Refuting Stephen Fry on the intelligence debate.

[MrSylvester]

Through Mary Immaculate,

Those who’ve read my previous posts know that I am a very angry person indeed! Well, that anger has passed out alot now as Ive released it in one of my recent posts denouncing the media and huamnity as a whole for vilifying the Catholic Church as irredeemably evil despite their own ‘heroes’ doing much worse. This anger sort of began when I saw and read about the intelligence debate between Anne Widecombe and a Nigerian Bishop vs. Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens. Now I was angry at how Anne Widecombe and the Bishop did such a bad job; one person even said that a hologram of Jesus would have done a better job at putting up a fight than did those two, especially the Bishop. Its sad though that real apologists like Scott Hahn and Karl Keating weren’t invited and instead they chose two people who scarcely knew how to defend the faith. So I am here today to refute all the idiotic things Fry said and in order to make things easier, I am going to use one of his quotes taken from Fry’s wikiquote page to refute everything. Note that this thread will have a jokey jokey atmosphere. Here it goes…

I genuinely believe that the Catholic church is not, to put it at its mildest, a force for good in the world.

Saint Francis might object to that because he certainly did alot of good. His influence lead to widespread holiness and charity in the Catholic Church, so much so that even Vladimir Lenin, an atheistic mass murderer died saying “I have deluded myself. Without doubt, it was necessary to free the oppressed masses. However, our methods resulted in other oppressions and gruesome massacres. You know I am deathly ill; I feel lost in an ocean of blood formed by countless victims. This was necessary to save our Russia, but it is too late to turn back. We would need ten Francis of Assisi.”

Now alot of amateur Catholic apologists will say that though the Church did do evil before, now that Vatican II is here things became better. ****! The Catholic Church ALWAYS did good, even in the middle ages. It advanced education, even for poor people and found the first universities during those times; it gave charity to the poor, it established alot of the morals we take for granted today. If it wasn’t for the Church, would we have this contempt for sexual promiscuity? If it weren’t for the inquisition, wouldn’t trials still be held superstitiously and would we have presumption of innocence? No, because the Church not only introduced these things, it advanced them.

And therefore it is important for me to try and marshal my facts as well I can to explain why I think that. But I want first of all to say that I have no quarrel, no argument and I wish to express no contempt for individual devout and pious members of that church. It would be impertinent and wrong of me to express any antagonism to wards any individual who wishes to find salvation in whatever form they wish to express it. That to me is sacrosanct as much as any article of faith is sacrosanct to anyone of any church or any faith in the world.

Oh stop trying to flatter us Mister Fry! If you insult our faith, you insult all of us, and to say that the Catholic Church is not a force of good is an insult not only to us lay Catholics, it is an insult to all those Priests and nuns who helped all those people by their Charity, preaching and influence, it is an insult to these same people they helped, of which include converts, native Americans, Jews and Indians who benefited by their charity and it is an insult to Jesus and Mary because it would mean that their help did nothing.

Also, it’s wrong for you to express antagonism towards anyone who wants to find salvation in whatever way he wants? Then why the hell are you ridiculing our faith and saying the exact opposite, that the Church is not a force of good in the world? Don’t we like the Catholic faith? Are devout Catholics obedient to Rome the exception, in that all of them are murderous knight templars? Or do you mean to say that its OK to believe what religion or faith you want as long as Catholicism is rejected? We can’t do that because firstly, we don’t know that what we’re believing is true so we’d be lying to ourselves; and secondly, if we have the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ God, then how can we, in good conscience reject its dogmas or doubt them despite evidence of it being the first Christian Church? It wouldn’t be taking religion very seriously now, and we are supposed to take religion seriously. Of course, you’d still complain against these same people who make up their own faith, like how you moan and whine against Protestants who interpret the Bible according to their own wants.

*** It’s very important. It’s also very important to me as it happens that I have my own beliefs. They are a belief in the Enlightenment, they’re a belief in the eternal adventure of trying to discover moral truth in the world. ***

Yeah, moral truth, as long as it is to your own liking and not to God or to society. Maybe if someone shows Fry how wrong he is, he’ll tell them that they don’t know moral truth and they’ll answer him ‘what is morality anyway?’

