T
Tom317
Guest
And I have many time refuted your assertions many times using quotes from her article.
You don’t agree, fine. Not a big deal.
- Status
You don’t agree, fine. Not a big deal.
M
martino
Guest
sorry i overlooked it then. i dont want to ask you to redo what you already did, can you just give me the post # and i will go check it out. if you have refuted me already i will be more than happy to concede the point.
T
Tom317
Guest
There 183 posts, most of them contain our conversation, and I refuted you so many times that I do not have a clue as to the count. I do not plan to look through them. Besides, truthfully, it is waaay beyond clear to me that you have no intention of changing your mind, you just want to defend Ann.
Let us just agree to disagree.
L
litllulu
Guest
This is simply not true. I don’t like or dislike an, nor do I have dog in this race. I just did not see what you are seeing. If someone uses the example of selling of papal indulgences or the inquistion to merely make a point, does that make them Anti-Catholic? I say no, you say ‘yes’!
T
Tom317
Guest
The message you quoted was NOT to you.
L
litllulu
Guest
T
Tom317
Guest
No problem at all.
M
martino
Guest
Tom, i am not trying to be a pest but i really dont think you ever refuted that point that i just made. i cannot agree to disagree about something that is not subjective…its not a matter of opinion…she either claimed they hold courts of inquisition or she didnt. I gave you the quote that proves she did make that assertion, which makes the last line make perfect sense.
T
Tom317
Guest
And, I have posted many times the quote that proves she did say religions who hold courts of inquisition are felse religions. And you are wrong, the words she wrote can clearly b interpreted at least two ways, so it IS a matter of opinion what she intended. In other words, we are both interpreting, even if you think you are not.
I suspect that if I said the sky was blue, you would say “no, it is actually light blue.”
M
martino
Guest
no but the key to this whole thing is whether or not she claimed that the global warming crowd uses courts of inquisition to advance its agenda. that would be the only way she could add that bit in her last line about courts of inquisition. if she had not done so i would be agreeing with you. but she did give an example of that which i have posted for you.
so in light of the fact that she gave an example of the liberal courts of inquisition do you still think that she could not have been talking about the liberals when she mentions that part in the last line?
T
Tom317
Guest
Sigh
I think she was saying that any religion who holds courts of inquisition are false religions. Can you not see the obvious? She was coupling the liberals to the historical Catholic Church throughout her article, through the indulgences and then through courts of inquisition and her basic premise is that the liberals do the same thing Catholics do…they hand out indulgences for global warming and they hold courts of inquisition, which in Ann’s view makes them both false religions.
You see, Ann clearly sees the sale of indulgences as being a very bad thing, and she ties the liberals to that. She clearly sees courts of inquisition (a clear reference to the Catholic inquisition) to the liberals by using the title " Denmark’s Inquisition Court." It is beyond obvious to me that Ann is comparing liberals to the Catholic Church and she is not doing so in a complimentary way, she is saying they are both false religions.
T
Tom317
Guest
martino,
What Ann thinks of the Church makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things. It is just my contention that she views the Church as being a false religion, which caused her to use that opinion to blast the liberals. In essence, she is saying “see, the liberals are just as bad as the Catholics.” She thinks she is singing to the choir by comparing the liberals to the big, bad, evil Catholic Church and I am guessing she figures most people who like her will agree with her assessment of the Church and of liberals.
What Ann thinks of the Church makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things. It is just my contention that she views the Church as being a false religion, which caused her to use that opinion to blast the liberals. In essence, she is saying “see, the liberals are just as bad as the Catholics.” She thinks she is singing to the choir by comparing the liberals to the big, bad, evil Catholic Church and I am guessing she figures most people who like her will agree with her assessment of the Church and of liberals.
L
litllulu
Guest
Tom,
I just don’t see how you conclude that she equates modern liberals with historical corrupt church members.
