June is pri(de mon)th

[Belly Bob]

2 minutes ago, DevilDog said:

I am gong to give you what you want for once.  Find another organization or Church that has been exposed.  Or is it the little white boys raped in the Catholic Church allegate.  just since 1980.  I will await you providing one fact to match this.   ↳

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201808/separating-facts-about-clergy-abuse-fiction

Putting clergy abuse in context, research from the US Department of Education found that about 5-7 percent of public school teachers engaged in similar sexually abusive behavior with their students during a similar time frame. While no comprehensive studies have been conducted with most other religious traditions, a small scale study that I was involved with found that 4 percent of Anglican priests had violated minors in western Canada and many reports have mentioned that clerical abuse of minors is common with other religious leaders and clerics as well.

[DevilDog]

The fact those clowns take a vow of celebacy which is not normal behavior for mankind is the reason their asses commit this more than any other religious groups including Protestants.  Hell even the Protestant preacher usually get caught in adultury with a women.  i will not have a conversation with what psychologist have labeled an argument of ignorance.  

 

[Belly Bob]

18 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said:

Definitely. And kids are actually safer at Catholic schools than public schools. But nobody can compete with the Catholics when it comes to covering up and enabling the behavior. ↳

They're trying to clean it up. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201808/separating-facts-about-clergy-abuse-fiction

4. The Church has used best practices to deal with this issue since 2002.

The incidents of clerical abuse in recent years (i.e., since 2002) are down to a trickle. 

[Belly Bob]

3 minutes ago, DevilDog said:

The fact those clowns take a vow of celebacy which is not normal behavior for mankind is the reason their asses commit this more than any other religious groups including Protestants.  Hell even the Protestant preacher usually get caught in adultury with a women.  i will not have a conversation with what psychologist have labeled an argument of ignorance.   ↳

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201808/separating-facts-about-clergy-abuse-fiction

2. Clerical celibacy doesn’t cause pedophilia and sexual crimes against minors.

Think about it. If you can’t or don’t have sex with a consenting partner, would children become the object of your desire? Of course not. If anything, other consenting adults would. Additionally, if public school teachers have levels of sexual victimization of their students at levels higher than Catholic clerics during the same time frame, then one can’t simply blame celibacy for the sexual abuse problem in the Catholic Church. Additionally, the vast majority of sex offenders are regular men, often married or partnered, with 80 percent or more victimizing their own family members with the most likely candidate being a stepfather or older brother abusing a child or teen in the home.

[DevilDog]

French clergy sexually abused ‘over 200,000 children’ since 1950

Commission investigating historic wrongdoing alleges thousands of Catholic priests involved in ‘systemic’ abuse.

[DevilDog]

Canada’s Catholic bishops sorry for abuses of Indigenous children

Decision falls short of the recommendation from Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the Pope to apologise.

[DevilDog]

You can't confuse me with B.S. That Church from Italy to Indiana is rotten to the Core with Child Molestors. Anyone deflecting or whatabouting must be one of those abused kids or an apologist.  If this was a black problem we would have 800 graphs, 200 stats and non stop tutelage on what we need to do to fix them.  Anyone trying to compare or mitigate this is a damn fool.  Argument of ignorance

MALCOLM X:  "Only a fool would let his enemy educate his Children"

Dr, Wesley Clark "I only debate my equals all others I teach.

Your tutelage to me will fall on deaf ears.  Everyone knows that this is a damn problem.  

