Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: parentsfortruth on December 07, 2010, 03:58:46 PM
-
Saint Thomas More regarding Martin Luther:
"Luther is a person in whose pen there is nothing but calumnies, lies and deceptions; in whose spirit there is nothing but venom, bombast and ill will; who conceives nothing in his mind but folly, madness, and insanity; who has nothing in his mouth but privies, filth and dung .... But if he proceeds to play the buffoon in the manner in which he has begun, and to rave madly, if he proceeds to rage with calumny, to mouth trifling nonsense, to act like a raging madman, to make sport with buffoonery, and to carry nothing in his mouth but bilge-water, sewers, privies, filth and dung, then let others do what they will; we will take timely counsel, whether we wish to deal with the fellow thus ranting according to his virtue and to paint with his colors, or to leave this mad friarlet and privy-minded rascal with his ragings and ravings, with his filth and dung, shitting and beshitted."
:laugh1: :laugh2: :roll-laugh2: :roll-laugh1: :applause: :shocked: :pop:
-
I was looking forward to this post that you mentioned elsewhere. I just looked this up, very interesting. One correction though, it is Saint Thomas More not Saint Thomas Aquinas.
-
:facepalm:
Yes, you are right!!! SORRY!
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
:plant:
-
:laugh1: Thomas, whatever... :laugh1:
but colorful manner of speaking he had!
(seriously thanks for the quotes)
-
I think the great St. Thomas More chewing out the arch-heretic and Satan's own son, Martin Luther, is on a whole different level than a poster on a Catholic Internet forum flinging around profanity at another poster over a disagreement on economics or canon law.
Or are St. Paul's comments to the Ephesians not to be taken seriously?
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: [4] Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. [5] For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
from http://drbo.org/chapter/56005.htm
-
Mere vulgarity and actual obscenity are TWO things -- thus, two different words. Profanity is using a sacred word (the Holy Name of Jesus, for example) in a way that is...PROFANE :)
Take all admonitions from God and His Saints seriously; just make sure they apply to the issue at hand.
-
I think the great St. Thomas More chewing out the arch-heretic and Satan's own son, Martin Luther, is on a whole different level than a poster on a Catholic Internet forum flinging around profanity at another poster over a disagreement on economics or canon law.
Or are St. Paul's comments to the Ephesians not to be taken seriously?
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: [4] Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. [5] For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
from http://drbo.org/chapter/56005.htm
There had been rending of garments in the St. Mary's Kansas thread, due to my earthy description of someone.
The irony is that I think you may have also used this term, but in your case there was no rending of garments.
-
I think the great St. Thomas More chewing out the arch-heretic and Satan's own son, Martin Luther, is on a whole different level than a poster on a Catholic Internet forum flinging around profanity at another poster over a disagreement on economics or canon law.
Or are St. Paul's comments to the Ephesians not to be taken seriously?
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: [4] Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. [5] For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
from http://drbo.org/chapter/56005.htm
There had been rending of garments in the St. Mary's Kansas thread, due to my earthy description of someone.
The irony is that I think you may have also used this term, but in your case there was no rending of garments.
To tell you the truth, I dont know why there was such a fuss. I consider it a descriptive term, not necessarily an insult. I mean why not mark the term 'lowlife' as an insult? It's why Im not afraid to use the N* word, (ironically Im usually referring to middle-class white suburbanites when I use it, not blacks). Trash is trash and scuм is scuм... there shouldnt be any dispute about it. But if we're going to call eachother bastards or #/#'s, then that's another matter.
-
Bumping for the sake of arguing the sinful/non-sinful nature of vulgarity.
Discuss if you are so inclined.
(http://4mchan.org/Forum/Smileys/4M/Marvfinal.gif)
-
Saints are not sinless, so quoting St. Thomas does not mean his speech was not sinful. That being said, using vulgar terms are usually only venial sins. That does not mean that they are proper for civil conversation. Our society has degraded to the point that swearing is considered manly. Women also take pride in their vulgar speech.