T
Tom317
Guest
Because she peppered her article with references to the Catholic Church.
When people speak of inquisitions, who do most people think of? The Catholic Church.
When people speak of indulgences and the abuse of indulgences, who do most people think of? The Catholic Church.
Ann knew exactly what she was doing. She was saying: “the liberals are just as bad as Catholics.” She weas tying her condemnation of liberals to her condemnation of Catholic practices and then finishes it all off by saying any religion who does that things are false religions.
This could not be more clear to me. Ann is a very strong anti-Catholic and she used that bias to bash the liberals.
T
Tom317
Guest
BTW, I think the real revealing statement by Ann was this:
"It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to develop corrupt practices such as papal indulgences."
She is saying that Papal Indulgences are corrupt, she does not say in this statement that the sale of indulgences was wrong, she states very clearly that Papal Indulgences are corrupt. This reveals so much about Ann and her disdain for the faith, thatit is something that one needs to ignore to not see…imo.
T
Tom317
Guest
When people uses analogies to make a point, they are basically saying that the subject of the anology is the same or very similar to the subject it is being compared to. Now in this case Ann used Catholic practices as an analogy to the practices of the liberals, and then later she said anyoen religion that uses those practices are false religions. Clearly, and to me obviously, she views the Catholic faith as false or else she would not have used those analogies. It would make no sense at all for Ann to use Catholic practices as analogy if she did not think the analogy was valid. She
R
rlg94086
Guest
I think we already covered this Tom. 99.9835% (+/- 5%) of the non-Catholic world don’t know there are such a thing as valid Papal indulgences. The only thing they know from history is the selling of indulgences pre-Reformation. This was even the case for me well into my conversion as a Catholic, because indulgences weren’t even discussed in my RCIA classes.
To make the leap from a negative comment about indulgences being corrupt to “disdain for the faith” is without merit. It is more likely out of ignorance, rather than disdain.
It reminds me of a Dr. Laura call I heard a long time ago (I listened to her for a while in the 90s). Somehow, the Eucharist came up in conversation, and Dr. Laura said, “but you don’t believe it’s actually the body and blood of Jesus?” She was shocked and dumbfounded when the Catholic caller explained that indeed we do. Dr. Laura has probably studied more about faith and morals than Ann Coulter, but she didn’t know a basic tenet of our faith. I’ll bet you neither of them knows about the efficacy of papal indulgences.
Stick to the “false religions” sentence. That is the problematic one, not the indulgence issue.
To make the leap from a negative comment about indulgences being corrupt to “disdain for the faith” is without merit. It is more likely out of ignorance, rather than disdain.
It reminds me of a Dr. Laura call I heard a long time ago (I listened to her for a while in the 90s). Somehow, the Eucharist came up in conversation, and Dr. Laura said, “but you don’t believe it’s actually the body and blood of Jesus?” She was shocked and dumbfounded when the Catholic caller explained that indeed we do. Dr. Laura has probably studied more about faith and morals than Ann Coulter, but she didn’t know a basic tenet of our faith. I’ll bet you neither of them knows about the efficacy of papal indulgences.
Stick to the “false religions” sentence. That is the problematic one, not the indulgence issue.
T
Tom317
Guest
Thanks for the advice, but I will go the way I want.
IMO, Ann shows disdain for the faith through much of the article, with the peak of that disdain being shown in her “false religions” statement. It makes no difference that she is ignorant of the faith (I agree with you on that point btw), she clearly is trying to compare what she sees as a false religion to another false religion and she does so by her continuing theme of Catholic practices that she personally deems as a proper comparison to how bad liberals are.
The bottom line is Ann is an anti-liberal and an anti-Catholic.
R
rlg94086
Guest
See, you did take my advice.
T
Tom317
Guest
Not really. I have said all along that the false religions statement is critical, yet I also firmly believe she reflects anti-Catholic attitudes through a good chunk of the article.See, you did take my advice.
- Status