[Belly Bob]

1 minute ago, DevilDog said:

You can't confuse me with B.S. That Church from Italy to Indiana is rotten to the Core with Child Molestors. Anyone deflecting or whatabouting must be one of those abused kids or an apologist.  If this was a black problem we would have 800 graphs, 200 stats and non stop tutelage on what we need to do to fx them.  Anyone trying to compare or mitigate this is a damn fool.  Argument of ignorance ↳

MALCOLM X:  "Only a fool would let his enemy educate his Children" ↳

Dr, Wesley Clark "I only debate my equals all others I teach. ↳

Your tutelage to me will fall on deaf ears.  Everyone knows that this is a damn problem.   ↳

👍

[DevilDog]

22 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

👍

Along with the fired A's announcer you could go on National TV and tell the world that Catholic Priests don't molest kids anymore than other men.  Others didn't take a fanatical oath.  I expect the Cop at the intersection to be better than the Thug at the intersection.  No one said that others didn't abuse kidis.  There is no organization around the world that has this distinction.  The dismissal or attempt to codify is disingenuous.  I would feel more comfortable with my kid in a room with LiL Wayne vs Father Peter Fitswell.  Though neither is a role model for me.  At least with one he will come out smelling like weed and eating a chicken wing.  The other he will come out traumatized for life 😅.  See what I did with that name of the Father.  That's weiird as hell too.  I would never call him Father.  That's part of the brainwashing.  Jesus said call no man Father.  I'm well versed in all 3 Abrahamic Religions including the heretical Roman one that was created after they lynched him.  Now explain away this.  The Slave Owners that brainwashed my anscetors cleary didn't read it either or they were just hypocrites.  Why do you call them Father>  If one comprehends notice the upper case F of the second mention of Father and the lower case f.  The bastard on earth is even less worthy. 

And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called 'masters,' for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8–10

[Belly Bob]

27 minutes ago, DevilDog said:

Along with the fired A's announcer you could go on National TV and tell the world that Catholic Priests don't molest kids anymore than other men.  Others didn't take a fanatical oath.  I expect the Cop at the intersection to be better than the Thug at the intersection.  No one said that others didn't abuse kidis.  There is no organization around the world that has this distinction.  The dismissal or attempt to codify is disingenuous.

It's not disingenuous. It's the latest research. The professor who wrote the article for Psychology Today has published three books on the subject.

But feel free to reject his tutelage.

[DevilDog]

If a Tranny and a many Priest switch uniforms and you wipe off the face paint?  Neither mindset changes that is a problem.  The same people that are all upset over Bubazilla in a dress see no problem with their FATHER>  I have spent too much time on this for 2 reasons.  Neither could produce good in my life.  If we gonna bash threats to children with sex then don't be a hypocrite.  Peace and Chicken Grease 😁

1.  Catholic Church = Not Me

2.  Gay Pride = Surely Not Me

[DevilDog]

24 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

It's not disingenuous. It's the latest research. The professor who wrote the article for PsychologyToday has published three books on the subject.

But feel free to reject his tutelage.

Like you do with any African American studies or professorial studies you immediately look to dismiss or dispute.  I reject this under the same guise.  Never expect me to go along to get along.  I know Knowledge is power.  But thanks for the effort it was A+ the reception was a resounding C-.   

[Belly Bob]

25 minutes ago, DevilDog said:

See what I did with that name of the Father.  That's weiird as hell too.  I would never call him Father.  That's part of the brainwashing.  Jesus said call no man Father.  I'm well versed in all 3 Abrahamic Religions including the heretical Roman one that was created after they lynched him.  Now explain away this.  The Slave Owners that brainwashed my anscetors cleary didn't read it either or they were just hypocrites.  Why do you call them Father> ↳

And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called 'masters,' for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8–

I'm aware of the passage, but maybe I'm a better reader because I understand the nature of hyperbole and context.

In the previous verse, he says call no one teacher. 

I don't think Jesus' point was that you shouldn't call teachers "teacher" or fathers "father." His point is not to put any man on earth above God. 

[DevilDog]

2 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

I aware of the passage, but maybe I'm a better reader because I understand the nature of hyperbole and context.

In the previous verse, he says call no one teacher. 

I don't think Jesus' point was that you shouldn't call teachers "teacher" or fathers "father." His point is not to put any man on earth above God. 

