Author Topic: A RECENT SIGNIFICANT THING REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM!  (Read 19483 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline niam2023

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4213
  • Gender: Male
  • The Forum Chad
Re: A RECENT SIGNIFICANT THING REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
« Reply #45 on: May 14, 2018, 07:48:09 pm »
There is no such thing as demon possession - get that into your thick skull. There's mental illness and psycho religious nuts insisting someone's mental illness is all demons.

Those people are all great, sure - but I don't take pride in just their existence. As I said before, people who are entirely proud of their heritage have nothing else to be proud of. And if you're so fucking stupid you don't get the causes and politics of the parties flipped over the years, you fail history even harder man. So, to give you a final answer, no, I am not proud of my heritage. Heritage is nothing but dumbasses wanking over how great their great great great granduncle Cletus was for doing some dumbass thing in the 1800s or some shit like that.

And so says you and your kid-fucking priests on number 3. Of course the religious nuts do not want people out having fun, so they make shit up like that. "Hurr, you need to be in a loving relationship long term to be happy. CUZ JAYSUS!"
Living Life, Lifting, Waiting for Summer

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
Re: A RECENT SIGNIFICANT THING REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
« Reply #46 on: May 14, 2018, 07:50:41 pm »
Yup, back in the day when young virgins were traded as chattel for real estate it was much more feministy.

Uh huh.

And you really don't need to go into any more detail about your fapping, really. We're good. Thanks.

Sex trafficking happens a lot more after the sexual revolution that before it. Teaching men to repress their sexual thoughts is more respectful to women because it is morally wrong to fap to a woman if she doesn’t want you to do so.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
Re: A RECENT SIGNIFICANT THING REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
« Reply #47 on: May 14, 2018, 08:02:27 pm »
And Parliament had no right to overthrow King James II because at that time, the King’s Power legally was over Parliament and King James II didn’t do anything bad. Parliament was against him because he was a Roman Catholic(before Joan of Arc was canonized) and allowed tolerance of Protestant sects that were not Anglican. What was tyrannical about that?

Except that when a single individual (or group thereof--don't think I think all that highly of the House of Lords), unaccountable to the governed, has power over those who are so accountable, that creates a fundamentally unfair and untenable situation that would almost certainly have eventually exploded into civil war had it not been for the Glorious Revolution. Parliament had every moral right to assert its proper authority, as the representatives of the people, over the unelected monarch.

I ask again: would you have preferred a bloody war?

I would not prefer a bloody war. I would prefer King James II bringing order and stability to England by enforcing the law which he was doing. Of course a monarch should obey a countries laws and not act arbitrarily, but the Magna Carta already restrained the monarch from doing that.

Besides, how was King James II abusing his power by protecting the rights of religious minorities in his Kingdoms. That is something you should answer.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
Re: A RECENT SIGNIFICANT THING REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
« Reply #48 on: May 14, 2018, 08:25:47 pm »
The Stuart’s were not tyrannical. They had near absolute power, but they did what was in the best interests of their country. Cromwell was the real tyrant. He established a fanatical puritanical regime outlawing so many things and commiting horrific atrocities against the Irish. The English resented his regime so much that they cheered the return of Charles II.

And Parliament had no right to overthrow King James II because at that time, the King’s Power legally was over Parliament and King James II didn’t do anything bad. Parliament was against him because he was a Roman Catholic(before Joan of Arc was canonized) and allowed tolerance of Protestant sects that were not Anglican. What was tyrannical about that?
Yes, Cromwell was a dick but coming from an anti sexual revolution, anti feminist guy whose only acceptable variant of sexual activity is fapping furiously before reluctantly sticking his end into a certified virgin's vagina is signalling his opposition to...fanatical puritanism?

Come again?

Yes, yes the pun was intentional, and terrible, for that alone I'm truly sorry!

I am not as extreme as the fanatical Puritan heretics. My views on sex reflect those of conservative Anglicans. And I am not anti feminist, because I believe that women should have equal rights and not have to deal with perverts like you guys objectifying them and putting them in uncomfortable situations. And the Civil Rights Act already makes discriminating against women in the workplace and not giving them equal pay illegal. And I wish I could be more naturally attracted to a women’s vagina but I can’t help that I have such a fetish to the thought of masterbation. No matter how much I look at images of vagina’s on the internet, I am not turned on by them.

I am a victim of the sexual revolution which has caused a rise in degenerate paraphilias. My fapping fetish however is not as bad as other creepy perverted fetishes that people have. My fetish involves thinking of MYSELF fapping while other people’s fetishes involve bizzare and disgusting fantasies about a woman.