 

[MrSylvester]

***And there is nothing, sadly, that the Catholic church and its hierarchs likes to do more than to attack the Enlightenment. It did so at the time – reference was made to Galileo and the fact that he was tortured for trying to explain the Copernican theory of the universe. ***

And there is nothing sadly that the Enlightenment and its proponents like to do more than to attack Catholicism. They did so at the time-reference is made to the fact that the French revolution banned religion when it took over France and killed 40,000 people, alot of whom were utterly innocent including nuns, Priests and devout Catholics or if they wanted to hold onto their ‘religion’, they were forced to renounce the Pope and the Catholic Church and to preach false values. Reference is also made to the fact that the unification of Italy stole the Papal States AFTER the liberal Pope Pius IX (who tore down the gate of the ghetto of Rome and only reinstituted them after Rome was attacked) made the Papal States more liberal but no less religious.

There are also the facts that he first Spanish republic banned Catholicism and stole land from the Church, the fact that Catholic education was ridiculed as inferior as if teaching religion to children is child abuse (oh, we’ll get to that) and the fact that the enlightenment denies that God (and the Virgin Mary of course) have any effect on the world and denies that religion is important. More of these condemnations can be seen in Pius IX’s Syllabus of errors which is ex cathedra.

So Mister Fry, it’d be contradictory for us to embrace the enlightenment which denies God and Mary’s sovereignty and to embrace it would mean betraying Jesus and all that He stands for, wouldn’t it? You and your militant atheist friends will tell me that 'Ah, but Jesus didn’t found the Catholic Church and that all the things He said are made up. He may have existed, but He didn’t say the things the Catholic Church teaches ’ Really now? Would you please tell me what Jesus really said? For the sake of brevity, I refer people to post #40 of this thread where I refute the idea that Jesus didn’t make the Catholic Church or that it was invented by someone else: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=630583&page=3 Also, this article refutes the idea that the Bible is made up: godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html

Catholicism was founded by Jesus, because not only did Jesus come into this world, hand over His authority to Peter and the Apostles as proven by the Bible, they also appointed deacons, Priests and Bishops to help others. They elected Popes; Peter came first, then Linus, then Anacletus, then Clement, then Kiril Lakota, then Joan, then the High Septon… oh, wait, I switched to the list of people I want to assassinate by mistake! Woops. These quotes (courtesy of Listverse.com) show that the early Church was Catholic and taught Catholic things:

Bishops: For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblamably and holily. — Pope St Clement, Letter to the Corinthians 1, A.D. 96.

The Papacy: “[From] Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (St Ignatius, Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

Holy Communion: “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” — St. Justin Martyr, “First Apology”, A.D. 148-155.

Infant Baptism: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (St Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Confession: “[A filial method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, “I said, to the Lord, I will accuse myself of my iniquity.” ” (Origen, Homilies in Leviticus 2:4 — A.D. 248)

So, Mister Fry, we have reasons to believe that Jesus gave us a mission to preach the truth so you can’t say that our preaching has no purpose. And for the record, Gallileo was never tortured: he couldn’t even be tortured because the inquisition only allowed torture for certain cases: catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

 

[MrSylvester]

Now people will say that even if Galileo wasn’t tortured, his trial and the fact that he was banned from propagating his works on heliocentrism is a sign that the Church is against science. If the whole Church said something as great as saying that scientific progress isn’t necessary and that it should be rejected in favor of faith, I’d understand, but Galileo’s case is so overblown, so exaggerated in its importance its unbelievable. Galileo was just a man; his trial should be as insignificant for scientists as the death of Giordano Bruno is insignificant to that of occultists. Not only that but in the 1700’s, the Church removed his books from the Index of forbidden books and in 1825, the leader of the Dominicans issued an apology. Either way, the actions of the inquisition in this case were not infallible and certainly not ex cathedra, therefore, they weren’t matter of faith. So, why do atheists take this as proof that the Church opposes science? Do they have proof? NO! Apparently, Abbot Gregor Mendel, Bishop Nicolas Steno and Albertus Magnus don’t exist in the dreams of Hitchens and Fry. Mendel pioneered genetics, Steno is called the father of stratigraphy and geology and Albertus Magnus has a really cool statue in front of the university of Cologne.



