Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 ... 57

Author Topic: Space is fake and gαy  (Read 90346 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tradman

  • Supporter
Re: Space is fake and gαy
« Reply #230 on: August 20, 2023, 01:48:35 PM »

Don't forget it's dangerous to work for NASA. What did they know? 74 deaths in 2 years?  47 plane crashes? 

Logged

Offline Tradman

  • Supporter
Re: Space is fake and gαy
« Reply #231 on: August 20, 2023, 01:59:53 PM »

Let's see what Sungenis is up to with all this Planck stuff.

What is planck theory?  

Wiki: 



“A Planck particle, named after physicist Max Planck, is a hypothetical particle defined as a tiny black hole whose Compton wavelength is equal to its Schwarzschild radius.[1] Its mass is thus approximately the Planck mass, and its Compton wavelength and Schwarzschild radius are about the Planck length.[2] Planck particles are sometimes used as an exercise to define the Planck mass and Planck length.[3]They play a role in some models of the evolution of the universe during the Planck epoch.”
A quick search shows that this planck epoch is the very beginning of the Big Bang. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Cosmology

In cosmology



Main article: Chronology of the universe
Further information: Time-variation of fundamental constants
In Big Bang cosmology, the Planck epoch or Planck era is the earliest stage of the Big Bang, before the time passed was equal to the Planck time, tP, or approximately 10−43 seconds.[24] There is no currently available physical theory to describe such short times, and it is not clear in what sense the concept of time is meaningful for values smaller than the Planck time.


Logged

Offline Always

Re: Space is fake and gαy
« Reply #232 on: August 20, 2023, 03:06:50 PM »
Immediate Jobs openings available at:



Southern Poverty Law Center:
Film With Anti-Semitic Producer Set to Premiere Friday
Hatewatch
 
October 23, 2014
Anti-Semitic Leader Rebuked by Catholic Bishop
Hatewatch
 
August 17, 2007
Active Radical Traditional Catholicism Groups
Intelligence Report
 
March 03, 2015
Geocentrism ‘Seminar’ Hosted by Radical Traditionalist Catholics
Intelligence Report
 
February 23, 2011
12 Anti-Semitic Radical Traditionalist Catholic Groups


Intelligence Report
 
January 16, 2007

*******************************************************************************************************

Welcome to GeocentrismDebunked.org

********************************************************************************************************

Robert Sungenis and the Jєωs

Robert Sungenis and the Jєωs
A supplementary blog to www.sungenisandtheJєωs.com
FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 2016
A Summary of Robert Sungenis and the Jєωs

UPDATED JANUARY 2016

This blog was created to docuмent and provide a counter-balance to Robert Sungenis' problematic views and history related to the Jєωιѕн people, beginning in September 2006 and up to the present. The following topical directory is available to help readers more easily navigate the articles on this blog. "Labels" are also available on the right-hand side of the blog in order to locate articles that touch on various topics.
--------------------------------------------

Over the past couple of years, Robert Sungenis and some of his close associates have returned to making false accusations against his diocese and former ordinary, Bishop Kevin Rhoades. Sungenis has also subsequently published an article that violates one of his many promises to restrict himself to purely theological matters when Jєωs were involved and to maintain charity "as if the bishop were present with us."  This broken promise is merely the latest in a long line of broken promises. As a result, some articles docuмenting Sungenis's problematic views about the Jєωιѕн people and the falsehood of his accusations against his diocese and former ordinary have again been made available to the public.

Sungenis has gone to great lengths to portray his conflict with Bishop Rhoades and other Catholics as stemming from his efforts to defend the purity of Catholic doctrine in regard to the Jєωιѕн people. His claim is completely and demonstrably false.  While the most recent articles below deal with doctrinal issues, we have presented them primarily in order to illustrate that Sungenis's accusations of "heresy" against his critics (including his own bishop) have been and continue to be a canard used by him to take the focus off the actual reason he's gotten into so much hot water with his bishop and so many others:  his anti-Jєωιѕн prejudice.  This anti-Jєωιѕн prejudice was publicly expressed for over a decade on issues that have nothing to do with theology -- ranging from historical revisionism to conspiracy theories about Jєωs. However, even in regard to doctrinal issues and scriptural interpretations involving Jєωs, Sungenis has made numerous errors because his theology is tainted by his prejudice against them (for example, see here and here). He has repeatedly demonstrated that if Jєωs are involved, he is unable to maintain any semblance of fairness and objectivity.