Again I will apologize to you. I refuse to take tutelage from you on anything dealing within the Bible.  I have a knowledge of history and why I should not appease to that tutelage.  I purely understand what I read and I understand the Hebrew word for both.  Not a master of the Shemetic languages but I do study them.  Go back and read what Malcolm quoted.  I am pretty confident in reading and studying the scriptures.  The book that says DON'T EAT SWINE. IT'S DISTINCT AND FROM ELAHA.  Yet the greatest swine eaters will then feel he can teach me and convince me that Elaha was wrong and now you can eat it though not one verse in the whole 66 books of the Bible says EAT SWINE.  No Swine Eater regardless of Color will ever teach me from a Holy Book.  Jews, Muslims and even 7th day Adventist understand this.  I would listen to a 7th day adventist speak from the book.  He is not deflled with Trichinosis in his body and eat unclean things.  Unclean foods = Unclean mInd.  Maybe that's what's wrong with all those Father's.  May Elaha keep peace and Blessings upon  The Mashiac. 

[Belly Bob]

18 minutes ago, DevilDog said:

Again I will apologize to you. I refuse to take tutelage from you on anything dealing within the Bible.  I have a knowledge of history and why I should not appease to that tutelage.  I purely understand what I read and I understand the Hebrew word for both.  Not a master of the Shemetic languages but I do study them.  Go back and read what Malcolm quoted.  I am pretty confident in reading and studying the scriptures.  The book that says DON'T EAT SWINE. IT'S DISTINCT AND FROM ELAHA.  Yet the greatest swine eaters will then feel he can teach me and convince me that Elaha was wrong and now you can eat it though not one verse in the whole 66 books of the Bible says EAT SWINE.  No Swine Eater regardless of Color will ever teach me from a Holy Book.  Jews, Muslims and even 7th day Adventist understand this.  I would listen to a 7th day adventist speak from the book.  He is not deflled with Trichinosis in his body and eat unclean things.  Unclean foods = Unclean mInd.  Maybe that's what's wrong with all those Father's.  May Elaha keep peace and Blessings upon  The Mashiac.  ↳

We've talked about this before. I understand why Jews and Muslims don't eat pork because it was clearly forbidden by the Mosaic Law.

But what is distinctive about Christianity is the idea that it was the death and resurrection of Christ that justifies us, that puts us in a right standing with God, not obedience to the Mosaic Law. If the Mosaic Law is what justified us, then there would be no point to the passion of Christ.

And in fact, one of the earliest conflicts in the early Church, which is recorded in the New Testament, was the conflict that arose between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians regarding the Mosaic Law. The question was whether Gentile converts were subject to the Law. The Church, through the ecumenical council of Jerusalem, which was presided over by Peter and Paul and James etc., which is recorded in Acts, decided that Gentiles were not subject to the Mosaic Law. They didn't have to get circumcised. And they didn't have keep kosher. And that's because circumcision and abstaining from eating pork is not what justifies men in the eyes of God. It is the blood of Christ. 

If you reject the New Testament and the theology of Christ, that's your business. Don't eat pork. Follow your conscience. May God bless you. 

[World Citizen]

50 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

We've talked about this before. I understand why Jews and Muslims don't eat pork because it was clearly forbidden by the Mosaic Law.

But what is distinctive about Christianity is the idea that it was the death and resurrection of Christ that justifies us, that puts us in a right standing with God, not obedience to the Mosaic Law. If the Mosaic Law is what justified us, then there would be no point to the passion of Christ.

And in fact, one of the earliest conflicts in the early Church, which is recorded in the New Testament, was the conflict that arose between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians regarding the Mosaic Law. The question was whether Gentile converts were subject to the Law. The Church, through the ecumenical council of Jerusalem, which was presided over by Peter and Paul and James etc., which is recorded in Acts, decided that Gentiles were not subject to the Mosaic Law. They didn't have to get circumcised. And they didn't have keep kosher. And that's because circumcision and abstaining from eating pork is not what justifies men in the eyes of God. It is the blood of Christ. 

I think the reason for this is that the Gentile Christians would not have accepted Christ if they were subject to Mosaic law.  In order for the new church to succeed it was necessary to make it as easy as possible.  Many things were added later for just this purpose.  It makes really good sense for them to do this IMO.   