This is proof that if the Church opposed the enlightenment, it wasn’t because of science. Rather, the Church in the middle ages found universities, it developed with the help of Thomas Aquinas the use of scholasticism (scholasticism, that is, using common sense. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologicae is MADE of this as any possible question He can think of against a thesis is brought up), people made Cathedrals with the help of peasants so thats proof that people weren’t stupid, Catholics provided education for the poor and a host of other things. I can go on and on about this yet I’ll leave it here for now.

Just imagine in this square mile how many people were burned for reading the Bible in English. And one of the principle burners and torturers of those who tried to read the Bible in English here in London was Thomas More. Now, that’s a long time ago, it’s not relevant. Except, that it was only last century that Thomas More was made a saint and it was only in the year 2000 that the last pope, the Pole, he made Thomas More the Patron Saint of Politicians. This is a man who put people on the rack for daring to own a Bible in English. He tortured them for owning a Bible in their own language.

Er, no, you just made that up. He didn’t torture them because they had a Bible in English; in fact, More didn’t torture people at all. He denied of ever torturing his prisoners in his life time and he only arrested them because he suspected that they were heretics… and he was right.

Here, let me talk about the Inquisition. The Inquisition is not bad, not bad at all and in fact, it did alot of good. There were three inquisitions: the medieval or episcopal inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition and the Roman Inquisition. The first one I don’'t know how many deaths there were as I couldn’t find any information but the Spanish Inquisition resulted in an estimated 3000-5000 deaths between the years 1480-1746, a period of 260 years, out of an estimated 150,000 trials. Not much of a genocide now, is it? The Roman Inquisition which as run under the Pope resulted in 1250 death after the year 1542 to the present day, the last notable action of the inquisition being the Edgardo Motara case in the 1850’s. Not much of a genocide now, is it?

Now, all of the Inquisitions rarely used torture and even then bloodshed couldn’t be used; torture was used to extract information and not to force people to convert back to Catholicism and to renounce heresies. Neither did the inquisition desire that the heretics be killed but it wanted to convert them to the true fold of God. Neither did the Inquisition kill people: the state did. This may sound like a total cop out but it isn’t because the inquisitors did not have the power to execute heretics and could only investigate whether this or that guy was guilty of heresy. In the words of David Goldstein, the Inquisition is as guilty of murder as a jury is to sending a man to the electric chair. Not only did the inquisition not kill everyone who was merely suspected of being a heretic on sight, they also the concept of presumption of innocence. There was a case in the 1300’s were a certain Jewish man, Salamon and a relative were accused by certain women of having had sexual relationships with them ‘through their arguments’. The Inquisition investigated the case and ordered the man’s pregnant wife to be killed… Ok, I’m just kidding! The Inquisition would never turn pro-choice. What really happened was that the case was dropped as the Inquisition couldn’t risk killing an innocent man. And this was a time where the Jews, though not killed were discriminated against because of their religion (and not their race. What the Catholic Church is racist now?)

This does not mean that there weren’t abuses. For example, Robert le Bougre, the “Hammer of Heretics”, was a Dominican friar who became an inquisitor known for his cruelty and violence. Another example was the case of the province of Venice, which was handed to the Franciscan inquisitors, who quickly became notorious for their frauds against the Church, by enriching themselves with confiscated property from the heretics and the selling of absolutions. Because of their corruption, they were eventually forced by the Pope to suspend their activities in 1302; if the inquisition wasn’t a puppet of the English, Saint Joan of Arc would never have been declared a heretic although the Bishop did remove her ‘excommunication’ right before she died,

 

[MrSylvester]

Ok, fine you’ll tell me, but isn’t it wrong for someone to interfere with the religious beliefs of others and to force them to believe something they don’t believe in? If I came into a Jewish synagogue or a Muslim mosque with a gun in hand telling everyone that they must convert or I’ll shoot this puppy, thats unjust. But thats not the way the inquisition worked, at least not the Spanish or the Roman ones. If you were publicly a Jew or Muslim, you were left alone with your life but you had better not pretend to be Catholic while not only practicing your old Jewish religion in secret but at the same time engaged in Judaizing.