Robert Sungenis and the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults
Was Sungenis the first and/or only one to notice a problematic sentence on page 131 of the USCCA and did he single-handedly cause the U.S. bishops to change it, as he publicly claims? Did the U.S. bishops "vindicate" Sungenis's personal views on "supersessionism," as he also publicly claims?  Was the conspiracy theory he publicly floated about the U.S. bishops true? What role did Sungenis actually play in regard to the change to the problematic sentence on page 131 of the USCCA?  Is he uniquely qualified to handle Jєωιѕн issues?  These questions and more are answered.

Sungenis's Continued Misuse of "Supersessionism"
Sungenis unfortunately continues to treat the term "Supersessionism" as if it is magisterial.  It is not of Catholic origin and appears in no magisterial texts. It's a loaded term that can and does carry very different connotations, implications and nuances.  Some versions of supersessionism are not in accord with Catholic teaching. Sungenis himself holds to a version of "supersessionism" that then Cardinal Dulles aptly characterized as "crude" and that we have characterized as "extreme." Click here and here (scroll down to "Supersessionism, Redux") for more in-depth discussion of Sungenis's problems as they pertain to supersessionism.

Is Sungenis Right About a Future Special Conversion of the Jєωιѕн People to Christ?
Short answer?  No.  In fact, contrary to Sungenis, there is widespread evidence from the Church Fathers, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Scripture, various saints, Popes and renowned scholars that there will be a future, special conversion of the Jєωιѕн people to Christ. Click here, here and here for even more evidence that Sungenis is incorrect.

Sungenis on Romans 11:  Theological Bias in Biblical Exegesis
David Palm discusses several of Sungenis's errors regarding Romans 11 and the Jєωιѕн people.

Why Sungenis is Wrong to Insist on Saying the Old Covenant is "Revoked"
Sungenis continues to insist on using a word in relation to the Old Covenant that the magisterium has never used:  revoked.  Take a look the facts and reasons why avoiding this term makes sense. You can read more here as well.

Why Sungenis is Wrong to Consider the New Covenant a Punishment of the Jєωιѕн People
Watch on as David Palm exposes Sungenis's erroneous "theology of punishment" at the Catholic Answers Forum. Click here and here for two additional posts by Palm dealing with Sungenis's fundamental error about the establishment of the New Covenant.

Why Sungenis is Wrong to Deny the Inherent Jєωιѕнness of the Catholic Church
David Palm explains how Sungenis's anti-Jєωιѕн bias leads him to flirt with multiple heresies.

Is Sungenis Right About the Identity of the "Olive Tree" and "Root" in Romans 11?
Sungenis insists that the "root" of Romans 11 is Christ alone. Unfortunately, it seems that his anti-Jєωιѕн inclinations are influencing his theology again.  There's a considerable number of Catholic witnesses who disagree with him, including the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Church Fathers, renowned Scripture scholars and even Pope Benedict XVI. And it doesn't help that he was caught cropping quotes to make Church Fathers appear to say the opposite of what they actually said.

Sungenis's Theology of Prejudice Against the Jєωιѕн People
Several examples are presented that demonstrate how Sungenis's bias against the Jєωιѕн people has adversely colored his theology:  The Conversion of the Jєωs, The Antichrist as a Jєω, The Good Friday "Demand",  Pope Benedict XVI on the Jєωs, and more.

All in the Family:  Christians, Jєωs and God
An in-depth look at what the Church has taught about our relationship with the Jєωιѕн people, and the Jєωιѕн people's continuing relationship with God. In particular, a critique of two opposing errors common in certain circles:  the dual covenant theory and extreme supersessionism. (Sungenis falls in the latter camp).

Two Narratives and 15 False Claims About Bishop Rhoades
Sungenis and his friend Rick DeLano have labored to create a false narrative about what happened between Sungenis and Bishop Rhoades and why. In the process, they have spread many false claims about His Excellency, 15 of which are exposed and corrected in this piece.