 

If you reject the New Testament and the theology of Christ, that's your business. Don't eat pork. Follow your conscience. May God bless you. 

[DevilDog]

3 hours ago, World Citizen said:

4 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

We've talked about this before. I understand why Jews and Muslims don't eat pork because it was clearly forbidden by the Mosaic Law.

But what is distinctive about Christianity is the idea that it was the death and resurrection of Christ that justifies us, that puts us in a right standing with God, not obedience to the Mosaic Law. If the Mosaic Law is what justified us, then there would be no point to the passion of Christ.

And in fact, one of the earliest conflicts in the early Church, which is recorded in the New Testament, was the conflict that arose between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians regarding the Mosaic Law. The question was whether Gentile converts were subject to the Law. The Church, through the ecumenical council of Jerusalem, which was presided over by Peter and Paul and James etc., which is recorded in Acts, decided that Gentiles were not subject to the Mosaic Law. They didn't have to get circumcised. And they didn't have keep kosher. And that's because circumcision and abstaining from eating pork is not what justifies men in the eyes of God. It is the blood of Christ. 

I think the reason for this is that the Gentile Christians would not have accepted Christ if they were subject to Mosaic law.  In order for the new church to succeed it was necessary to make it as easy as possible.  Many things were added later for just this purpose.  It makes really good sense for them to do this IMO.   

 

If you reject the New Testament and the theology of Christ, that's your business. Don't eat pork. Follow your conscience. May God bless you. 

THey don't follow Christ they follow the Teachings of Paul.  Jesus in the New Testament never advised anyone to violate the Mosaic laws.  He followed them.  Again they are great at making things up.  Notice they tell you the Old Testament is flawed yet post the 10 Commandments everywhere and if that Law doesn't apply to them what does? They can just do anything and magically Plead the Blood of Christ.  It's ridiculous.  I wonder why they don't Justify Homosexuality it's forbidden like Pork in the Old Testament?  They are hypocrites.  I will never trust anyone that justifies this when Yeshua (May peace be upon him) himself was not a pork eater.  There is no where in the whole bible where a Prophet ate swine and even before the Mosiac law clean and unclean animals were  known.  Elaha tasked Noah (May peace be upon him) to take 7 pair of Clean animals and 1 pair of unclean.  I was taught that was so they would have animals to eat on the Ark (Only the clean) .  They are deceitful.  The ASIAN and his friend from the Caucusus Mountains (Europeans are the Greatest swine eaters on earth.  It has nothing to do with the New Testament (Egyptian and Ethiopian Christians) The oldest Christians don't eat Swine.  They eat it because Elaha never sent a Prophet to Europe or Asia.  They have no code of conduct nor laws governing their consumption.  They will damn near eat anything.  Even native American's never ate swine till the Spanish arrived. Who by the way was sanctioned by the Church.  Wherever you find a European there will be swine eaters and their converts will be taught to eat that beast.  And it will be the parts he don't want to consume, like Guts, feet, ears etc.   Yeshua cast demons in a whole herd of swine drowning them all.  He detested that beast so much he destroyed the whole herd.  Not one of them the whole herd. Why not keep a few for dinner? A European Christ would be roasting them on the spot and going all Ham (pun intended) on that divinely prohibited beast. 

 

[concha]

 

Bacon is delicious.

 

[Belly Bob]

14 hours ago, World Citizen said:

15 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

We've talked about this before. I understand why Jews and Muslims don't eat pork because it was clearly forbidden by the Mosaic Law.

But what is distinctive about Christianity is the idea that it was the death and resurrection of Christ that justifies us, that puts us in a right standing with God, not obedience to the Mosaic Law. If the Mosaic Law is what justified us, then there would be no point to the passion of Christ. ↳

And in fact, one of the earliest conflicts in the early Church, which is recorded in the New Testament, was the conflict that arose between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians regarding the Mosaic Law. The question was whether Gentile converts were subject to the Law. The Church, through the ecumenical council of Jerusalem, which was presided over by Peter and Paul and James etc., which is recorded in Acts, decided that Gentiles were not subject to the Mosaic Law. They didn't have to get circumcised. And they didn't have keep kosher. And that's because circumcision and abstaining from eating pork is not what justifies men in the eyes of God. It is the blood of Christ. 