If you are in a bar, I think the offense is less. If you are in mixed company or on a forum accessible to children, I believe vulgar speech is both uncalled for and inappropriate.
References to impurity are more serious. Since they can bring to mind in the reader/hearer things that lead to impure thoughts.
With respect to the language used on hear, I viewed the vulgarities as indicative of immaturity. I think the more serious offense was the references to porn and porn actors.
-
While you are welcome to your opinion about the sinfulness of vulgarity, in and of itself, your opinion is both wrong and at variance with what moral theologians have said on the matter. I do not offer that as a defense or excuse, but because it is the truth. Cheerio :)
-
Saints are not sinless, so quoting St. Thomas does not mean his speech was not sinful. That being said, using vulgar terms are usually only venial sins. That does not mean that they are proper for civil conversation.
Venial sins are NEVER proper in any situation, regardless of the audience and setting. I think you need to do some research on this question as you appear to be giving us your entirely uniformed opinion.
-
Saints are not sinless, so quoting St. Thomas does not mean his speech was not sinful. That being said, using vulgar terms are usually only venial sins. That does not mean that they are proper for civil conversation.
Venial sins are NEVER proper in any situation, regardless of the audience and setting. I think you need to do some research on this question as you appear to be giving us your entirely uniformed opinion.
The operative term was "usually."
-
That changes nothing, Ignorant One, as the use of vulgarity, in and of itself, is "USUALLY"...
no sin at all. Does this compute?
Look, this is not a big deal, but you are just wrong. It happens to all of us from time to time...
-
With all due respect, I do not consider you the authority on moral theology. When I get a chance, I will check a source I trust. If I am wrong, I will correct myself.
Notwithstanding, Mr. SJB, the catechism teacher, was commenting on venial sins. He twisted my statement to imply I advocate venial sins. I was simply correcting him on his error in comprehension.
-
Ignorant One
You may think you are clever with your speech. However, to some it comes off as juvenile. I could come up with clever names for you, but at my age it would reflect badly upon myself.
Am I offended, not in the least. Call me any name you want, it really means nothing to me.
-
Mere vulgarity and actual obscenity are TWO things -- thus, two different words. Profanity is using a sacred word (the Holy Name of Jesus, for example) in a way that is...PROFANE :)
Take all admonitions from God and His Saints seriously; just make sure they apply to the issue at hand.
An old expression applies here......."If the shoe fits, WEAR it! :dancing:
-
He twisted my statement to imply I advocate venial sins.
No he didn't. As for calling you ignorant, I only did so because you are -- at least on the point of the sinful nature of vulgarity, in se.
-
Mere vulgarity and actual obscenity are TWO things -- thus, two different words. Profanity is using a sacred word (the Holy Name of Jesus, for example) in a way that is...PROFANE :)
Take all admonitions from God and His Saints seriously; just make sure they apply to the issue at hand.
An old expression applies here......."If the shoe fits, WEAR it! :dancing:
Gee, that's funny :)
Unfortunately, I already know the facts with respect to this issue...although it seems you do not. No biggie...
If you have anything of substance to contribute, I encourage you to do so.
-
Oh sh-- I forgot what I was going to say. Forget about it.
-
gunfighter said: "I could come up with clever names for you, but at my age it would reflect badly upon myself."
However, you seem to have no qualms speaking about things of which you are ignorant. :scratchchin: Strange hang-ups you have, gunslinger...
-
Sorry about that. Ofcourse we should consider the audience before we speak. God hears everything!
-
From Hell (p.170), by T.A. Nelson:
"Vulgarity is the use of gross, impolite, or socially unacceptable terms or expressions or terms and includes the words 'damn' and 'Hell'... "
and, it continues...
"Vulgarity is considered by Catholic theologians to be...NO SIN AT ALL..."
[Emphasis mine - g_v]
-
Saints are not sinless, so quoting St. Thomas does not mean his speech was not sinful. That being said, using vulgar terms are usually only venial sins. That does not mean that they are proper for civil conversation.
