Sunday, June 12, 2016

Thoughts on the Pulse shooting

Since it was asked, here are my thoughts.

* I don't care about it too much. Not because I have callous disregard for the lives lost (it's a tragedy that should never have happened, no matter what the club was), but frankly - I don't know anyone at the club, or near it. There's no new lesson to be learned from the matter, no surprise. We have been through this shit before. Call me a man before my time - I am living in the world where this is just part of life. Barring Trump getting elected and fulfilling promises, trust me, you will reach this point too.

* No one, aside from Trump or the alt right, will locate any problems or worries with Islam. Not the Pope, not the president. No one. Even discussing the idea, the ways muslim culture influences things, will be desperately treated as beyond civilized discussion. The idea that maybe we shouldn't invite millions of 'refugees' into the country will likewise be beyond the pale. Right now, guaranteed, the real fear many people have is 'Will this make it harder to allow millions more muslim immigrants to the US?' and 'Is this helping Trump, the alt right is scary, they may not prosecute people who say mean things.'

* I see people are already blaming religious freedom legislation and a lack of gun control for this, as well as 'Extremist Right-wing Christians', what with their violent 'I don't want to take photos of your stupid same-sex wedding' rhetoric. I expect Christian religious leaders to go on the defensive, if they acknowledge this talk at all. Because they are worthless.

* Gun control is something people are trying to bring up, but the association with ISIS and Islam was way too fast. Sorry, I don't think the topic's going to be changed. With luck the 'Christians are responsible' gambit will fizzle out like a bad fart too because, as I said, I don't trust Christian leaders to know how to respond to it. Did I mention they're worthless yet?

* I'll skip hopping on the 'thoughts and prayers' train, thanks. I believe last time the liberal gimmick was 'Those don't work, we want action, rrrrr!' Okay, fine: buy some guns and bullets, learn to use a gun responsibly, carry it, and don't frequent 'gun free zones', and don't look to me for sympathy because you already made it clear you don't want that anyway. Also, get used to shit like this unless policies change. In fact, if you're 'LGBT' and 'out and proud', get ready for worse, because - as I've warned in the past - cultural winds are already blowing in an awkward direction. Muslim card trumps LGBT card, and between that and every faggoty college student discovering they have special snowflake identity/sexuality, it's inevitable that LGBT crowd finds themselves in competition with new, more petty, more inane identities when they aren't getting shot and blown to pieces by their new guests.

* Count on LGBT leaders finding themselves torn over whether they should try to use this to gain some additional power versus shutting up about the whole thing because it makes muslims look bad, and they're the top dogs right now. Personally I think they're going to shake, out of fear of feeding the Trump Monster.

There's my take. Goodnight.

22 comments:

planks length said...

At the very moment I was reading your comments here, I heard on C-SPAN some caller say "This isn't about ISIS - it's about our crazy gun culture ... and hatred toward the gay community."

Direct quote.

rOnIn said...

Well said Crude. Yep, the left has already made this about guns, but they won't talk about the hatred the Muslims have for the gays. The left should send some of the gay communities to the Middle East as Obama's envoy and see what happens. I don't understand our society anymore it has become filled with people that can't think and are motivated by emotional talk.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

> No one, aside from Trump or the alt right, will locate any problems or worries with Islam. Not the Pope, not the president.

So you had to use this tragedy to sneak in Pope bashing?

Useless.....

Forget I have nothing to say here.

Crude said...

So you had to use this tragedy to sneak in Pope bashing?

Like I'm known for my subtlety.

I made a prediction, Ben: "No one, aside from Trump or the alt right, will locate any problems or worries with Islam. Not the Pope, not the president."

Here's the puzzle for you. If I'm right, and the Pope says nothing, then will you say he did the right thing? If so, where's the bashing? I just accurately predicted him.

If I'm wrong, I eat my words. I'm making a prediction more than an analysis.

If you regard this as bashing, are you saying that the Pope's silence would be objectionable? Then that is your bashing more than mine.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>Like I'm known for my subtlety.