So you are not attracted to vaginas but to the idea of a thick hard cock being slowly stroked. What about one being stroked next to yours? ...gets you going right?

No that does not get me going. What gets me going is my own cock being stroked when thinking about an attractive girl. The problem is that I am turned on by a girl in clothes wearing jeans, not naked girls. In fact I am not only not turned on by a girl’s vagina, I am grossed out by a women’s vagina because it is wet and slimy and it would feel gross sticking my cock into it.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2018, 08:28:50 pm by Jacob Harrison »

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Re: A RECENT SIGNIFICANT THING REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
« Reply #49 on: May 14, 2018, 08:48:11 pm »
So find yourself a virgin gal into eccentric ex Catholics that hate their ladybits while you fap off to the Levis catalogue. Simples.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2018, 10:33:23 pm by Tolpuddle Martyr »

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
Re: A RECENT SIGNIFICANT THING REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
« Reply #50 on: May 14, 2018, 09:41:40 pm »
There is no such thing as demon possession - get that into your thick skull. There's mental illness and psycho religious nuts insisting someone's mental illness is all demons.

Those people are all great, sure - but I don't take pride in just their existence. As I said before, people who are entirely proud of their heritage have nothing else to be proud of. And if you're so fucking stupid you don't get the causes and politics of the parties flipped over the years, you fail history even harder man. So, to give you a final answer, no, I am not proud of my heritage. Heritage is nothing but dumbasses wanking over how great their great great great granduncle Cletus was for doing some dumbass thing in the 1800s or some shit like that.

And so says you and your kid-fucking priests on number 3. Of course the religious nuts do not want people out having fun, so they make shit up like that. "Hurr, you need to be in a loving relationship long term to be happy. CUZ JAYSUS!"

1. But many people who are normally mentally sane experience attacks by demons. In fact, investigators ask them about their history of mental illness, or if they have been taking drugs. And you just admitted that Christianity is cooler than Atheism because it believes in the existence of spirits interacting among us from heaven and hell, as well as evil fallen angels. The Exorcist was a Christian based movie.

2. I am not entirely proud of my heritage. I am also proud of my own accomplishments such as graduating high school making it into the honor role, working hard at my summer jobs, and getting good grades in college. And it is not a history fail. The parties did not switch sides in the 1960s. Most Southern Democrats like Margaret Sanger(who influenced Hillary Clinton) remained Southern Democrats until their death.

3. The pedophilia priest scandal is the biggest in the Roman Catholic Church and non Anglican Protestant churches. It doesn’t happen in the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Most people want to have genuine romantic love.


Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 5680
Re: A RECENT SIGNIFICANT THING REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
« Reply #51 on: May 14, 2018, 09:43:56 pm »
And Parliament had no right to overthrow King James II because at that time, the King’s Power legally was over Parliament and King James II didn’t do anything bad. Parliament was against him because he was a Roman Catholic(before Joan of Arc was canonized) and allowed tolerance of Protestant sects that were not Anglican. What was tyrannical about that?

Except that when a single individual (or group thereof--don't think I think all that highly of the House of Lords), unaccountable to the governed, has power over those who are so accountable, that creates a fundamentally unfair and untenable situation that would almost certainly have eventually exploded into civil war had it not been for the Glorious Revolution. Parliament had every moral right to assert its proper authority, as the representatives of the people, over the unelected monarch.

I ask again: would you have preferred a bloody war?

I would not prefer a bloody war. I would prefer King James II bringing order and stability to England by enforcing the law which he was doing. Of course a monarch should obey a countries laws and not act arbitrarily, but the Magna Carta already restrained the monarch from doing that.

Besides, how was King James II abusing his power by protecting the rights of religious minorities in his Kingdoms. That is something you should answer.

Because using his power in a manner opposed to the wishes of the governed is abusing his power, whatever the effects.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
Re: A RECENT SIGNIFICANT THING REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
« Reply #52 on: May 14, 2018, 09:49:26 pm »
And Parliament had no right to overthrow King James II because at that time, the King’s Power legally was over Parliament and King James II didn’t do anything bad. Parliament was against him because he was a Roman Catholic(before Joan of Arc was canonized) and allowed tolerance of Protestant sects that were not Anglican. What was tyrannical about that?

Except that when a single individual (or group thereof--don't think I think all that highly of the House of Lords), unaccountable to the governed, has power over those who are so accountable, that creates a fundamentally unfair and untenable situation that would almost certainly have eventually exploded into civil war had it not been for the Glorious Revolution. Parliament had every moral right to assert its proper authority, as the representatives of the people, over the unelected monarch.