Venial sins are NEVER proper in any situation, regardless of the audience and setting. I think you need to do some research on this question as you appear to be giving us your entirely uniformed opinion.
The operative term was "usually."
It sounds like you think vulgarity is ALWAYS a sin, just not always mortal, usually only a small sin, venial. My point was if vulgarity was always at least a venial sin, it could NEVER be justified under any circuмstances.
-
Saints are not sinless, so quoting St. Thomas does not mean his speech was not sinful. That being said, using vulgar terms are usually only venial sins. That does not mean that they are proper for civil conversation.
Venial sins are NEVER proper in any situation, regardless of the audience and setting. I think you need to do some research on this question as you appear to be giving us your entirely uniformed opinion.
The operative term was "usually."
It sounds like you think vulgarity is ALWAYS a sin, just not always mortal, usually only a small sin, venial. My point was if vulgarity was always at least a venial sin, it could NEVER be justified under any circuмstances.
Regardless of what it sounds like to you, it is not what I wrote or meant.
-
Saints are not sinless, so quoting St. Thomas does not mean his speech was not sinful. That being said, using vulgar terms are usually only venial sins. That does not mean that they are proper for civil conversation.
Venial sins are NEVER proper in any situation, regardless of the audience and setting. I think you need to do some research on this question as you appear to be giving us your entirely uniformed opinion.
The operative term was "usually."
It sounds like you think vulgarity is ALWAYS a sin, just not always mortal, usually only a small sin, venial. My point was if vulgarity was always at least a venial sin, it could NEVER be justified under any circuмstances.
Regardless of what it sounds like to you, it is not what I wrote or meant.
Then at least you agree it is not always sinful.
-
gunfighter said: "I could come up with clever names for you, but at my age it would reflect badly upon myself."
However, you seem to have no qualms speaking about things of which you are ignorant. :scratchchin: Strange hang-ups you have, gunslinger...
Eamon, I doubt if you would be so insulting in person. Most internet tough guys like you are cowards. It is much easier to write than fight. Most look like this guy, is this you(see no AK so it is not a cheap shot)?
(http://www.amdgadvisors.com/j3.jpg)
-
Eamon, I doubt if you would be so insulting in person.
As I have already said, I think we'd probably get along quite well in person. FWIW, pointing out that you are wrong on this point -- which is as clear as day, as is your avoidance of this fact -- is not meant as an insult.
Most internet tough guys like you are cowards.
You may be right, but that is not really ad rem, is it? [BTW, isn't your comment kind of 'Internet-Tough-Guy-ish'? Should we presume, therefore, that you are really a very chunky monkey with no actual courage? I, for one, would not do so...]
It is much easier to write than fight. Most look like this guy, is this you?
Nope...6'3", 200, strong as a bull, although not presently in THE best shape of my life. Still, you may rest assured I am no donut-loving Michelin Man :)
-
GV,
Glad to see you are still spreading your humility world-wide. :cool:
Is it me or does GV tend to get in knock down drag-outs with just about everyone?
Gladius v. Tele
Gladius v. gunfighter
Gladius v. Caminus
Gladius v. Me
Gladius vs. Random first time poster
We should start a subforum called "Gladius vs. _____".
Every new poster can wander into the subforum, have GV call them out, insult them, brag about his physical prowess, and challenge them to a fight. It would be like a rite of initiation into Cath Info. If they survive they can then go on to post on other subforums. :smirk:
I'm waiting for GV to change his avatar to him shirtless with a photoshopped six pack and ammo strapped across his chest like Rambo with the caption "You wanna piece of me?"
GV, I saw your video post on here and I must say I was impressed and a bit shocked that, in person (and sober) you seem like a mild mannered very nice and reasonable gentleman. But your online persona has become something akin to the Hulk rather than your video Bruce Banner.
In any case, I pray you can tone it down a little and exorcise the demons of anger and frustration that seem to haunt you.
