BuffettNews.com

Lightning Bolt wrote:

live2ski wrote:

bravedave wrote:

... I wouldn't think people are quite that dumb...

That's quite a gauntlet to cast down. Almost an invitation to the next ***** who comes along.

There are millions of dumb people. And for each and every dumb person there is someone else who is just a little dumber. I see dumb people every day. Some of them don't even know they're dumb. (A regular old dummy may ruin your day, but a ***** who thinks he's smart can make your whole life miserable.)

So knock on wood or throw some IQ points over your left shoulder. Let's all try to make it through the day without a dumb encounter.

True, I call them Democrats.

yeah... they were the one who elected our idiot, er, "President"

No they elected the last idiot. Now go cry over how bad your Gulls and Padres really are.

I'm Catholic (or "A Catholic" as we're called out here in the mostly Dutch Reformed province of W Michigan) and I can't stand it when the Church tells its followers to not see a movie.

Why can't we see it and decide what we think?

I do know that Tom Hanks looks very silly with that Ivanhoe lookinh mop of a haircut that he sports in commercials for the movie.

I think the films being produced by Brian Glazer/Ron Howard's Imagine Films. There was a really cool show on either IFC or Sundance called "Iconoclasts" in which Sumner Redstone and Brian Glazer interviewed each other. Glazer seems like a really good guy.

I hope the film does well (which it likely will) as I think that Imagine Films usually puts out great movies; ie Cinderella Man (which was awesome) and A Beautiful Mind. The more $ they make, the more chances they can take. Good for them in taking a chance on making a film based on a piece of fiction that will lead to discussion and questioning of what we're told by church leaders.

green1 wrote:

IrishG wrote:So you're saying that a book/movie labeled as fiction is going to cause the decay of core beliefs among Catholics? If that is all it takes for RCC's followers to lose faith, I believe you have bigger issues at hand.

Fact is, the RCC has always been easily threatened. I wonder what would happen if I wildly asserted that the RCC was quite possibly the first true organized crime syndicate.

I am not saying that a fictional book will cause a decay of core beliefs. I am saying that Catholic Church has a duty to state when it's beliefs and tenets are being characteized incorrectly. If you think that any organization should not do the same, than why did you respond with correct information when I questioned the stereotypes asscoaited with Freemasons. Is it OK for one group but not another. The RCC is not easily threatened. You stating that it is, does not make it so. It simply wants to make sure that people realize what is fact, from what is fiction.

I also find it interesting that you state you want to debate something and not insult anyone and then you throw out the "organized crime syndicate". Smiley face not withstanding, it is insulting.

I guess it's my research in history that allows me to say the RCC is easily threatened. Or maybe brutal torture and murder had nothing to do with religion but more about power and money. When the Cathars were converting Catholics to their religion left and right, the RCC was no doubt threatened. Now did the RCC torture and murder these people because of religious differences as they said or was it to take over their lands and money in what is now southern france? Sure, there's the "that's a different century and morals were different" theory as suggested before, but when Constantine brought Christianity to Rome, I'm pretty that was supposed to bring morals with them, regardless of the period of time. If it happened because of religious differences, then there goes the "judge not less ye be judged" and "turn the other cheek" type of spiel. The other alternative is an organized crime mentality of size power and money via "a front". You may find it insulting, but it in no way changes history.

That's not saying the RCC is still like that, but old habits die hard. I really, really hate to use a movie as a reference, but it's too entertaining not to. Godfather 3. That was just a movie, but the RCC was potrayed very negatively in it...I'm curious if the RCC protested that movie as well?

Now about your reference to my information about Masons...I returned with correct information about those stereotypes because I simply state historical and current facts. What I've said about the RCC was based on historical facts or theories that are widely recognized. The whole "organized crime" piece might take it a bit far, but using the Cathars as an example is a good example of why it's possible to apply that logic.

Why I think there's a difference is because I state these things from an outside perspective of all. I don't have an emotional investment in it, I have feelings neither way about the Catholics or any other religion. I just have my opinions about them based off logic and historical facts.

As for what the RCC has a duty to state what is fact and what is fiction to their tenets, however, it is only logical to recognize that what is taught as fact by the RCC is not necessarily so. What you said to me also applies to the RCC, saying it is fact does not make it so. Historians and Theologists could surely rip apart any organized religion and they pretty much already have.

On a side note, I pose a question. Jesus' only family didn't believe he was the son of God. They believed he was a prophet. Now, if Jesus' own mother didn't believe he was the son of God, that would mean she knows she wasn't knocked up by God, hence not a virgin. Does the teachings of Christianity know better Jesus' mother and the words of the Bible? When asked if he was the son of God, Jesus has numerous quotes on how he is nothing compared to the Lord, yada yada, basically implying they are not "one in the same", which basically throws out the Holy Trinity.

