Bad priests and Baptists

  • Thread starter Thread starter fbl9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The OP was a parody. That’s a legitimate way of highlighting the fallacies in an idea. It seems kind of thin-skinned to me not to be able to handle that much irony. It is a normal part of debate.🤷
 
strngrnrth said:
The OP was a parody. That’s a legitimate way of highlighting the fallacies in an idea. It seems kind of thin-skinned to me not to be able to handle that much irony. It is a normal part of debate.🤷
Click to expand...
Good point.

However, for parody to be effective it must be understood. This parody went way over my head.
 
khutcheson said:
Good point.

However, for parody to be effective it must be understood. This parody went way over my head.
Click to expand...
do you like it when some one calls you a son/daughter of a whore,that is what a Catholic is being called when our MOTHER ,the church,is slandered by being called the whore of babalyon…when confronted this way do we go calling the person sick,sick,sick,no we don’t because whether they want to believe it or not we still consider this person our brother in Christ…and yet not one person has really offered one shread of evidence to disprove this bogus claim i posted…i could post a sign on my shop door claiming this is the church of God,hire someone to preach,claim some unprovable mythical link to the apostles and there you go another church that is the true church.it is that easy to do.
 
khutcheson said:
So two wrongs make a right?

Their misconduct justifies yours?
Click to expand...
sorry i don’t feel i done a wrong…i was trying to prove a point here…the point was made by someone else in the 1st page.and given the fact that the mods haven’t gotten back to me on this seems to indicate that the point was made.
 
khutcheson said:
Good point.

However, for parody to be effective it must be understood. This parody went way over my head.
Click to expand...
I might have understood it had the original post been a wee bit more coherent. I still do not get what was being said.
 
pnewton said:
I might have understood it had the original post been a wee bit more coherent. I still do not get what was being said.
Click to expand...
sorry i should have wrote it out first instead of posting off my mind…tried to be brief yet get as much into it as i could…basically the “baptist plot” is all of the bad clergy through out the ages actually were baptist plants in an effort to destroy the church from the inside…called names yes…been judged yes…some got the point yes…confused most yes…almost a confirmation yes…evidence against NO…
 
fbl9 said:
There is a plot by the baptists to ruin the evil catholic church. it goes like this …all the bad clergy throughout the ages were/are actually baptists.they recieved their support in the wrongs they did from baptists.Since they already believed themselves to be already saved thier wrong doings would not affect their salvation,and their victims are just hell bound catholics so it doesn’t matter what happens to them.if they hate the church then God would have mercy on them. of course any physical evidence of this plot is carefully wiped out by the baptists.the silence of the clergy is ensured cause the baptists won’t pray for the salvation of the clergy’s famlies if the clergy let’s this out.can any one disprove this??
Click to expand...
That’s fundamentally flawed. You can not disprove something…but rather show that something may be doubtful. …something like that. I took logic about 29 years ago. REally need to crack open the books again.
 
ibkc said:
A negative cannot be proven. Since you’re the one making the claim, it’s on you to provide the evidence to supports it…
Click to expand...
Thank you, thank you, thank you, ibkc.
Finally! Another person, on the forum, who
comprehends this simple point in logic.

The one who claims that a unicorn exits -
carries the burden of proof, not the one
who says that unicorns do not exit.

Thank you, ibkc. I get so weary, pointing out this fact.
No one is required - by the canons of logic, to prove a negative.

reen12
 
hi reen12 when confronted with “catholics whorship mary” one needs not to prove catholics don’t whorship her then??but the other party needs to prove that catholics do in order for one to defend the catholic beliefs regarding mary.
 
fbl9 said:
hi reen12 when confronted with “catholics whorship mary” one needs not to prove catholics don’t whorship her then??but the other party needs to prove that catholics do in order for one to defend the catholic beliefs regarding mary.
Click to expand...
Sounds fair to me!!😃 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top