You and me both.

>I made a prediction, Ben: "No one, aside from Trump or the alt right, will locate any problems or worries with Islam. Not the Pope, not the president.”

“Problems with Islam” is equivocal ambiguous bullshit. Like fucking Gnus (who you look like you are echoing here) using this tragedy to rant about "Monotheistic Abrahamic Religions” or "the problems with religion". I know I have been butting heads with them in the wake of this tragedy.


>Here's the puzzle for you. If I'm right, and the Pope says nothing, then will you say he did the right thing? If so, where's the bashing? I just accurately predicted him.

“Says nothing” is some more equivocal ambiguous bullshit. The Pope said plenty today. He condemned this nonsense.


>If I'm wrong, I eat my words. I'm making a prediction more than an analysis.

Wrong about what? Apart from insulting the Pope by putting him in the same sentence as that cunt Obummer (thus equating the two which is slimly) you have nothing specific.


>If you regard this as bashing, are you saying that the Pope's silence would be objectionable? Then that is your bashing more than mine.

Silence about what? The Pope has condemned terrorism & using God’s name to commit crimes and murder & forced conversions & the killing of Christians.


http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-05/pope-shocked-by-diabolica-attack-on-yemen-care-home/7224048

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pope-condemns-indifference-jihadist-atrocities-against-christians-224333508.html?ref=gs

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/16/pope-francis-condemns-jihadist-slaughter-of-christians-in-pakistan/

>If I'm wrong, I eat my words. I'm making a prediction more than an analysis.

You are spouting ambitious crap and hoping in the near future the Pope is nice to a Muslim or pleads Christian compassion for a Muslim or says something positive about the non-offensive parts of their religion or a benign interpretation of it & then you will crow “Ah you see I was right! The Pope supports Islam! " Don’t bullshit me buddy. I am an old New Yorker we are immunized against it.

>If you regard this as bashing, are you saying that the Pope's silence would be objectionable? Then that is your bashing more than mine.

Don’t use your sophist bullshit on me. I am not Paps or Skepo I am fucking BenYachov. Remember that.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

Catholicism is the religion of Monks who will never draw a Sword and of Knights who once drawn will not sheath them.

The Pope is not a FUCKING KNIGHT! He is a monk. The President is a Knight. Stop making Caesar do the Church's Job or the Church do Caesar's job.

Crude said...

“Says nothing” is some more equivocal ambiguous bullshit. The Pope said plenty today. He condemned this nonsense.

'In stunning, bold move, Pope comes out strongly against killing.'

Pardon my lack of enthusiasm.

Don’t bullshit me buddy. I am an old New Yorker we are immunized against it.

I like Trump and he's a proud NY native, but really - I never bought into the mythos of the tough, hard as nails New Yorker. Certainly not ones immune from bullshit. This line means nothing to me, and it didn't on 9/11 either.

Don’t use your sophist bullshit on me. I am not Paps or Skepo I am fucking BenYachov. Remember that.

BenYachov is a lot like Crude. A nobody, who comments on small blogs. Please spare me this brand of bullshit.

You are spouting ambitious crap and hoping in the near future the Pope is nice to a Muslim or pleads Christian compassion for a Muslim or says something positive about the non-offensive parts of their religion or a benign interpretation of it & then you will crow “Ah you see I was right! The Pope supports Islam!

Actually, I'm hoping that the Pope outright talks about Islam's failures, the threats it poses, and more. Now and then I see a glimmer of that, but largely I see him melting into schtick that would enrage you if Obama said it. Your own links illustrate the problem: he condemns 'killing', but who the killers are, what motivates them? He has nothing to say most of the time, and when he does it's an embarrassment. (It's poverty!, etc) Obama's out there praising this gentle and noble monotheistic religion and condemning killing as well, you know.

I'm willing to give credit where it's due. When the Pope says something I think is worthwhile, I'll back him up. But I'm not his sycophant. If he needs me to sing his praises when he fucks up, he's got problems.

