Dawn seems to think that one must be 100% correct about everything or they are 100% wrong about everything.  The proof of Dawn and Raoul's reign of  terror is all over this board, but if anyone calls them on it, they are in the wrong.  The proof is in Caminus' corner this time.  And right and truth trump self righteousness every time.  If I believe Caminus has the right in this (and I do) it is because I was treated the same way.

I have always understood that  a public sin demands a public penance.  

I have said that very thing for a long time. It is just that easy and clear. It is either black or white no shades of gray. It is either of Christ or it is not.

And, now so you know you are on ignore.

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in praelio. Contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur. Tuque princeps militiae caelestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo divina virtute in infernum detrude. Amen.

Mgr Gaume, Credo or The Refuge of a Christian, 1890, pg. 18 --

In an age when the sophist is king, reasoning no longer has any worth, or very little.  With a scalpel in one hand, his candle-snuffer in another, here comes the sophist to attack the most solid of your arguments.  He obscures them, dissects them, denatures them, hides from them, and he ends by delivering them to the mocking laughter of the crowd, the ignorant and the lettered.

My one question is, how did Mgr. Gaume meet Caminus way back in 1890?  Did he have a time-machine?  Remember Caminus is the one who sees no heresy in the Joint Declaration on Justification.  And when cornered, he just says "I don't find the Dimonds' arguments convincing."  

That is what it always comes down to with these pseudo-intellectuals who bend over backwards to defend HERETICS and DESTROYERS of Holy Mother Church.  Whatever you say as a sede is emotional or extreme.  They paint themselves as reasonable and patient and following theological strictures.  But whenever you make a point based on clear facts, they just say "I'm not convinced."  All their supposed intellect falls apart, and they are reduced to an immature four-year old brat sticking his fingers in his ears and going "I can't hear you, na na na."

I'm sure there is a name for this junk they do -- is it Alinsky?  Some kind of psychological technique.  One day the world will wake up to your SOPHISTRY, though, because that's all it is, built on thin air, trying to scare people not only away from true theology, but away from common sense, freezing the resistance and pumping blood into this abomination they've set up in Rome.  

I pity you when you meet God with your mingy, pitiful distinctions that oftentimes really are none, Caminus.  Because while you may fool some people here, God, who is truth, knows very well that there is a difference between DISTINGUISHING, and DEFORMING, DENATURING, OBSCURING and, with the most shameless bad faith, EVADING the arguments of others, like you have evaded all of Cecilia's points in this thread, reduced to the lamest of defenses:  "Women should take care of hearth and home, don't worry your pretty little head."  

Are you going to trade going to heaven just so, in your own mind, you can continue to be right, even though secretly you must know you're not?  Or are you going to be a man and show some humility?  Don't miss out on eternity with God just because you don't want to give ground to a stranger on the Internet.  Because while I don't say you're a heretic, necessarily, you are so deep into downplaying and downgrading heresy and trying to make it seem harmless, that you might as well be, O king of BAD FAITH.

Thank you for your prayers PartyisOver 221. They are much needed.

Mgr Gaume, Credo or The Refuge of a Christian, 1890, pg. 18 --

Quote

In an age when the sophist is king, reasoning no longer has any worth, or very little.  With a scalpel in one hand, his candle-snuffer in another, here comes the sophist to attack the most solid of your arguments.  He obscures them, dissects them, denatures them, hides from them, and he ends by delivering them to the mocking laughter of the crowd, the ignorant and the lettered.

My one question is, how did Mgr. Gaume meet Caminus way back in 1890?  Did he have a time-machine?  Remember Caminus is the one who sees no heresy in the Joint Declaration on Justification.  And when cornered, he just says "I don't find the Dimonds' arguments convincing."  

That is what it always comes down to with these pseudo-intellectuals who bend over backwards to defend HERETICS and DESTROYERS of Holy Mother Church.  Whatever you say as a sede is emotional or extreme.  They paint themselves as reasonable and patient and following theological strictures.  But whenever you make a point based on clear facts, they just say "I'm not convinced."  All their supposed intellect falls apart, and they are reduced to an immature four-year old brat sticking his fingers in his ears and going "I can't hear you, na na na."

I'm sure there is a name for this junk they do -- is it Alinsky?  Some kind of psychological technique.  One day the world will wake up to your SOPHISTRY, though, because that's all it is, built on thin air, trying to scare people not only away from true theology, but away from common sense, freezing the resistance and pumping blood into this abomination they've set up in Rome.  

I pity you when you meet God with your mingy, pitiful distinctions that oftentimes really are none, Caminus.  Because while you may fool some people here, God, who is truth, knows very well that there is a difference between DISTINGUISHING, and DEFORMING, DENATURING, OBSCURING and, with the most shameless bad faith, EVADING the arguments of others, like you have evaded all of Cecilia's points in this thread, reduced to the lamest of defenses:  "Women should take care of hearth and home, don't worry your pretty little head."  

Are you going to trade going to heaven just so, in your own mind, you can continue to be right, even though secretly you must know you're not?  Or are you going to be a man and show some humility?  Don't miss out on eternity with God just because you don't want to give ground to a stranger on the Internet.  Because while I don't say you're a heretic, necessarily, you are so deep into downplaying and downgrading heresy and trying to make it seem harmless, that you might as well be, O king of BAD FAITH.

This is typical and not to mention ironic considering that you haven't been able to produce even one example of sophistry.  Do you even know what sophistry is?  My words my denature and obscure your opinions and the foundation thereof, but in doing so they help reveal the truth which exists outside of you.  Thus the violent reaction to what I write.  In this you bear relation to the Modernist who identifies revelation and the sources of truth with the subjective experience of man.    

It is the mark of a fanatic who threatens eternal condemnation to any who does not adhere to his opinions.  The Devil has so stirred his mind as to make him mistake his opinions for revelation, that an afront to his opining is like an affront to God Himself.  

I'm not even sure why I am responding, considering that anyone who crosses you is to be considered a secret agent attempting to scare you from your opinions.  The mere suggestion that you've erred is met with accusations of psychological manipulation.  Refusal to acquiesce your will is interpreted as having a bad will.

Nothing you say has any foundation in theology or philosophy or even basic logic.  You simply hide behind your emotional devices in the hope that all challenges will be silenced.  Oddly enough, you have this in common with the Sophist who does not address the essence of things, but rather endless accidental phenomenon.