Sungenis Privately Admits He No Longer Believes Bishop Rhoades is Teaching Heresy on the Old Covenant But Continues to Publicly Accuse Him of It Regardless
Remarkably, Bob Sungenis privately admitted that he no longer believes Bishop Rhoades holds to a  heresy in regard to the Old Covenant (Bob now thinks the real problem was some other "evil man" who was the "mastermind behind the whole thing")...but that hasn't stopped him from continuing to publicly make the slanderous charge against His Excellency, regardless.

Sungenis Comes Out at the Catholic Answers Forums...to Debate David Palm
A close supporter and member of Sungenis's inner circle came out at the CAF anonymously to take a dishonest shot at an article written by RSATJ contributors, only to be confronted and corrected.  Suddenly, Bob did something he rarely does:  he made an extended, online appearance at the CAF himself.  See how Bob was repeatedly challenged by David to defend his charges and how he repeatedly failed to do so...and much more.  The entire debate/thread at the CAF is very enlightening.

Answering Sungenis's Latest "Response" on the "Bishop Rhoades Affair"
Some of Bob's latest errors and dishonesty in his 34-page response regarding his interactions with Bishop Rhoades are exposed.

Answering Sungenis on the Conversion of the Jєωs...Again
Bob's latest fundamentalist-style attempt to deny this traditional, positive Church teaching about the Jєωιѕн people is answered...again.

Contra Sungenis on Elijah and the Conversion of the Jєωs
Bob has made accusations of supposed "blunders" and "exegetical duplicity" on the part of the Church Fathers in regard to the role of Elijah in the "Conversion of the Jєωs."  But David Palm shows that it is Sungenis who has blundered and behaved impiously.

Defending Pope Benedict XVI from Sungenis's Latest Attack
Bob has again treated Pope Benedict XVI very disrespectfully because Bob remains unable (or unwilling) to read carefully and charitably when Jєωs are involved.

Rick DeLano Crafts a Conspiracy Theory (01/28/12): A detailed response to Sungenis board member Rick DeLano concerning numerous factual errors and allegations he made concerning why Bishop Rhoades told Sungenis to take the name "Catholic" off of his organization (it had nothing to do with page 131 of the USCCA or the dual covenant error).

--------------------------------------------


A History of Unjust Attacks Against Jєωs:


Timelines of Events:


The Unjust Attacks of Bob Sungenis Against His Bishop:

— Sungenis Smears Bishop, Continues to Mislead and Distort the Record (07/06/07)

— Bishop Rhoades Sets The Record Straight (02/21/08)

— By Sungenis Alone (03/29/08):


— Slandering the Bishop, Again (05/13/08)

— Bishop Rhoades and the Dual Covenant Theory (09/24/09)

— Sungenis vs. Sungenis vs. Jones (Sungenis and Jones can't seem to get their slanders of Bishop Rhoades straight)

— A Defense of Bishop Rhoades from More False Accusations by Robert Sungenis (6/25/11)

— Sungenis' Own Standards of Heresy: Why Don't They Apply to Bishop Rhoades? (6/25/11)



On Sungenis' Tainted Theology and Biblical Studies:


Has Sungenis Apologized?


Broken Promises:

Sungenis' Broken Promises to Stop Attacking Jєωs (6/25/11)



On Plagiarism:


On Fraudulent Quotations:


On Tainted Sources:


On Sungenis' "Doctorate":


Denied Imprimaturs:


On Conspiracy Theories:






Posted by RSATJ


MONDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2015
Is Sungenis Right About the "Root" in Romans 11?


Robert Sungenis has insisted that the "root" written of by St. Paul in Romans 11 must be Christ alone. In his CASB 2 (p. 149), he claimed this was "the constant teaching of the Fathers."

Here are two other examples:


Quote
This is certainly a novel interpretation. Unfortunately for Moss, it totally distorts the words of Romans 11:17-20… Moss believes that the “root” of Romans 11 is Israel, not Christ, and that as the Gentiles are saved as they are grafted into Israel. This is wrong. The root is Christ, not Israel.….It is as if Moss is saying, “You Gentiles are only saved because of us Jєωs, and in order to appreciate that fact, you should practice these Jєωιѕн rituals.”

And more recently, Sungenis wrote:
 

Quote
Paul does not say 'root of Israel.' He refers to Israel as a 'branch,' not the 'root.' One cannot be both a branch and a root, which means that someone else is the root, which is Christ...the Church does not draw nourishment from the 'root of Israel' for Israel is not the root in Paul’s analogy. Christ is the root, and Israel is merely a branch...Whatever else Benedict XVI believed about the relationship between Christians and Jєωs, he never says “Israel is the root” in Paul’s analogy.