It is true that there was alot of anti-semitism in the middle ages with random people ganging up on Jews to lynch them; the Church condemned such injustices and even praised Bishops who protected the Jews and this was one of the reasons the Inquisition was made: there were so many false converts from the Jewish and Muslim religions that it was necessary to root out these false converts. And this wasn’t just some thinly veiled excuse to steal property from people as the inquisition did find cryptic Jews who spread heresy. Diego de Marchena was a Priest who lived in the famous monastery of Guadalupe but was convicted by the Inquisition of giving false spiritual advice; in Toledo, a monk was convicted of encouraging parents to bless their children as Jews and debunked the statutes of Jesus as ‘jest and derision’ (from Isabella of Castile: the first Renaissance queen by Nancy Rubin Stuart).

Now is it possible that this was a Jewish genocide when out of the tens of thousands of Jews and Muslims forced to convert in times of trouble, less than 5000 were ultimately executed? Even if none was executed, the Church has the right to preserve the purity of tis doctrines, it has the right to give people the true faith while nobody has the right to pretend being something yet does the exact opposite. Even when Isabella of Castile expelled the Jews from Spain in 1492, they were received by the Pope and he let them live in his states, and this was 6 decades before Paul IV established the Jewish ghettos in the Papal States. Speaking of ghettos, Fry thinks the Church is anti-semitic despite it being found by a Jewish Man with a Jewish Mother. For more on this topic, see this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=624145

Anyway, 3 of the people Thomas More arrested were Priests who would pretend to be Catholic but would preach false doctrines which were against what the Church taught. This wasn’t a case of somebody defecting from the Church, this was a case of a crypto-protestant. And though Thomas More didn’t torture or sentence these heretics to death, he certainly didn’t frown upon the death penalty and even approved of it… so why is he still considered a saint? For starters, during that time, executing heretics was a custom of the times. Setting aside the fact that Protestants did it, it wasn’t viewed as immoral because the heretic, admittedly, was guilty of a crime called heresy and unless he abjured his errors, he’d either be sent to jail, exile or death. It can’t be said that medieval society was backward because of this because though heretics were executed even if they were not guilty of any other crime, they were investigated and given the chance to reform. Today, even in a Catholic state like the Papal States in the 17 and 1800’s, nobody would be executed for heresy but, they certainly would be publicly exposed for what they truly are and kicked out of the Church, and if someone is convicted of murdering someone, you can be sure he’d be going to jail.

Phew! And thats not getting started on the false idea that the Church banned the Bible from being read in English. For starters, the Church was responsible for the Latin Vulgate; Vulgate comes from the word vulgar/vernacular which means the common tongue of a region, and Latin was very widely spoken at that time. Surely, if the Church wanted to keep people from reading the Bible, then it wouldn’t write it in a language everyone knows? And though it is true that alot of peasants were illiterate in the middle ages, alot of noble certainly were not and these same people were often taught to learn different languages such as Latin. Priests would preach about the stories and meanings of the Bible and they wrote commentaries and books. The Church published the Douay Rheims Bible in 1582, years before the King James Bible. The idea that people were executed because they owned Bible in English and not because they themselves spread heresy is ridiculous:

 

[MrSylvester]

And now, we’re going to enter that bit of Fry’s obnoxious speech where things truly turn into utter drivel. Lets take a look:

The idea that the Catholic church exists to disseminate the word of the Lord is nonsense.

And to this I have to face palm.



Thats the most idiotic statement I have ever heard. I’ve proven that the Catholic Church comes from Christ; it established missions, gives to charity, spreads the faith by books, preaching, missions, going to countries to preach to people who don’t know about Catholicism, etc… In fact, people moan and whine how its wrong to ‘push your doctrines down people’s throats’ and yet they listen to this guy saying that we don’t spread the word of the lord?

