Author Topic: Exposed and Refuted: The Dimond Brothers believe they are the Two Witnesses  (Read 5490 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18340
  • Reputation: +10171/-4821
  • Gender: Male
Re: Exposed and Refuted: The Dimond Brothers believe they are the Two Witnesses
« Reply #60 on: February 22, 2018, 09:16:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wrong.
    Pius XI is clearly referring to Continence as a means of regulating birth. That's precisely why he mentions this in the very sentence in which he is referring to methods of regulating offspring. As he say, anything that deliberately frustrates the marriage act (such as condoms) is forbidden - but virtuous continence, as a method of regulating offspring, is allowed. Again, the whole point of his statement is to draw the line between what is permitted in the regulation of offspring, and what is forbidden.

    Keep trying to justify your own conscience with false arguments.

    You continue to ignore the notion of VIRTUOUS continence.  And you ignore the passages in Casti Conubii that condemn the subordination of ends.

    Offline Dorothy

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 7
    • Reputation: +1/-6
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • The issue is not to enjoy the act of marriage while intentionally avoiding conception. The method of doing this is irrelevant. The sin is in the will, not in the pill. 

     If one is abstaining, one is not enjoying the act. 

     Also, a couple may NOT decide on the number of children before marriage vows as that decision will invalidate their marriage, even if they say, "We will practice virtuous continence after X amount of children." The size of the family must be left up to God at the time of the vow. Most priests do NOT know this. I was not told it during my marriage counseling (over 30 years ago) and no priest I know knows of this. I found it in an old marriage tribunal book. There have been many legitimate annulments granted by past popes on this issue. If, after the vow, there is a problem with the woman's health, or for the case of eugenics or other issues, the couple finds it necessary to NOT have another child, then Castii Conubi allows them to then consider abstinence as a means of avoiding pregnancy. But, it NEVER mentions any sort of indulging in the act while avoiding pregnancy. 

    The same is for a woman or man who is known to be infertile. If this knowledge is acquired before the marriage vow, then the marriage is invalid. If, after the vows, the couple finds out that one or the other is infertile, this does not invalidate the marriage. 



    Offline Dorothy

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 7
    • Reputation: +1/-6
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • This thread turned from Witnesses to birth control. 

    1. The Dimonds do not claim to be infallible (that I know of). All of their prophecy stuff could be wrong and they could still be right on BOD, Outside the Church, NFP and Sede-vacantism. I have not read any credible refutation on their positions on these issues of faith. In fact, they don't have opinions on these issues, they just quote cannon law, the popes and the saints. They are spot-on and any refutation always ends up being lame and rather easy to poke (massive) holes in. 

    2. And, what if the Dimonds really ARE the Witnesses? Or, what if they actually do say they are (which I have yet to see in any of this supposed "expose"). How does that invalidate all of the dogma and doctrine they have unearthed for the rest of us? This entire point is irrelevant to the questions of faith which are the most urgent in our day. I am not going to save or lose my immortal soul on the question as to whether the Dimonds are the Witnesses. But, I WILL save or lose my soul on the question of possessing the true faith. So for that, THANK YOU DIMOND BROTHERS! If it weren't for them, my whole family would still be "home alone." 

    3. It appears to me that people don't LIKE the Dimonds personally, not that the Dimonds are preaching error in the matters of faith or morals. If they are preaching error, I sure can't find any (and no one else I have read can either). 

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +153/-220
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The same is for a woman or man who is known to be infertile. If this knowledge is acquired before the marriage vow, then the marriage is invalid. If, after the vows, the couple finds out that one or the other is infertile, this does not invalidate the marriage.
    I don't know where you got the above, but it's wrong. The infertile elderly can validly marry.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4778
    • Reputation: +2829/-1298
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    And, what if the Dimonds really ARE the Witnesses? 
    They are not the witnesses for 2 important reasons.

    1.  They claimed that JPII was the anti-christ which means that they should've been killed and resurrected during his papacy.  That obviously didn't happen.  

    2.  Most of the Church Fathers say that the witnesses are Enoch and Elijah.


    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1532
    • Reputation: +617/-928
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • They are not the witnesses for 2 important reasons.

    1.  They claimed that JPII was the anti-christ which means that they should've been killed and resurrected during his papacy.  That obviously didn't happen.  

    2.  Most of the Church Fathers say that the witnesses are Enoch and Elijah.
    Yeah I really don't understand how they still to this day say JPII was the anti-Christ even though he's dead and gone. Doesn't the anti-Christ have to be alive for the Second Coming?

    Offline Mega-fin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 371
    • Reputation: +247/-96
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yeah I really don't understand how they still to this day say JPII was the anti-Christ even though he's dead and gone. Doesn't the anti-Christ have to be alive for the Second Coming?
    The anti-Christ is also to be killed by the breathe of Our Lords mouth, and slowly dying of Parkinson’s sounds like it might be a smidge less dramatic and explosive as the former mentioned event ... explain that, Dimonds.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16