete elites.

Greetings voxxpopulisuxx,

I agree. When the audience is already a group prejudiced against the Catholic Church, a reasonable argument means nothing. They will still hate the Catholic Church and claim their side 'won' regardless.

Blessings,

TraditionalistThomas.

Its basically Cgraye's avatar. A trap.
Reply
#35
(01-22-2012, 04:49 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Also a Cardinal debating a sodomite? Really?  ???

I can't say I would even have agreed to the debate
How do you know what Fry does in bed?
Reply
#36
(01-22-2012, 04:12 PM)Warrenton Wrote: Not having listened to the remainder, I am on shaky ground, but if it followed the course of the beginning, the problem, quite clearly, is that the Church's defense was tepid.   Any institution that stand against Satan should be easy to identify as a force for good.  The audience of modern day Englishmen may not believe in Satan, but they know his works.  Satan is behind the nuclear weapons that threaten to kill everyone.  The largest atheist and agnostic states pour billions into their perfection.  Who stands against?  The Church.  Satan is behind an economic system that impoverishes millions worldwide and wastes the resources of all for the enrichment of the few.  Even "welfare" states like the US do nothing when millions are turned out of their homes because the banks want the property back.  Who stands for the millions?  The Church.  The states do nothing while millions of women and girls are degraded in every possible way to feed the sexual appetites of the many.  The states claim the inability to act, in the name of freedom.  Who stands for the women?  The Church.

Who stands for the altar boys? Not the Church, so this train of thought is unfortunately doomed to crash and burn. Just sayin'.


I can think of all sorts of defenses for the Church as a force for good in the past. (I'm sure most of you have heard of Thomas Woods' book How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization). But no, I don't believe the institutional Church as a whole is a force for good today. If it were, then FishEaters wouldn't have much of a reason for existing, now would it?
Reply
#37
(01-24-2012, 08:59 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 04:49 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Also a Cardinal debating a sodomite? Really?  ???

I can't say I would even have agreed to the debate
How do you know what Fry does in bed?

It can be used as a more general term for a gay person of his ilk i.e a rather militant and proud one, but frankly because he tells the whole world...
Reply
#38
Even Hitchens recognizes the loss of the "Latin" Mass was blow to the Church.(about 6 mins in)

Reply
#39
(01-24-2012, 09:15 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Who stands for the altar boys? Not the Church, so this train of thought is unfortunately doomed to crash and burn. Just sayin'.

The altar boys are in interesting study.  There are several grounds upon which to defend, but one must force the accuser to state the precise basis for the accusation.  If it the accusation is merely institutional, the fact of payments in the hundreds of millions is a pretty strong argument for responsibility.  In contrast, America's public schools have loads of abuse cases, both sexual and physical, which in total dwarft the number of altar boy cases.  In general, the schools refuse to pay, relying on a number of institutional defenses such as sovereign immunity, restrictive statutes of limitation for government related claims, and other arcane procedural bars to recovery against the state.  Hence, we have the state refusing to pay for its own sins, but actually passing special laws to make it easier to claim against the Church.  The hypocrisy is readily apparent, and demostrates that compared to the state, the Church compensates more readily the claims of the victims.  Also, the Church has in place a voluntary arbitration scheme which permits recovery outside of the courts.  The state has no such corresponding scheme.

One, of course, can approach the problem from a somewhat different perspective.  If the claim is that the Church is comprised of a bunch of homosexuals, then the accuser will have to admit that homesexuality is inherently wrong.  This is not going to happen, especially with Mr. Fry on the other side.  So they will say it is a matter of exploitation of the youth.  In order to make this claim, the accuser will have to commit to an age of consent.  Once this happens, it is easy to show how as a group, the Church is the only consistent entity supporting a the idea that unmarried people are never able to consent to sinful behavior.  While society claims to decry a 40 year old priest having sexual relations with a 17 year old altar boy, in fact, the same society encourages homosexual proms at high school, has television shows about teen homosexuals, celebrates numerous artists and performers who have used their position and money to seduce young partners; indeed, the conduct was commonplace among Senate pages, also. 
Reply
#40
(01-24-2012, 08:59 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(01-22-2012, 04:49 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Also a Cardinal debating a sodomite? Really?  ???

I can't say I would even have agreed to the debate
How do you know what Fry does in bed?
Fry himself.
http://jezebel.com/5678291/the-fallout-o...l-insights
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr...gay-rights

This guy is clearly in a lower than "gay" or "homosexual".
Due to the risk of being banned, I will not use the correct terminology that describes this man of same sex orientation (and not just orientation).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)