The “Moss” that Sungenis refers to above David Moss, president of the Association of Hebrew Catholics (AHC). Sungenis seemed clearly irritated at what he perceived as David Moss’ Jєωιѕн arrogance (“You Gentiles are only saved because of us Jєωs…”). But as we'll see below, it seems to be Sungenis's long standing anti-Jєωιѕн predispositions that are coloring his interpretation of what Moss wrote.

Sungenis almost treats this passage as though the meaning of it has been dogmatically defined in the way he interprets it and thus Moss or anyone else is dangerous heretic for contradicting that interpretation. But there are two problems with this strong criticism. The first is that David Moss has never said that “the root is Israel, not Christ.” Here Bob puts words into Moss’s mouth that make the case look more ominous, more absolute. In fact, I have confirmed with Moss that he has no issue with seeing the root as Christ as well. He never intended to “deny” this possibility.  The second problem is that there is a considerable number of Catholic authorities who disagree with Sungenis's interpretation -- including, ironically, Benedict XVI.

To make matters worse, Ben Douglass, who was Sungenis's own vice president at the time, has stated that Sungenis selectively cropped quotes to make the Church Fathers appear to say the exact opposite of what they actually said about Israel as the "Olive Tree" in Romans 11. This is all docuмented in The Theologyof Prejudice, which is well worth reading.


So let's take a look at the passage in question.

In Romans 11, St. Paul writes at length about God’s relationship with the Israelite people.  In particular he focuses on understanding the fact that so many of his Jєωιѕн brethren have not accepted the promised Messiah.  Did this mean that the children of Israel were rejected by God? And what implications did this have for the Gentiles?

St. Paul then writes:


Quote
For if their (the Jєωs’) rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?  If the firstfruits are holy, so is the whole batch of dough; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

Quote
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place and have come to share in the rich root of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches.  If you do boast, consider that you do not support the root; the root supports you.  Indeed you will say, ‘Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.’ That is so.  They were broken off because of unbelief, but you are there because of faith.  So do not become haughty, but stand in awe.  For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you either.  (Rom. 11: 15-22)


So, who or what exactly is the “root” to which St. Paul refers?  Contrary to Sungenis's insistence, it would seem that a very common answer is the Patriarchs of Israel. Although, there is certainly solid evidence that “root” may also refer to Jesus Christ, the Israelite par excellence. And there is some evidence that it may also be considered to refer to Israel itself, including a statement by our current pontiff.

So what do we make of these apparent discrepancies?  I would argue that these varying interpretations reveal a deeper truth, not a contradiction.  To be grafted onto the Patriarchs of Israel, Israel itself or Jesus Christ (the Israelite par excellence) essentially amounts the same thing in the imagery St. Paul chose.  It is God’s life-giving grace that flows through the roots and trunk of the tree, grace which is mediated to the branches. In human terms, the life-giving grace of God has been mediated to men through Abraham and the Patriarchs of Israel, Israel itself and of course Jesus Christ, the Israelite par excellence, the representative head of Israel (Galatians 3).

In Scripture, Isaiah prophesied that Christ would sprout forth from the “stump of Jesse”, the father of King David (Isaiah 11:1).  Jacob/Israel and Judah are spoken of as “taking root” in Isaiah 27:6 and 37:31, respectively. The Old Testament expressly describes Israel as the olive tree itself in Jer. 11:16 and Hos 14:7 (not merely "a branch" as Sungenis insists). And Christ is clearly spoken of as the “root” in Revelation 5:5 and 22:16. God’s grace was showered upon man because of and through the faith of Abraham, and continued in this way through certain of his progeny, eventually passing through Jacob (Israel) and culminating in the Israelite par excellence, Jesus Christ.

Below are several interpretations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Church Fathers and various Catholic scripture scholars, including Benedict XVI:

1) Fr. George Leo Haydock, A Comprehensive Catholic Commentary, page 1,494.

“By the root, says St. Chysostom, he understands Abraham and the Patriarchs, from whom all the Jєωιѕн nation proceeded, as branches from that root…”


2) Moffat New Testament Commentary:  The Epistle to the Romans, page 178.