I think the reason for this is that the Gentile Christians would not have accepted Christ if they were subject to Mosaic law.  In order for the new church to succeed it was necessary to make it as easy as possible.  Many things were added later for just this purpose.  It makes really good sense for them to do this IMO.   

 

If you reject the New Testament and the theology of Christ, that's your business. Don't eat pork. Follow your conscience. May God bless you.  ↳

I think the reason for this is that the Gentile Christians would not have accepted Christ if they were subject to Mosaic law.  In order for the new church to succeed it was necessary to make it as easy as possible.  Many things were added later for just this purpose.  It makes really good sense for them to do this IMO. 

I agree that the council's decision made it easier to spread Christianity to the gentiles, but that doesn't mean that the reason for the decision was to make Christianity easier for them. I think the reason was theological. Christ's passion and death would make no sense if obedience to the Mosaic law is what justifies a man.

It was the Church's understanding of Christ that led them to evangelize gentiles in the first place.

[Belly Bob]

14 hours ago, DevilDog said:

THey don't follow Christ they follow the Teachings of Paul.  Jesus in the New Testament never advised anyone to violate the Mosaic laws.  He followed them.  Again they are great at making things up. ↳

Paul's epistles are the oldest writings in the NT. The Gospels were written later. Moreover, one of the gospel writers, Luke, was Paul's companion and also the author of Acts, which is a continuation of Luke's gospel. In fact, the Gospel of Luke and Acts, which records the Council of Jerusalem, were written as one unified work.

So, I'm not sure where you're getting your info on Jesus, or Yeshua, as you prefer to call him, if it's not from "them," who are great at making things up.

14 hours ago, DevilDog said:

Notice they tell you the Old Testament is flawed yet post the 10 Commandments everywhere and if that Law doesn't apply to them what does? They can just do anything and magically Plead the Blood of Christ.  It's ridiculous.  I wonder why they don't Justify Homosexuality it's forbidden like Pork in the Old Testament?  They are hypocrites. ↳

"They" don't tell you that the OT is flawed. The OT promises that God would send the messiah who would form a new covenant with humanity. Jesus is the new Moses. That's why Jesus delivers his famous sermon on a mount. That's why Moses and Elijah talk of his exodus at the Transfiguration. etc. etc. Jesus is the person who made a new covenant with humanity, ratified with his blood, and structured by his law. So, those in the new covenant are indeed bound by law, just not the Mosaic law. 

14 hours ago, DevilDog said:

It has nothing to do with the New Testament (Egyptian and Ethiopian Christians) The oldest Christians don't eat Swine. ↳

The oldest Christians aren't Egyptians and Ethiopians. The oldest Christians are the Apostles like Peter and James, who knew Jesus personally and who knew Paul personally, and who presided over the Council of Jerusalem.

[Belly Bob]

15 hours ago, DevilDog said:

No Swine Eater regardless of Color will ever teach me from a Holy Book.  Jews, Muslims and even 7th day Adventist understand this.  I would listen to a 7th day adventist speak from the book.↳

Okay, let's do that.

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q47.htm

It is true we refrain from eating certain articles, as indicated in the query, but not because the law of Moses has any binding claims upon us. Far from it. We stand fast in the liberty with which God has set us free. It must be remembered that God recognized "clean" and "unclean" animals at the time of the Flood, long before there was a law of Moses. We reason that if God saw fit at that time to counsel His people against certain articles of diet, these things were not best for human consumption; and since we are physically constituted in the same way as are the Jews and all other peoples, we believe such things are not the best for us to use today.