The only true fact when it comes to organized religion is that each denomination's and religion's teachings are interpretations of a book filled with hypocrisy and metaphors.

Catch&Release wrote:I'm Catholic (or "A Catholic" as we're called out here in the mostly Dutch Reformed province of W Michigan) and I can't stand it when the Church tells its followers to not see a movie.

Why can't we see it and decide what we think?

I do know that Tom Hanks looks very silly with that Ivanhoe lookinh mop of a haircut that he sports in commercials for the movie.

I think the films being produced by Brian Glazer/Ron Howard's Imagine Films. There was a really cool show on either IFC or Sundance called "Iconoclasts" in which Sumner Redstone and Brian Glazer interviewed each other. Glazer seems like a really good guy.

I hope the film does well (which it likely will) as I think that Imagine Films usually puts out great movies; ie Cinderella Man (which was awesome) and A Beautiful Mind. The more $ they make, the more chances they can take. Good for them in taking a chance on making a film based on a piece of fiction that will lead to discussion and questioning of what we're told by church leaders.

Actually, Howard doesn't take too many chances. He tends to soften the story and add a feel good ending to every film he makes, whether it fits the truth or not.

I think there was some actual fact in the Godfather Part 3; the Vatican Bank in the early 1980s was tied up in some really interesting, and some might say, "counterproductive" enterprises relative to their mission statement and stance on "evil"

IrishG wrote:

I guess it's my research in history that allows me to say the RCC is easily threatened. Or maybe brutal torture and murder had nothing to do with religion but more about power and money. When the Cathars were converting Catholics to their religion left and right, the RCC was no doubt threatened. Now did the RCC torture and murder these people because of religious differences as they said or was it to take over their lands and money in what is now southern france? Sure, there's the "that's a different century and morals were different" theory as suggested before, but when Constantine brought Christianity to Rome, I'm pretty that was supposed to bring morals with them, regardless of the period of time. If it happened because of religious differences, then there goes the "judge not less ye be judged" and "turn the other cheek" type of spiel. The other alternative is an organized crime mentality of size power and money via "a front". You may find it insulting, but it in no way changes history.

That's not saying the RCC is still like that, but old habits die hard. I really, really hate to use a movie as a reference, but it's too entertaining not to. Godfather 3. That was just a movie, but the RCC was potrayed very negatively in it...I'm curious if the RCC protested that movie as well?

Now about your reference to my information about Masons...I returned with correct information about those stereotypes because I simply state historical and current facts. What I've said about the RCC was based on historical facts or theories that are widely recognized. The whole "organized crime" piece might take it a bit far, but using the Cathars as an example is a good example of why it's possible to apply that logic.

Why I think there's a difference is because I state these things from an outside perspective of all. I don't have an emotional investment in it, I have feelings neither way about the Catholics or any other religion. I just have my opinions about them based off logic and historical facts.

As for what the RCC has a duty to state what is fact and what is fiction to their tenets, however, it is only logical to recognize that what is taught as fact by the RCC is not necessarily so. What you said to me also applies to the RCC, saying it is fact does not make it so. Historians and Theologists could surely rip apart any organized religion and they pretty much already have.

On a side note, I pose a question. Jesus' only family didn't believe he was the son of God. They believed he was a prophet. Now, if Jesus' own mother didn't believe he was the son of God, that would mean she knows she wasn't knocked up by God, hence not a virgin. Does the teachings of Christianity know better Jesus' mother and the words of the Bible? When asked if he was the son of God, Jesus has numerous quotes on how he is nothing compared to the Lord, yada yada, basically implying they are not "one in the same", which basically throws out the Holy Trinity.

The only true fact when it comes to organized religion is that each denomination's and religion's teachings are interpretations of a book filled with hypocrisy and metaphors.[/quote]

I guess a Mason would know about front organizations. I mean the Masons are related to the Templars and the Templars were the first organized bankers in the Western World. So the Templars, not the RCC would be the first organized crime syndicate. Which is why the Templars were banished from the church. They were corrupt.

Yes, atroxities were comitted in the name of Catholicism. And those of us who are Catholics have to do everything in our present day to acknowledge and ensure that they don't happen again.

The Catholic Church traces it's teachings and tenets driectly back to the apostles and Jesus. That is where these teachings originate. I am not a theological scholar or defender of the faith.

Please provide sources for your "side note" otherwise I will assume, correectly, that you are spouting off. You seem to quote the bible, so provide those chapters and verse so I can reference them.