 “The ‘root’ is the patriarchs”

3) Dom Bernard Orchard, Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture 1951, page 1072 and 558, respectively:

“(St. Paul) is no renegade, and Israel…has not lost the holiness which she inherited from the Patriarchs, who are…her roots.”

“’In the days to come, Israel shall take root…’ The world’s salvation is from Israel.”

4) Fr. Richard Stack, Lectures on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, 1806, page 330:

 “By the root is meant Abraham…”

5) Fr. Charles Callan, The Epistles of St. Paul, page 184:

“The firstfruit and the root mean the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. who were holy men and faithful servants of God.”

6) Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), Many Religions- One Covenant, page 32:

“we must .. first ask what this view of the historical figure of Jesus means for the existence of those who know themselves to be grafted through him onto the 'olive tree Israel', the children of Abraham.”  [Note:  Here Benedict XVI clearly sees the Gentiles as being grafted on to Israel].

7) St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, XX, 3) Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff, pg 147:

“Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ. For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree, and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness [abundance] of the true olive tree. The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence.”

8) St. Augustine:

Sermons, XXVII, 12:

"Therefore did the Lord at once graft the wild olive into the good olive tree. He did it then when He said, 'Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.”

"So then for this reason that people did not come to Him, that is by reason of pride; and the natural branches are said to be broken off from the olive tree, that is from that people founded by the Patriarchs [Israel]."

Augustine to Faustus the Manichean, Bk 9 2:

"You say that the apostle, in leaving Judaism, passed from the bitter to the sweet. But the apostle himself says that the Jєωs, who would not believe in Christ, were branches broken off, and that the Gentiles, a wild olive tree, were grafted into the good olive, that is, the holy stock of the Hebrews, that they might partake of the fatness of the olive."


9) The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#755):

"The Church is a cultivated field, the tillage of God. On that land the ancient olive tree grows whose holy roots were the prophets."

10) Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Romans), Bray (Editor), p 293:

a) Diodore:  “First fruits and root both refer her to the patriarchs, the lawgiver and the prophets.”

b) Pseudo-Constantius: “The root refers to Abraham…”

c) Theodore of Mopsuestia: “by root he means, Abraham…”

d) Theodoret of Cyr;  “the root is Abraham…”

e) Pelagius: “Do not rejoice in the fall of the Jєωs…you do not supply them with life, but they supply you.”  [Here Pelagius seems to see Israel, or the Jєωs, as the root that mediates God’s grace.]

f) Ambrosiaster:  “the Jєωs were not rejected for the sake of the Gentiles.  Rather it was because they were rejected that they gave an opportunity for the gospel to be preached to the Gentiles.  If you boast against those onto whose root you have been grafted, you insult the people who have accepted you so that you might be converted…You will not continue like that if you destroy the thing on which you stand.”  (Here Ambrosiaster seems to be saying that the Gentiles “stand” on the Jєωs, that they have been grafted onto them.)

g) Chysostom: “if the Gentile, who was cut off from his natural fathers and come, contrary to nature, to Abraham, how much more will God be able to recover his own!”

h) Chrysostom: Ver. 16. "For if the first-fruits be holy, the lump also is holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches;"So calling in this passage by the names of the first-fruit and root Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the prophets, the patriarchs, all who were of note in the Old Testament; and the branches, those from them who believed. 

(Homilies on Romans, Homily XIX)

i) Pseudo-Constantius: “Paul says that the Gentiles have been grafted against nature onto the root, that is, onto the faith of the Patriarchs.”


[This article was originally published in 2006.]




Posted by RSATJ


THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2015
Clearing Roy Schoeman of Sungenis' Slander

Roy Schoeman, a faithful, orthodox Roman Catholic who came to the Church from Judaism, has long been targeted by Sungenis for multiple "critiques." Until now, Sungenis' most deplorable "critique" was the one in which he had not even read Schoeman's book before feeling justified in impugning his honesty.

But more recently, Sungenis stooped to a new low by jumping to publish a fraudulent quote and attributing it to Schoeman, without first making any effort to verify it. Yet, when Sungenis learned for certain that the quote was fraudulent, he promptly published a retraction and apology and sent a personal apology to Schoeman...right?

Not exactly.