Nor have I said the Pope supports Islam. Obama, I'd say that about. But the Pope? I just think he, and most contemporary religious leaders, have a problem. The same problem New Yorkers do, come to think of it. Too much obsession with image and boilerplate. Too much posturing. They don't want to do the loving thing, they want to do the loving thing according to a strained media narrative. 'Be thought of as loving, be called loving by the media.'

I think there's more important things to do.

Crude said...

The Pope is not a FUCKING KNIGHT! He is a monk. The President is a Knight. Stop making Caesar do the Church's Job or the Church do Caesar's job.

So condemning the cultural failings of muslims and atheists and more is now a job for the state, not the Pope? If that's the only way you can exonerate the Pope, Ben, then you're in trouble. At this rate the Pope's job will be to baptize people and hear confessions, and precious little else.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

Well Crude you have nothing coherent to say. Just a lot of scatter shot. No substance. I rather like the insults but you could do WAY BETTER there. Said insults are clearly lacking the sophistication we have uptown as well as the real toughness we have downtown. Sorry but they read like something Paps would write.

>BenYachov is a lot like Crude. A nobody, who comments on small blogs

But we are both light years ahead in intelligence to either Paps or Skepo. Which is why your insults of New Yorkers are so disappointing.


>Actually, I'm hoping that the Pope outright talks about Islam's failures, the threats it poses, and more.

Yeh didn’t Benedict casually do that and two orthodox Priests died? Sounds like the “Pius XII should have spoken out forcefully against Hitler" bullshit? The Pope’s job is to talk about the Gospel. No give back bench analysis of a false religion or participate in politics.

>Now and then I see a glimmer of that, but largely I see him melting into schtick that would enrage you if Obama said it.

I don’t fucking care what Obama says. His Job is to protect American and not weld the sword in vain. The Pope doesn’t weld the sword or command a military force.

That is like bagging on a chiropractor for not diagnosing a brain tumor with an adjustment.

>Your own links illustrate the problem: he condemns 'killing', but who the killers are, what motivates them? He has nothing to say most of the time, and when he does it's an embarrassment. (It's poverty!, etc)

Moving the goal posts. Nothing the Pope says will be good enough for you outside of full on antagonism toward Islam regardless the cost. You are channeling your inner Rolf Hochhuth and directing it at the present Pope.

> Obama's out there praising this gentle and noble monotheistic religion and condemning killing as well, you know.


No Obama is not doing his Job as president protecting the Country. Religious relations with the Church are not his job. He is not even Catholic and I do wonder if he really believes in God? I know your are Eastern Rite Crude but what is with the latent caesaropapism? Equivocating between the Papacy vs President? No comparison. No equivalence.

>I'm willing to give credit where it's due. When the Pope says something I think is worthwhile, I'll back him up. But I'm not his sycophant. If he needs me to sing his praises when he fucks up, he's got problems.

And I will defend Francis when I think your criticism is unjust & irrational and so far it has been IMHO.

>Nor have I said the Pope supports Islam. Obama, I'd say that about. But the Pope? I just think he, and most contemporary religious leaders, have a problem. The same problem New Yorkers do, come to think of it. Too much obsession with image and boilerplate.

This is saying nothing. Paps could have written it about Christianity in general.

>Too much posturing. They don't want to do the loving thing, they want to do the loving thing according to a strained media narrative. 'Be thought of as loving, be called loving by the media.'

How do you know that is what the Pope wants? You can see into his soul? That is textbook wrongness and an affront to charity against your own spiritual father.

>>So condemning the cultural failings of muslims and atheists and more is now a job for the state, not the Pope?

No it’s the Job of the State to kill people who are trying to destroy her and impose tyranny on the citizens. It is the Job of the Pope to preach the Gospel & save souls. It is the job of cultural critics to criticize culture.

> If that's the only way you can exonerate the Pope, Ben, then you're in trouble. At this rate the Pope's job will be to baptize people and hear confessions, and precious little else.

What do you expect the Pope to be? Well?

Crude said...