Does his statement have to do with the fact that the Catholic Church had a lot of allies and political power in the past? It is perfectly true that the Catholic Church had a lot of political power but I ask, what’s so wrong with that? Does power ultimately mean evil? No. Gabriel Garcia Moreno was a very good Catholic leader and did a lot of good for his country; Pope Leo the Great convinced Atilla the Hun to leave just by talking to him; Paul III and the Catholic missionaries in America opposed the slavery of the native Americans and continued to do so until eventually, Philip III of Spain abolished slavery in Spain in 1600.

A lot of amateur apologists will say that after Vatican II, the Church removed its policy of doing ‘bad things’ to gain political power and that it does not recognize one government as better than another, etc… and to this I have to say FALSE. For one thing, the Vatican still has the Vatican state which was given to it by the 1929 concordat between the Church and Mussolini! This means that the Church endorses fascism! No. The 1929 concordat was made not because the Church actually thought that Mussolini was a good leader, it was only made to give freedom to the Church in Italy, the same freedom that was taken away in Germany under Hitler and in Spain after the first Spanish republic came to power.

Lets face it: unless the Church was some oppressive dictatorship where civil liberties were done away with, there would be a reason to not let the Church have power. But it isn’t; back then, a lot of the things politics took for granted would seem uncivil by todays standards like:

-no religious freedom. In the Papal States, only Judaism and Catholicism were allowed to be practiced publicly, and while Protestants could live in the Papal States, they weren’t allowed to publish their bad books nor could they proselytize. However, religions could be practiced privately and if, for example, a Muslim wanted to leave to visit the Mecca, he was allowed to. The Church views other religions as bad, and to let something ad be spread was, well, bad. Errors and mistakes have no right to be spread (I wonder why Fry doesn’t oppose something as ‘evil’ as Catholicism being spread).

-Opposition to the idea of separation of Church and State-unity of Church and state doesn’t mean having the Pope as king of all Europe and America, it means that a state must recognize the Church as the only true religion and as superior to all other religions. It doesn’t mean that there could be no freedom of religion because while freedom of religion is an insane idea, tolerating false religions (but no recognizing them) is an alternative. This was the case under Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico even though the Pope objected to his policy… until Max was captured by Juarez and executed.

The Popes didn’t sin in not allowing public freedom of religion. they didn’t force anyone to convert for one thing and the fact that Catholicism remained the state religion ensured that no sinful practices enter into the government of the Church. And I mean the government of the Church; people certainly weren’t executed for being adulterous or for not going to Sunday mass because if tat were true, then only 5 people would be living in Italy right now!

Pope Leo XIII said that it better in the middle ages as in those times, people were more devout and actually cared for Jesus more. Today, we have sexual promiscuity rampant, we have abortion, acceptance of nudity and sex outside of marriage, immoral films which advocate evil practices, hatred of religion and even outright discrimination “cough!” Jessica “cough’’ ‘’Alqhuist’’ “cough!” This was the same Pope who wrote encyclicals supporting a social order that was just in his encyclical Rerum Novarum and condemned socialism and the evils of society and Americanism, instead of letting such problems be accepted as the teachings of Christ. In fact, virtually every Pope, even corrupt ones, denounced heresies as being contrary to what our Lord intended. The Church even denounced injustices by its allies; I already stated the inquisition examples above but when Jews were lynched by anti-semitic mobs in the middle ages, the Pope condemned and excommunicated those responsible as proven by Sicut Judaeis and here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism#The_Middle_Ages

So we see that the Church wasn’t that corrupt when it came to power as it did act against injustices. If there were injustices committed such as those of war (not the crusades: the Muslims there shot first) as is the case of the Albigensian crusade*** and the Northern Crusades conducted by Teutonic Knights, they were not matters of faith but of politics

 

[MrSylvester]

It is the only owner of the truth for the billions that it likes to boast about. Because those billions are uneducated and poor, as again it likes to boast about. It’s perhaps unfair of me as a gay man to moan this enormous institution, which is the largest and most powerful church on earth. It has over a billion, as they like to tell us, members, each one of whom is under strict instructions to believe the dogmas of the church, but may wrestle personally with them of course.