Ben Douglass recounts the sorry story.


New and Old Postings by Ben Douglass

Ben Douglass has reposted his excellent materials on the Sungenis and the Jєωs controversy. Douglass' perspective is unique, having stayed at CAI well into the controversy.

Oy Vey! Or Benjamin Douglasstein Kvetches about Robert Sungenis

Quote
How does one reason with a man who, when he is told that someone rejects a belief which he has attributed to him, insists that that person must be lying, and that secretly he must still affirm that belief?...

See the whole article at http://www.pugiofidei.com/sungenis.htm


You maniac! You're blowing up! Ah, save you. God save you from hell!!!

Quote
I for one think that Judaizing is a serious problem in today's Church, and hope to be an effective opponent of it. The reason I don't want Sungenis writing about Jєωs and Judaism is not because I oppose any and all criticism of them, but because after such and so many egregious violations of justice and charity, Sungenis has disqualified himself from engaging these issues....

See the whole article at http://www.pugiofidei.com/sungenis2.htm


A Last Response from Douglasstein

Quote
Sungenis goes on to make the absurd claim that his critics have attacked his wife and children. Not surprisingly, no quotations are provided. This is because no one has ever attacked his wife and children. It was Sungenis who tried to bring his wife into this debacle by claiming her as an independent witness to the events surrounding Michael Forrest's departure from CAI. Even then, Sungenis' critics never attacked her, they simply asked him questions with a view to establishing whether she really was an independent witness, or whether she got her information second-hand from him. Not surprisingly, Sungenis was very cagey about answering their questions. As Jacob Michael discovered, this is because he [Sungenis] had already admitted that she was only a second-hand witness in his essay "Jacob Michael and the Jєωs"....

See the whole article at http://www.pugiofidei.com/sungenis3.htm


The Origin of the Schoeman Forgery Revealed, Sungenis up to Old Tricks

Quote
A young man named Steve Tolles sent this quote to Sungenis, and Sungenis promptly and without verification published it as sure evidence that Roy Schoeman is indeed a Judaizer. Soon after, Sungenis' own most devoted defender, Mark Wyatt, googled the quote and discovered that it was patched together from some of Schoeman's actual words . . . and other material of unknown origin. . . . Sungenis' reaction was truly reprehensible: he stated that he would assume the quote was genuine until proven otherwise, he requested a signed affidavit from Schoeman swearing that he did not write the words in question, and he suggested that perhaps Schoeman changed his original words at the Association of Hebrew Catholics conference before putting them on the AHC website...

See the whole article at http://www.pugiofidei.com/fraud.htm


The Orthodoxy of Roy Schoeman

Quote
Schoeman did in fact publicly repudiate all the heresies which Sungenis has attributed to him. Schoeman has not merely repudiated them in private correspondence. And what was Sungenis' reaction? He said that it was "disingenuous" of him to attempt to disavow them. On other occasions as well, Sungenis has insisted that Schoeman actually does hold these beliefs which he professes to repudiate. So, rather than admit that he has misrepresented Schoeman, Sungenis prefers to imply that he is a liar. This is no way to treat anyone, much less a Catholic brother in Christ....

See the whole article at http://www.pugiofidei.com/sungenis4.htm

Justice, not Fear

Quote
The best definition of anti-Semitism, I believe, is the one most commonly found in dictionaries: prejudice against Jєωs. And prejudice is best understood according to its etymology: to pre-judge. The αnтι-ѕємιтє will form hostile judgments about Jєωs prior to any dispassionate consideration of rational evidence. His treatment of Jєωs and Jєωιѕн issues will be, to put it mildly, heavily biased and tendentious. So will be his exegesis of texts by and about Jєωs. He will have an irrational predisposition to see the worst in Jєωs, and to see Jєωs in the worst. He will suspect his enemies to be secret Jєωs, even in the absence of evidence. He will habitually, uncritically swallow any spurious claim which disparages Jєωs (any stick good enough to beat the Jєωs with), and seek to undermine any statement which praises them. Lastly, when the issue is the Jєωs his faculty of reasoning will be manifestly impaired. Now, on to specific things that Robert Sungenis has said and done....