Godspeed, my friend! :cheers:
-
Most look like this guy, is this you(see no AK so it is not a cheap shot)?
Well, it could easily be construed as a different cheap shot, no? Some might even (mis?)construe it as "juvenile banter"? FWIW, you seem to be admitting that your AK comments WERE cheap shots, not that a few cheaps shots here and there is a big deal to me. The whole thing is so wild that we ought, IMO, to have a little fun with it, even if the fun is sometimes at my expense (so to speak).
Have a peaceful and profitable weekend, gunslinger :cowboy:
-
Is it me or does GV tend to get in knock down drag-outs with just about everyone?
gunslinger and I are not even having any kind of "knock down, drag out" exchange. As for this...
Every new poster can wander into the subforum, have GV call them out, insult them, brag about his physical prowess, and challenge them to a fight.
I don't recall gunslinger and I talking about having an actual fight. We are just on different sides of some issues. I only told him my height and weight because he posted a photo of a mega-chunkster and asked if/implied that I look like that, too. I simply answered his question.
I saw your video post on here and I must say I was impressed and a bit shocked that, in person (and sober) you seem like a mild mannered very nice and reasonable gentleman.
LOL! Thanks :)
Godspeed, my friend! :cheers:
Same to you, stevie :)
-
Eamon, I doubt if you would be so insulting in person.
As I have already said, I think we'd probably get along quite well in person. FWIW, pointing out that you are wrong on this point -- which is as clear as day, as is your avoidance of this fact -- is not meant as an insult.
Most internet tough guys like you are cowards.
You may be right, but that is not really ad rem, is it? [BTW, isn't your comment kind of 'Internet-Tough-Guy-ish'? Should we presume, therefore, that you are really a very chunky monkey with no actual courage? I, for one, would not do so...]
It is much easier to write than fight. Most look like this guy, is this you?
Nope...6'3", 200, strong as a bull, although not presently in THE best shape of my life. Still, you may rest assured I am no donut-loving Michelin Man :)
Most of you McThis and McThat comments could be viewed as insults.
Chunky may not be a bad description of me. Of course, size is not an indication of fighting ability. However, I don't believe I have threatened to beat anyone up, or told a grandma that I handle men 100x as tough as her.
I prefer not to fight.
-
Eamon, I doubt if you would be so insulting in person.
As I have already said, I think we'd probably get along quite well in person. FWIW, pointing out that you are wrong on this point -- which is as clear as day, as is your avoidance of this fact -- is not meant as an insult.
Most internet tough guys like you are cowards.
You may be right, but that is not really ad rem, is it? [BTW, isn't your comment kind of 'Internet-Tough-Guy-ish'? Should we presume, therefore, that you are really a very chunky monkey with no actual courage? I, for one, would not do so...]
It is much easier to write than fight. Most look like this guy, is this you?
Nope...6'3", 200, strong as a bull, although not presently in THE best shape of my life. Still, you may rest assured I am no donut-loving Michelin Man :)
Most of you McThis and McThat comments could be viewed as insults.
Chunky may not be a bad description of me. Of course, size is not an indication of fighting ability. However, I don't believe I have threatened to beat anyone up, or told a grandma that I handle men 100x as tough as her.
I prefer not to fight.
Your first post here in 2009, as "skifast," suggested that us "internet tough guys" should have "beaten the crap out of" Mr. Lotarski.
-
If I were skifast, I would have been referring to defending my children. Yes, I will go to blows for them. I train to be able to defend my family. I hope I never will have to use the skills, hand to hand with weapons.
I doubt that you would find skifast or gunslinger threatening people I disagree with.
Can you ever be intellectually honest and not twist things into what they are not?
-
I don't believe I have threatened to beat anyone up, or told a grandma that I handle men 100x as tough as her.
Whom did I threaten to beat up? I am not denying that I ever did so, but I'd like the specifics with respect to your latest cheap shot from the past that has nothing to do with you. Thanks.
Telling a granny -- who had first told me she was not intimidated by me -- that I was, in so many words, far from intimidated by her means what?