I ask again: would you have preferred a bloody war?

I would not prefer a bloody war. I would prefer King James II bringing order and stability to England by enforcing the law which he was doing. Of course a monarch should obey a countries laws and not act arbitrarily, but the Magna Carta already restrained the monarch from doing that.

Besides, how was King James II abusing his power by protecting the rights of religious minorities in his Kingdoms. That is something you should answer.

Because using his power in a manner opposed to the wishes of the governed is abusing his power, whatever the effects.

So your a fan of tyranny of the majority rather than a monarch who protected the rights of minorities.

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 5680
Re: A RECENT SIGNIFICANT THING REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
« Reply #53 on: May 14, 2018, 10:04:58 pm »
And Parliament had no right to overthrow King James II because at that time, the King’s Power legally was over Parliament and King James II didn’t do anything bad. Parliament was against him because he was a Roman Catholic(before Joan of Arc was canonized) and allowed tolerance of Protestant sects that were not Anglican. What was tyrannical about that?

Except that when a single individual (or group thereof--don't think I think all that highly of the House of Lords), unaccountable to the governed, has power over those who are so accountable, that creates a fundamentally unfair and untenable situation that would almost certainly have eventually exploded into civil war had it not been for the Glorious Revolution. Parliament had every moral right to assert its proper authority, as the representatives of the people, over the unelected monarch.

I ask again: would you have preferred a bloody war?

I would not prefer a bloody war. I would prefer King James II bringing order and stability to England by enforcing the law which he was doing. Of course a monarch should obey a countries laws and not act arbitrarily, but the Magna Carta already restrained the monarch from doing that.

Besides, how was King James II abusing his power by protecting the rights of religious minorities in his Kingdoms. That is something you should answer.

Because using his power in a manner opposed to the wishes of the governed is abusing his power, whatever the effects.

So your a fan of tyranny of the majority rather than a monarch who protected the rights of minorities.

I'm not a fan of the UK's system insofar as it has no entrenched protections for rights. But I cannot condone the monarch's unilateral use of power just because I like the effect it happened to have in this instance.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
Re: A RECENT SIGNIFICANT THING REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
« Reply #54 on: May 14, 2018, 10:17:09 pm »
And Parliament had no right to overthrow King James II because at that time, the King’s Power legally was over Parliament and King James II didn’t do anything bad. Parliament was against him because he was a Roman Catholic(before Joan of Arc was canonized) and allowed tolerance of Protestant sects that were not Anglican. What was tyrannical about that?

Except that when a single individual (or group thereof--don't think I think all that highly of the House of Lords), unaccountable to the governed, has power over those who are so accountable, that creates a fundamentally unfair and untenable situation that would almost certainly have eventually exploded into civil war had it not been for the Glorious Revolution. Parliament had every moral right to assert its proper authority, as the representatives of the people, over the unelected monarch.

I ask again: would you have preferred a bloody war?

I would not prefer a bloody war. I would prefer King James II bringing order and stability to England by enforcing the law which he was doing. Of course a monarch should obey a countries laws and not act arbitrarily, but the Magna Carta already restrained the monarch from doing that.

Besides, how was King James II abusing his power by protecting the rights of religious minorities in his Kingdoms. That is something you should answer.

Because using his power in a manner opposed to the wishes of the governed is abusing his power, whatever the effects.

So your a fan of tyranny of the majority rather than a monarch who protected the rights of minorities.

I'm not a fan of the UK's system insofar as it has no entrenched protections for rights. But I cannot condone the monarch's unilateral use of power just because I like the effect it happened to have in this instance.

So you believe that minorities should deal with having their rights sacrificed for the ideal of democracy?

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 5680
Re: A RECENT SIGNIFICANT THING REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
« Reply #55 on: May 14, 2018, 10:45:16 pm »
And Parliament had no right to overthrow King James II because at that time, the King’s Power legally was over Parliament and King James II didn’t do anything bad. Parliament was against him because he was a Roman Catholic(before Joan of Arc was canonized) and allowed tolerance of Protestant sects that were not Anglican. What was tyrannical about that?

Except that when a single individual (or group thereof--don't think I think all that highly of the House of Lords), unaccountable to the governed, has power over those who are so accountable, that creates a fundamentally unfair and untenable situation that would almost certainly have eventually exploded into civil war had it not been for the Glorious Revolution. Parliament had every moral right to assert its proper authority, as the representatives of the people, over the unelected monarch.

I ask again: would you have preferred a bloody war?

I would not prefer a bloody war. I would prefer King James II bringing order and stability to England by enforcing the law which he was doing. Of course a monarch should obey a countries laws and not act arbitrarily, but the Magna Carta already restrained the monarch from doing that.