See the whole article at http://www.pugiofidei.com/sungenis5.htm



Posted by RSATJ

Labels: Ben Douglass
FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 2015
Jєωιѕн Conspiracy Behind Titanic Disaster

In light of the overwhelming evidence produced in this shocking docuмentary, one must concede that Jєωs were indeed behind the sinking of the Titanic. However, the "smoking gun" seems to have been missed by the person who produced this docuмentary. As another blogger has noted publicly:

"It was an iceBERG that sunk the Titanic. Coincidence you say? I think not!"

Indeed.

Unfastened Coins: The Sinking of the Titanic

We await a breaking News Alert at CAI to fill the world in on even more proof of Jєωιѕн involvement in this disaster.


Posted by RSATJ

Labels: conspiracy theories
FRIDAY, AUGUST 22, 2014
More Notable Quotes From Sungenis

There are many interesting quotes to be found in one of Sungenis’ latest “articles” Adventures in Blogland. Below you will find a small sampling:


Quote
1) Sungenis: “I am merely doing the same thing Jesus did when he confronted the sins of the Jєωs…Unfortunately, the Jєωs haven’t changed in our day. They are still the same godless racists they were in Jesus’ day. Few of them have repented of their sins.” (page 10)

2) Sungenis: “The nation of Israel has control of AMDOCS, the central telephone operation in the United States. It's one way the Mossad spies on American citizens, including you and those you talk to." (page 30)

3) Sungenis: “Do I need to say more? I have the whole history of Catholicism behind me, and these Fathers, Doctors, Saints and the God-Man himself said much worse things about the Jєωs than I ever have. What is really happening today folks is that we have been taken over by Jєωιѕн propaganda, and there are a few Catholic/Jєωιѕн ideologues…Many of them are paid handsomely by Zionist groups to say whatever they can to silence people like me. They are bent on promoting the godless state of Israel for some pie-in-the-sky dream they have, even against their own Catholic religion (at least that’s the religion they claim to have), and they will smear anyone who gets in their way. The Jєωs have done this for centuries against good people, and it continues today.” (page 19)


Of course, this “article” is also littered with the personal lies that have become the hallmark of Sungenis’s “work” in recent years as well. As mothers have been known to warn: if you lie, you had better have a good memory. Alas, Sungenis does not.

Sungenis claims he removed his articles from the racist organization National Vanguard after being contacted by his then-VP Ben Douglass and now he wonders, why all the hubbub? Well, aside from the obvious question as to why Sungenis used such an obviously racist source in the first place, even Cliff Notes would object to his severely (and conveniently) condensed version of events.

The reality is that Sungenis left the articles up by this racist organization for two weeks after being warned by his VP, Ben Douglass. It was only after Matthew Anger published an article exposing what Sungenis had done and Douglass once again vehemently objected to Sungenis about the blatantly racist nature of National Vanguard that Sungenis finally agreed to remove the material. Additionally, Sungenis neglected to inform his readers that he initially responded that he "could care less" whether National Vanguard was a racist group or not (read here).

Let us not forget the crystal clear warning Sungenis gave to Dave Armstrong who dared to put up material from a couple of conservative political commentators:


Quote
Sungenis: “If you have no political affiliation with these neo-cons, then I suggest you put a disclaimer on your site, otherwise people are going to get the wrong impression, and you can't blame them if they do. Any person with common sense who sees their names on your web site would assume that you support the political views of the aforementioned unless you say otherwise.”
(Sungenis, Q&A, January, 2005, Question 3).


Indeed. By Bob's own standard, we should naturally assume that his use of the racist National Vanguard is a sign of his personal support for their views. To date, the most he has managed to say about National Vanguard and similar sources is that they are "considered by some to be extreme". Sungenis hasn't yet told us whether he considers them to be unsavory and extreme.

Then we have the following:


Quote
Sungenis: “A few months ago I had made a quote about Michael Hoffman (Jєωιѕн critic) stating that, at this point...I would trust Michael Hoffman a lot more than I trust Michael Forrest… Obviously, Mr. Forrest is a conniving slanderer, just like Jacob Michael and Benjamin Douglass.”