[FWIW, you Do realize you are repeatedly referencing comments I made while inebriated, for which I have apologized, right?]
-
BTW, when are you going to admit that you are WRONG on the matter of the sinful nature of vulgarity?
-
I don't believe I have threatened to beat anyone up, or told a grandma that I handle men 100x as tough as her.
Whom did I threaten to beat up? I am not denying that I ever did so, but I'd like the specifics with respect to your latest cheap shot from the past that has nothing to do with you. Thanks.
Telling a granny -- who had first told me she was not intimidated by me -- that I was, in so many words, far from intimidated by her means what?
[FWIW, you Do realize you are repeatedly referencing comments I made while inebriated, for which I have apologized, right?]
Actually, I missed the apology. As I recall, you said something about mutilating the Mel Gibson guy, if he said something to your face.
Seems to me it is fair game given you penchant for throwing out insults and name calling.
-
BTW, when are you going to admit that you are WRONG on the matter of the sinful nature of vulgarity?
Believe it or not, I have many things that take priority over researching a issue that does not apply to me.
I stopped swearing when I came back to the Church. I teach my kids not to do so. Whether or not it is a sin is not relevant to me, since it is without any doubt a reflection of poor manners and uncivil behavior.
-
Believe it or not, I have many things that take priority over researching a issue that does not apply to me.
That's obvious. Sure doesn't stop you from talking about it.
-
Believe it or not, I have many things that take priority over researching a issue that does not apply to me.
That's obvious. Sure doesn't stop you from talking about it.
I think you missed the class on the virtue of charity. Maybe you should stop posting and learn how to grow in the spiritual life.
-
Believe it or not, I have many things that take priority over researching a issue that does not apply to me.
That's obvious. Sure doesn't stop you from talking about it.
I think you missed the class on the virtue of charity. Maybe you should stop posting and learn how to grow in the spiritual life.
Funny, I was thinking the same about you. Reading comprehension does not seem to be your forte, either.
-
Actually, I missed the apology.
Go look it up :)
As I recall, you said something about mutilating the Mel Gibson guy, if he said something to your face.
I did, I would. I am not a chunky skunk like you :)
Seems to me it is fair game given you penchant for throwing out insults and name calling.
I'll throw out another just for you, dumb ass... When are you going to admit, like a simple and sane man, that your take on vulgarity is WRONG???
Either you are immeasurably dumber than an enormous box of the most jagged rocks, or you just cannot admit you were WRONG about the sinful nature of vulgarity. Which is it?
-
Drinking again?
-
I'll throw out another just for you, dumb ass... When are you going to admit, like a simple and sane man, that your take on vulgarity is WRONG???
Either you are immeasurably dumber than an enormous box of the most jagged rocks, or you just cannot admit you were WRONG about the sinful nature of vulgarity. Which is it?
Ephesians Chapter 5
1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as most dear children; 2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness. 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: 4 Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. 5 For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
-
I'll throw out another just for you, dumb ass... When are you going to admit, like a simple and sane man, that your take on vulgarity is WRONG???
Either you are immeasurably dumber than an enormous box of the most jagged rocks, or you just cannot admit you were WRONG about the sinful nature of vulgarity. Which is it?
Ephesians Chapter 5
1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as most dear children; 2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness. 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: 4 Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. 5 For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Thought you didn't take the time to transcribe texts? Now quote some moral theology.
-
Cut and pasted.
Something wrong with Sacred Scripture?
-
Cut and pasted.
Something wrong with Sacred Scripture?
I cut and paste too. From moral theologians and manualists. Protestants quote scripture too, nothing wrong with it, but they often get the meaning wrong.
-
Do you have links for Moral Theology texts?
-
Do you have links for Moral Theology texts?
They are typically scanned from actual books or ebooks in PDF format.
-
Do you have links for Moral Theology texts?
His links are only exceeded by his morals.
-
Do you have links for Moral Theology texts?
His links are only exceeded by his morals.