Well Crude you have nothing coherent to say.

Ah.

Which is why your insults of New Yorkers are so disappointing.

How dare I suggest they're like anyone else.

Yeh didn’t Benedict casually do that and two orthodox Priests died? Sounds like the “Pius XII should have spoken out forcefully against Hitler" bullshit? The Pope’s job is to talk about the Gospel.

Pius XII lived in the midst of a world war with occupying hostile forces at the Vatican itself, and operated heavily through surrogates. B16 simply said something which pissed some savages off.

If you really believe that saying something which can enrage muslims is wrong, Ben, then shut your mouth about them altogether. You don't need to be the Pope to cause offense.

I don’t fucking care what Obama says.

Of course.

Moving the goal posts.

No need - you couldn't make the goal.

Condemning the failings of false religions is not a job for the Pope after all. All he does is baptize people and hear confessions.

Nothing the Pope says will be good enough for you outside of full on antagonism toward Islam regardless the cost.

Not at all. I think clear and bold teaching will do the trick, and when he makes such moves I admit it and compliment him, just as I criticize B16 and PJP2 despite thinking highly of them. But clear and bold teaching will antagonize muslims. If our Pope cannot teach because somewhere, muslims will riot, then we're done. May as well pack it in, because they'll start rioting when we say Christ was raised.

I take it, by the way, that if the Pope said 'Christ is Risen' and some muslims rioted and killed some people because they declared that blasphemy, you'd chastize the Pope and say he never should have said that?

No Obama is not doing his Job as president protecting the Country.

Do you think the Pope would agree with that estimation?

How do you know that is what the Pope wants? You can see into his soul?

I can read his words. This line always gets deployed - 'you're not a mindreader!' No, but I'm a word-reader. That's more than enough many times.

No it’s the Job of the State to kill people who are trying to destroy her and impose tyranny on the citizens.

I wonder if the Pope agrees with that. If he objected, would he be right?

What do you expect the Pope to be? Well?

The Church's voice. Ah, but the Pope has no right to comment on what is right and wrong, what is true and false, and what religions are correct and incorrect. Rather hard to lead with hands so bound.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>Pius XII lived in the midst of a world war with occupying hostile forces at the Vatican itself, and operated heavily through surrogates. B16 simply said something which pissed some savages off.

You are merely making excuses for Pius XII and Benedict XVI then by your own standards. It is prudent for the Pope not to enrage the Muslims if only for the sake of the lives of Christians and to keep the moral high ground. Especially with them filling Europe and the middle east is right next store to Christian(such as it is) Europe.

>If you really believe that saying something which can enrage muslims is wrong, Ben, then shut your mouth about them altogether. You don't need to be the Pope to cause offense.

Why do you believe there is an equivalence between exercising the office of the Papacy and sounding off on a blog? Or between a layman the the vicar of Christ?

>No need - you couldn't make the goal.

Except I’m playing Hockey you are playing soccer.

>Condemning the failings of false religions is not a job for the Pope after all.

What a bizarre statement? The false doctrines of Islam have already been condemned since the 7th century. You are equivocating between the moral failings of Jihadists and nations controlled by political Islam. The Pope in general condemns moral failings and invites personal reform for individuals.

"Religions” don’t have failings apart from error. People do.

>Not at all.....Pope cannot teach because somewhere, muslims will riot, then we're done. May as well pack it in, because they'll start rioting when we say Christ was raised.

That is pure stupidity. That is on the level of asking Pius XII to let the Nazis have it between the eyes. The Archbishop of Utrech did that & it only provoked more bloody reprisals with the Nazis rounding up every Jewish convert to Catholicism in the Netherlands and sending them to die. Prudence on the part of the Pope is not unreasonable. It is the job of Presidents and Western Leaders to call their armies to put down the Jihadists. The Pope is a Monk not a Knight. Also Baptizing and confessions saves souls from HELL which is infinitely better then anything since we have no lasting city.