It seems Sungenis can’t even remember what he himself writes any longer or be bothered to check before piling on more inaccuracies and slander. Here is the quote to which Sungenis actually referred (from March 27, 2007):


Quote
“Sungenis: Actually, as of now, I trust Michael Hoffman a lot more than I do Benjamin Douglass.”
(Page 12)



Someone might want to let Mr. Sungenis know that the “conniving slanderer” he meant to calumniate in his latest article is the man he very recently dubbed “like a brother” and showered with a great deal of praise for his scholarship and integrity: Ben Douglass, not Michael Forrest. Although, Sungenis' confusion is perhaps understandable in light of the similar stories of so many CAI VPs who are first touted by him as the best thing since sliced bread...only to later be ripped apart by him as connivers and opportunists once they've had enough of his anti-Semitic shenanigans and quit.

Of course, while we're at it, let us not forget one of the more blatant personal lies Sungenis has told about his dealings with Michael Forrest. He has been absolutely adamant that his wife was an “eyewitness” to his phone conversation with Forrest before Forrest quit:


Quote
Sungenis: “Mr. Forrest yelled to me on the phone that I was an αnтι-ѕємιтє…My wife was a witness to the whole fiasco. No one else was an eyewitness…”
(Christopher Blosser and the Catholic ADL, page 3)


and in attempting to prove to David Palm that his wife actually heard his conversation with Forrest, Sungenis wrote:


Quote
Sungenis: "My conversations on the phone are often held on speaker-phone, and my wife, since she works for CAI as a secretary and bookkeeper, is often listening to my conversations, whether by happenstance or deliberately."
(e-mail of January 20, 2007)


Apparently, either his mother never warned him about telling lies and the need for a good memory or he forgot her advice. Read on from October 2006, when he at least told the truth about the source of his wife's account:


Quote
Sungenis: "Mr. Forrest never denied to me that he had a gig or a promoter for the gig around the beginning of 2005. He told me these things on the phone, and my wife remembers it because I told her about the whole conversation."
(JMATJ, p. 54, emphasis added)


Of course, this may be a simple matter of definitions. Perhaps Sungenis will tell us the “real” definition of “eyewitness” is someone who takes his side in an argument and that only the Zionists who want to kill him think it means something else.



SUNDAY, AUGUST 3, 2014
Current Status


This blog was originally created in response to Robert Sungenis’s problematic views and history related to the Jєωιѕн people.  In 2006 during negotiations with Sungenis we expressed our willingness to take down this material if he would remove all such material and provide assurance that there would be no return to it.

Unfortunately, those negotiations were unsuccessful.  Recently Sungenis contacted one of our contributors and indicated that he was removing the material to which this blog responds and that there would be no return to it.  As this essentially meets the objective we sought in 2006, we were willing to take down the material originally hosted here.

This is not intended to imply that Sungenis has retracted and/or apologized for the statements on Jєωιѕн issues that were formerly docuмented here.  He has not done so.  Instead, he has recently stated, both publicly and privately, that he believes God has given him a new vision/direction related to the issue of geocentrism.  As a result of his desire to pursue this new vision/direction, Sungenis writes,  “I’ve publically declared that I am no longer addressing [Jєωιѕн] issues and don’t wish to discuss them with anyone” and “I . . . will never discuss them again.”  However, he has said that he still personally holds to the same beliefs and considers them to be true.

At present Sungenis and some of his close associates have once again brought public accusations against his diocese and former ordinary. As such, some articles docuмenting the falsehood of those charges has again been made available to the public.





Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Space is fake and gαy
« Reply #233 on: August 20, 2023, 03:46:33 PM »
OK, but then the pressure got to him.

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2015/01/29/701295/10117740/en/Statement-From-The-Principle-Executive-Producer-Robert-Sungenis-Addressing-Accusations-of-Anti-Semitism-and-h0Ɩ0cαųst-Denial.html
Quote
Let me state this clearly, and, I hope, for the last time: I am not now, nor ever have been, nor ever could have been, anti-Semitic. I do not, nor have ever, denied the tragic and unforgettable occurrence of the h0Ɩ0cαųst or its impact on the Jєωιѕн people.

But then maybe he does sincerely believe that the h0Ɩ0cαųst happened.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Space is fake and gαy
« Reply #234 on: August 20, 2023, 03:52:56 PM »
Quote from: Always on August 20, 2023, 03:06:50 PM
As another blogger has noted publicly:

"It was an iceBERG that sunk the Titanic. Coincidence you say? I think not!"

:laugh1: :laugh2:
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 ... 57
« previous next »