Besides, how was King James II abusing his power by protecting the rights of religious minorities in his Kingdoms. That is something you should answer.

Because using his power in a manner opposed to the wishes of the governed is abusing his power, whatever the effects.

So your a fan of tyranny of the majority rather than a monarch who protected the rights of minorities.

I'm not a fan of the UK's system insofar as it has no entrenched protections for rights. But I cannot condone the monarch's unilateral use of power just because I like the effect it happened to have in this instance.

So you believe that minorities should deal with having their rights sacrificed for the ideal of democracy?

No, I think certain matters should be entrenched and beyond the reach of any simple majority to change.

I don't think any of the likely solutions (personal rule, Parliamentary rule, civil war) were particularly good, but of them I would choose the second as the least bad option.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
Re: A RECENT SIGNIFICANT THING REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
« Reply #56 on: May 14, 2018, 11:10:33 pm »
And Parliament had no right to overthrow King James II because at that time, the King’s Power legally was over Parliament and King James II didn’t do anything bad. Parliament was against him because he was a Roman Catholic(before Joan of Arc was canonized) and allowed tolerance of Protestant sects that were not Anglican. What was tyrannical about that?

Except that when a single individual (or group thereof--don't think I think all that highly of the House of Lords), unaccountable to the governed, has power over those who are so accountable, that creates a fundamentally unfair and untenable situation that would almost certainly have eventually exploded into civil war had it not been for the Glorious Revolution. Parliament had every moral right to assert its proper authority, as the representatives of the people, over the unelected monarch.

I ask again: would you have preferred a bloody war?

I would not prefer a bloody war. I would prefer King James II bringing order and stability to England by enforcing the law which he was doing. Of course a monarch should obey a countries laws and not act arbitrarily, but the Magna Carta already restrained the monarch from doing that.

Besides, how was King James II abusing his power by protecting the rights of religious minorities in his Kingdoms. That is something you should answer.

Because using his power in a manner opposed to the wishes of the governed is abusing his power, whatever the effects.

So your a fan of tyranny of the majority rather than a monarch who protected the rights of minorities.

I'm not a fan of the UK's system insofar as it has no entrenched protections for rights. But I cannot condone the monarch's unilateral use of power just because I like the effect it happened to have in this instance.

So you believe that minorities should deal with having their rights sacrificed for the ideal of democracy?

No, I think certain matters should be entrenched and beyond the reach of any simple majority to change.

I don't think any of the likely solutions (personal rule, Parliamentary rule, civil war) were particularly good, but of them I would choose the second as the least bad option.

How was it the least bad option? The overthrow of King James II did cause civil war because King James II led the first Jacobite rebellion in Ireland. Then there was a second civil war when Bonnie Prince Charlie led a Jacobite rebellion in Scotland. Personal rule of the monarchs would have prevented the civil war from happening. And I already said that the Magna Carta prevented the monarch from being able to act arbitrarily.

Offline davedan

  • Lord Cracker
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3539
Re: A RECENT SIGNIFICANT THING REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
« Reply #57 on: May 14, 2018, 11:22:43 pm »
So find yourself a virgin gal into eccentric ex Catholics that hate their ladybits while you fap off to the Levis catalogue. Simples.

I assume he can dry hump the hell out of her. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTT43Kn-tNM" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTT43Kn-tNM</a>

Offline davedan

  • Lord Cracker
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3539
Re: A RECENT SIGNIFICANT THING REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
« Reply #58 on: May 14, 2018, 11:24:07 pm »
Yup, back in the day when young virgins were traded as chattel for real estate it was much more feministy.

Uh huh.

And you really don't need to go into any more detail about your fapping, really. We're good. Thanks.

Sex trafficking happens a lot more after the sexual revolution that before it. Teaching men to repress their sexual thoughts is more respectful to women because it is morally wrong to fap to a woman if she doesn’t want you to do so.

I would love to know the statistics of that. But then again I read somewhere that there are more people enslaved now than there were during the trans-atlantic slave trade.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
Re: A RECENT SIGNIFICANT THING REGARDING ROMAN CATHOLICISM!
« Reply #59 on: May 15, 2018, 12:03:39 am »
So find yourself a virgin gal into eccentric ex Catholics that hate their ladybits while you fap off to the Levis catalogue. Simples.

I assume he can dry hump the hell out of her. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTT43Kn-tNM" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTT43Kn-tNM</a>

BUT I COULD NOT MAKE BABIES WHEN DRY HUMPING A WIFE! Are you even trying to help cure me or are you just trolling?