Those billions are uneducated and poor? Hmm, it is true that I skipped college. Oh wait, if I was so uneducated and poor, why do I have a computer in front of me which I am using to denounce you Mister Fry? I wrote all this in like two days. Anyway, if you mean the Africans, then if I was an African I’d feel personally insulted by that comment. We don’t force Africans to learn our faith; the Church never did. Alot of Saints came from Africa, such as Saint Augustine of Hippo, Saint Catherine, Mary of Egypt, Martin de Porres, wait, in fact, let me quote from Saint Ambrose: *Some complain that mankind will fail if so many are consecrated virgins. I desire to know who ever wanted a wife and could not find one? The killing of an adulterer, the pursuing or waging war against a ravisher, are the consequences of marriage. The number of people is greatest where virginity is most esteemed. Enquire how many virgins are consecrated every year at Alexandria, all over the East and in Africa, where there are more virgins than men in the country.*m From Wisdom of the Saints.

So Mister Fry, are all these people idiots for beleiving in something called a religion? It is true that there is a lot fo poverty in Africa but that doesn’t mean Africans are stupid. I read an article a few years ago in national geographic which showed how people living in tribes in the jungle are actually friendly with the white men and are actually interested to learn about our culture and technology. Read here for more: listverse.com/2011/12/15/top-10-misconceptions-about-africa/

Again, we have missionaries giving Africans and others education and teaching them the true faith. If we work extra hard, we might convert another 1 billion people by the end of the year and all 3 billion of us will be able to boast that we are part of the true faith! And by the way, whats wrong with dogmatism? In the cases of physical science, we leave it open to nterpretation but in the cases of religious dogma, it is not open to religious interpretation because if everyone was allowed to interpret the teachings of Christ accoridng to the way he wanted, theere would be alot of infighting amongst Christians and Christ wouldn’t have much of a legacy.

It’s hard for me to be told that I am evil, because I think of myself as someone who is filled with love.

We don’t think gay men are evil Mister Fry, in your case, we just think you’re a jerk for not having love towards the Catholic Church and devout Catholics. Additionally, we are agaisnt homosexuals expressing their sexual perversity so openly and so filthily just as we oppose heterosexuals being open with the people they had sex with.

 

[MrSylvester]

The quote came from a book called The Francis book and though information if it is authentic is sparse, it is alleged he said it to a hungarian Priest. Either way, every source I’ve seen has Lenin say it as his last sentence.

Even if it isn’t authentic, there is no denying that Saint Francis did alot of good in the world and is an inspiration to many and besides, I gave a lot of other evidence for Fry’s other accusations than a lone little quote.

 

[1AugustSon7]

It is good to be irate at atheists, who always espouse nonsense when prompted for their beliefs or philosophy; and to be irate also at all who engage in calumny. For that I commend you. Furthermore, that you took action to confound Mr. Fry’s errors as best you could is also commendable. Still, I would consider a more intense analysis of the root errors, fallacies or moral faults employed or engaged in by Mr. Fry, such that they can be clearly exploded -and that, if done with skill, should be like to the poetic justice of the clean, swift brevity with which the executioner’s axe removes the traitor’s head (being an analogy for Mr. Fry’s error(s) in this case).

Diagnose exactly the moral fault (e.g. calumny), logical fallacy or historical error and explode them exactly as such. Ignore the rest of what he says, but instead produce a bulletin or a summary that contains a list of the errors that Mr. Fry espouses for popular consumption. A catalogue of such errors suffices to discredit his opinions on a specific issue or subject, and no attention need be payed to whatever else remains. Take as an example the brevity of the Syllabus of errors, but modify to suite your audience, which of course in this case is not Catholics but rather the general public.

Consider your original production the raw material that can now be harvested and finally refined to produce a perfect product, most capable of fulfilling your desired goal of refuting Mr. Fry’s errors. If the list is too lengthy, then select the best examples, such that readers may not be deterred by the lengthiness of your rebuttal.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)