Where is the hypocrisy in Christ's teachings? That is what Catholicism is based upon.

You have thrown a lot of one liners, but have provided no substantiation.

live2ski wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

live2ski wrote:

bravedave wrote:

... I wouldn't think people are quite that dumb...

That's quite a gauntlet to cast down. Almost an invitation to the next ***** who comes along.

There are millions of dumb people. And for each and every dumb person there is someone else who is just a little dumber. I see dumb people every day. Some of them don't even know they're dumb. (A regular old dummy may ruin your day, but a ***** who thinks he's smart can make your whole life miserable.)

So knock on wood or throw some IQ points over your left shoulder. Let's all try to make it through the day without a dumb encounter.

True, I call them Democrats.

yeah... they were the one who elected our idiot, er, "President"

No they elected the last idiot. Now go cry over how bad your Gulls and Padres really are.

uh... it's called sarcasm there, flyover-stater
(see sig below)

ain't no crying over Padres or Gulls, no sir...
they just won 3rd straight and May is, historically, their month to really start playing
Gulls are about to move their affiliation with Avalanche to the AHL

You sound bitter cuz ski season just ended

green1 wrote: I guess a Mason would know about front organizations. I mean the Masons are related to the Templars and the Templars were the first organized bankers in the Western World. So the Templars, not the RCC would be the first organized crime syndicate. Which is why the Templars were banished from the church. They were corrupt.

Yes, atroxities were comitted in the name of Catholicism. And those of us who are Catholics have to do everything in our present day to acknowledge and ensure that they don't happen again.

The Catholic Church traces it's teachings and tenets driectly back to the apostles and Jesus. That is where these teachings originate. I am not a theological scholar or defender of the faith.

Please provide sources for your "side note" otherwise I will assume, correectly, that you are spouting off. You seem to quote the bible, so provide those chapters and verse so I can reference them.

Where is the hypocrisy in Christ's teachings? That is what Catholicism is based upon.

You have thrown a lot of one liners, but have provided no substantiation.

The Templars were supported by the RCC. When they became too powerful and rich, as well as not believing in Catholic teachings, they were sentenced to execution. After the execution of a number of Templars, they took off with the bank. Before that instance, there was no acknowledgement of being crooks...and seeing as how they were supported by the RCC....it's easy to see who was crooked first. However, that's quite possibly a chicken and egg argument.

I point out Christianity in general for the atrocities, not just Catholicism, btw.

Jesus of Nazareth is a common teaching. He was obviously from Galiea (sp?) and Nazareth wasn't even founded at that time. Nazareth was a term for Nazarenes, the "rebels". Realistically, the Romans were more at fault for the death of Christ, not the Jews. Some theologists/historians think the death of Christ was more politically motivated than religious. The teachings of Christ, the injustice of the treatment of jews, as well as his well known travel and friendship with many rebels, lends fairly credible evidence to the possibility.

I look at it this way. I believe historical facts. I take into consideration varying theories. What I don't do is take the solid word of a book written by men, with pieces of the book missing, or the word of a specific organization to be concrete. Faith is a great thing, but blind faith is just illogical and naive.

As for the quotes from Christ and/or hypocrisy, I don't have a bible sitting in front of me (and honestly, I should get SOME work done while I'm getting paid for sitting here), I don't have time to search the internet. But I will get you your quotes. If my employee was not in Tortola right now, he could spout every instance off. He's a devout Christian, but the most unique and amazing Christian I've ever met. He's very logical and open minded. He believes Christ was the son of God, the whole spiel, yada yada. But he is quick to recognize the hypocrisy of the Bible (he's spit out many verses for me in the past) and that it's largely metaphorical and illogical. As he says, "Only Christ was perfect. The guys who wrote the bible were not, thus they are subject to writing a flawed book". Would Jesus really have wanted Mary Magdalene to be a portrayed as a whore? It's plausible that she was his wife. She's mentioned in the Bible more than any woman, she was constantly with him, and he's referred to as a Rabbi in the bible, which you have to be 30 and married to be a Rabbi. It's plausible, but the words get twisted and now she's a whore. A victim of the times, perhaps. I'll have to skim through some to look for your quotes, but I'll get them to you at some point.

OK, I will leave off here. I have to get some work done as well. Talk to you later with my response. Have a good one.

green1 wrote:The Catholic Church traces it's teachings and tenets driectly back to the apostles and Jesus. That is where these teachings originate. I am not a theological scholar or defender of the faith.

Actually, the Catholic Church traces it's teachings back to the Council of Nicea, where they decided the "Divinity" of Christ. Before that point in time, there were different groups teaching many different things.