:rolleyes:
-
I think she is less than impressed with your virtues. If you ask me, it is hard to find more humble and charitable Catholics than you and Eamon.
-
More like: It's hard to find more uncharitable Trads than SJB and Eamon. :rolleyes:
-
Cut and pasted.
Something wrong with Sacred Scripture?
I cut and paste too. From moral theologians and manualists. Protestants quote scripture too, nothing wrong with it, but they often get the meaning wrong.
From the Haydock:
Ver. 4. Nor obscenity.[2] What is here meant by this word, St. Chrysostom tells us at large in the moral exhortation after his 17th homily; to wit, jests with immodest suggestions or a double meaning, and raillery or buffoonery against the rules of good conversation, scarce made use of by any but by men of low condition and of a mean genius, which is not to the purpose of a Christian, who must give an account to God of all his words. (Witham)
Curious how you say he is wrong but Catholics of all time have never acted with such vulgarity as is displayed in this thread.
-
An astute observation if I may say so, Lord Phan.
-
Gladius sounds like Martin Luther, another great name caller and vulgar pig.
-
Cut and pasted.
Something wrong with Sacred Scripture?
I cut and paste too. From moral theologians and manualists. Protestants quote scripture too, nothing wrong with it, but they often get the meaning wrong.
From the Haydock:
Ver. 4. Nor obscenity.[2] What is here meant by this word, St. Chrysostom tells us at large in the moral exhortation after his 17th homily; to wit, jests with immodest suggestions or a double meaning, and raillery or buffoonery against the rules of good conversation, scarce made use of by any but by men of low condition and of a mean genius, which is not to the purpose of a Christian, who must give an account to God of all his words. (Witham)
Curious how you say he is wrong but Catholics of all time have never acted with such vulgarity as is displayed in this thread.
This refers to obscenity, which texts are posted in the Bp. Pivarunas thread. This deals with "foolish talking:"
-
More like: It's hard to find more uncharitable Trads than SJB and Eamon. :rolleyes:
Which remark is... the height of... charity? Just askin...
-
Cut and pasted.
Something wrong with Sacred Scripture?
I cut and paste too. From moral theologians and manualists. Protestants quote scripture too, nothing wrong with it, but they often get the meaning wrong.
From the Haydock:
Ver. 4. Nor obscenity.[2] What is here meant by this word, St. Chrysostom tells us at large in the moral exhortation after his 17th homily; to wit, jests with immodest suggestions or a double meaning, and raillery or buffoonery against the rules of good conversation, scarce made use of by any but by men of low condition and of a mean genius, which is not to the purpose of a Christian, who must give an account to God of all his words. (Witham)
Curious how you say he is wrong but Catholics of all time have never acted with such vulgarity as is displayed in this thread.
This refers to obscenity, which texts are posted in the Bp. Pivarunas thread. This deals with "foolish talking:"
I saw no posts in that thread regarding obscenities, The post you have here has nothing to do with what was said at all. You would do well to stop misinterpriting texts you do it often.
Are you suggesting that the Doctor of the Church St. John Chrysostom was wrong?
-
FYI, no one is promoting vulgarity... we are just hoping to educate those who are presently ignorant as to its intrinsic sinfulness. Thanks :)
-
Cut and pasted.
Something wrong with Sacred Scripture?
I cut and paste too. From moral theologians and manualists. Protestants quote scripture too, nothing wrong with it, but they often get the meaning wrong.
From the Haydock:
Ver. 4. Nor obscenity.[2] What is here meant by this word, St. Chrysostom tells us at large in the moral exhortation after his 17th homily; to wit, jests with immodest suggestions or a double meaning, and raillery or buffoonery against the rules of good conversation, scarce made use of by any but by men of low condition and of a mean genius, which is not to the purpose of a Christian, who must give an account to God of all his words. (Witham)
Curious how you say he is wrong but Catholics of all time have never acted with such vulgarity as is displayed in this thread.