[Belly Bob]

15 hours ago, DevilDog said:

Again I will apologize to you. I refuse to take tutelage from you on anything dealing within the Bible.  I have a knowledge of history and why I should not appease to that tutelage.  I purely understand what I read and I understand the Hebrew word for both.  Not a master of the Shemetic languages but I do study them. ↳

But Jesus spoke Aramaic and the NT was written almost exclusively in Greek, so knowing the Hebrew word for both wouldn't shine any light on understanding Matthew 23.

The oldest extant manuscripts of Matthew are all in Greek.

[DevilDog]

53 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

Paul's epistles are the oldest writings in the NT. The Gospels were written later. Moreover, one of the gospel writers, Luke, was Paul's companion and also the author of Acts, which is a continuation of Luke's gospel. In fact, the Gospel of Luke and Acts, which records the Council of Jerusalem, were written as one unified work.

So, I'm not sure where you're getting your info on Jesus, or Yeshua, as you prefer to call him, if it's not from "them," who are great at making things up.

"They" don't tell you that the OT is flawed. The OT promises that God would send the messiah who would form a new covenant with humanity. Jesus is the new Moses. That's why Jesus delivers his famous sermon on a mount. That's why Moses and Elijah talk of his exodus at the Transfiguration. etc. etc. Jesus is the person who made a new covenant with humanity, ratified with his blood, and structured by his law. So, those in the new covenant are indeed bound by law, just not the Mosaic law. 

The oldest Christians aren't Egyptians and Ethiopians. The oldest Christians are the Apostles like Peter and James, who knew Jesus personally and who knew Paul personally, and who presided over the Council of Jerusalem.

Ok let's play like one of us me is ignorant and I appease.  Jesus is a damn Spanish word.  That's a white dude.  Essa or Yeshua (May Elaha have peace and blessings uolpon him) wasn't a Christian.  So no none of his disciples were Cephus who you call Peter was not the Father of Christianity.  Saul later Paul is who you follow.  To be like Yeshua (Peace be upon him).  He obeyed Mosauc law. Forbidden from Swine eating, circumcised on day 8th after birth.  Nothing Paul instructed nor the Church who cane up with all that B.S. at the Council of Nicea. Is Christlike.  You are not Christ Like.  You are a Paul follower who was an enemy of Christ.  The 1st convert was a Ethiopian (African) from Sheba's Kingdom.  AGain Ethiopia is among the oldest Christians.  Find a Church in Europe older than the Church’s of Lalibela.

[Belly Bob]

7 minutes ago, DevilDog said:

Ok let's play like one of us me is ignorant and I appease.  Jesus is a damn Spanish word.  That's a white dude.  Essa or Yeshua (May Elaha have peace and blessings uolpon him) wasn't a Christian.  So no none of his disciples were Cephus who you call Peter was not the Father of Christianity.  Saul later Paul is who you follow.  To be like Yeshua (Peace be upon him).  He obeyed Mosauc law. Forbidden from Swine eating, circumcised on day 8th after birth.  Nothing Paul instructed nor the Church who cane up with all that B.S. at the Council of Nicea. Is Christlike.  You are not Christ Like.  You are a Paul follower who was an enemy of Christ.  The 1st convert was a Ethiopian (African) from Sheba's Kingdom.  AGain Ethiopia is among the oldest Christians.  Find a Church in Europe older than the Church’s of Lalibela. ↳

I think I may have to reject your tutelage. 

[DevilDog]

The first European known to see these churches was the Portuguese explorer Pêro da Covilhã (1460–1526). A Portuguese priest, Francisco Álvares (1465–1540), accompanied the Portuguese Ambassador on a visit to Dawit II in the 1520s. Alvares described the unique church structures as follows: "I weary of writing more about these buildings, because it seems to me that I shall not be believed if I write more ... I swear by God, in Whose power I am, that all I have written is the truth".

Again like Egyprl Africans baffling racist ass Eurooeans with their Architectural  prowess.  The Churches at Lalibela cannot be explained. Ethiopia (Africa) mentioned in the bible 2nd only to Jerusalem. No Europeans in the Old Testament.  That's probably why they dismiss it and hell no the damn Paope is not Cephus representative.