This refers to obscenity, which texts are posted in the Bp. Pivarunas thread. This deals with "foolish talking:"
I saw no posts in that thread regarding obscenities, The post you have here has nothing to do with what was said at all. You would do well to stop misinterpriting texts you do it often.
Are you suggesting that the Doctor of the Church St. John Chrysostom was wrong?
No, I'm suggesting you are not understanding the difference between obscene speech and vulgar speech.
buffoonery, foolish talking.
Here is obscene speech:
-
I am suggesting you are not even reading what you post, that book you quoted just stated that it IS A SIN to use vulgar speech and obsecities and bad language. Re-Read it. Read 3 times if you must.
-
I am suggesting you are not even reading what you post, that book you quoted just stated that it IS A SIN to use vulgar speech and obsecities and bad language. Re-Read it. Read 3 times if you must.
The section quoted ONLY deals with obscenity. It isn't speaking about anything else.
-
Gladius sounds like Martin Luther, another great name caller and vulgar pig.
Trads are...so eff-ing stupid... [and you, dear Ass Wipe, do realize that you did, in effect and without ANY doubt, call ME a name...i.e. Martin Luther???!!!??? I sure as hell hope you, despite your notable mental deficiencies, can grasp that, or else your brain needs a wee bit o transplantin! LOL! -- Seriously, cool your pathetic heels, as I have been called that and much, much worse, and I respect the rights of my (oft-ignorant) adversarii to do so, even though they never seem to respect mine... odd that..LOL!!! ] ... Sorry if I didn't go gentle on someone who clearly intended to go oh-so-gentle upon me... FWIW, my tongue and my mind are ten times as sharp as your own... Be nice, and I shall be nicer than you can imagine... Be an ass and I will annihilate you and your half-assed 'fierceness'... and you shall be left to whimper like a 'charitable chump' in a pool of your own piss...
Jesus, known at the time as only a man, called men (with notable authority, BTW) VIPERS, as did St. John Baptist... God, more times than we could count, calls men names... and rightfully so.. WHO EFF-ING CARES... provided the names apply???
Hold your breath...gather your limited brain power and process this...
I do not ask ANYONE to applaud what I have said or done, recently or within the last almost-three years while hammering some of the most perverted clerics in history... or EVER... but please...
SPARE ME your HOLLOW, embarrassingly-IRRATIONAL BULLSH*T about the intrinsically-sinful nature of "name-calling" and vulgarity! You make it plain that you don't even know sh*t-from-shinoal where Holy Church's own teachings are concerned...
I know it flows from some kind of imbalanced, perverted Victorian-drawing-room, externalized-religion kind of thing... which is understandable but also exactly like the Pharisees... whose external observance was lacking in nothing, but who wouldn't have known the spirit if it kicked their own teeth through their skulls...
Somehow, I know this endless nonsense will... go ON...
-
OOOOO, poor Eamon. The drunk dropout is mad. Lighten up Francis. Live with the fact that very few people believe your lies, nor care about your opinion.
-
OOOOOOO, poor, factl-less shit-sack...so few people, in fact, that your pathetic ass is here almost three years after the dramas began...and the threads I/ve started have WELL over 250K views... go suck your own worthless toe...
FWIW, I love how your uninformed arse pretends to know that I was...
a. a drunk... and...
b. a dropout...
If you'd care to come meet me face to face, perhaps you'd obtain a more...concrete bit of info...
-
Gladius, you're making a fool of yourself.
-
OOOOOOO, poor, factl-less ####-sack...so few people, in fact, that your pathetic ass is here almost three years after the dramas began...and the threads I/ve started have WELL over 250K views... go suck your own worthless toe...
FWIW, I love how your uninformed arse pretends to know that I was...
a. a drunk... and...
b. a dropout...
If you'd care to come meet me face to face, perhaps you'd obtain a more...concrete bit of info...
According to your own posts, we know your are a drunk.
If you did not drop out, your were thrown out. In charity, I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
No problem meeting face to face. Send me a PM and come and see me.