>I take it, by the way, that if the Pope said 'Christ is Risen' and some muslims rioted and killed some people because they declared that blasphemy, you'd chastize the Pope and say he never should have said that?

Silly irrational & hypothetical. On the level of Paps or Skepo saying “Well of God can command the death of the Canaanite Children in the OT He can command they be raped as well” Seriously?

>Do you think the Pope would agree with that estimation?

I don’t think he thinks about American Politics. If you asked me if the President of Australia was doing his job I couldn’t tell you nor would I care? Are you really this ethnocentristic? You really think American is central to the Pope’s thoughts and not the world or the Church?

>I can read his words. This line always gets deployed - 'you're not a mindreader!' No, but I'm a word-reader. That's more than enough many times.

I presented you with his words for all the good it did me. Why does it matter to you now? Make up your mind.

>I wonder if the Pope agrees with that. If he objected, would he be right?

That is a silly response.

>The Church's voice. Ah, but the Pope has no right to comment on what is right and wrong,

He has already done that & you dismiss it unless the Pope comes out and says “Muhammed is a child raping false Prophet and mega-cunt” or whatever.

>what is true and false, and what religions are correct and incorrect. Rather hard to lead with hands so bound.

He pretty much teaches the Catholic Faith is the truth. to claim otherwise shows you have been subsisting on Radtrad talking points and propaganda.

Crude said...

You are merely making excuses for Pius XII and Benedict XVI then by your own standards.

No, by my standards, I'm not. This is one of these retard games where if I say it's wrong to cut a child's throat for badmouthing you, I'm supposedly committed to pacificism in the face of war crimes on pain of inconsistency. And I've already said, B16 was wrong to apologize.

Except I’m playing Hockey you are playing soccer.

This is an example where trying to be witty just ends up sounding stupid.

I don’t think he thinks about American Politics

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Silly irrational & hypothetical. On the level of Paps or Skepo saying “Well of God can command the death of the Canaanite Children in the OT He can command they be raped as well” Seriously?

Actually, given the proclivity of muslims to riot over slight offenses, it's reasonable.

Answer my question, Ben. Proclaim Christ is risen, and the muslims riot. Do you proclaim Christ is risen, come what may? Or must the Pope sacrifice this as well?

If you tell me the Pope should still proclaim the risen Christ, riot or not, then you're going to need to do defense of the claim that it's wrong for a Pope to say something if people will riot. You may be able to defend your specific claim, but you're not going to be able to feign that it's open and shut and the proper path is always the path which avoids the riot. My point advances, and yours falls back. I don't think you'll be able to mount a defense if you grant me this point - you'll be fighting to minimize your loss.

If you don't, then you've made it clear that the Church can be silenced by violence. All it takes is a threat, and the Pope's mum on everything - everything - that matters. This is a group that will riot over conversions, and which passes laws against them too (there's your Caesar at work). The Church can be silenced utterly by threats, it turns out, which is pretty ironic given it's a religion founded by God being hung and His followers persecuted, in defiance of mob and state alike.

And because you've been rude, insulting, mocking and personal this whole discussion, let me say outright: no matter which way you answer, you're fucked. And you're fucked if you refuse to answer too.

We've known each other a while. I'd rather not talk like this, especially not with someone I know more than most, and who otherwise is on my wavelength. But if the only way a 'New Yorker' behaves himself is if they're worried that acting up will lead to being humiliated, then so be it.

Son of Ya'Kov said...


>We've known each other a while. I'd rather not talk like this, especially not with someone I know more than most, and who otherwise is on my wavelength....

Then we will stop now. Because I tire of it and I don't like talking to you like this either. As I watch theFrancis derangement syndrome that has gripped may orthodox Catholics I am convince diabolic forces are afoot. I had answered your other statements with maximum snark & now deleted them but I will only answer this & try to be as kind as possible.

I regret we have come to this and the part I played in it.

> You may be able to defend your specific claim, but you're not going to be able to feign that it's open and shut and the proper path is always the path which avoids the riot.

Crude we have moral principles to guide us but when it comes to specific action we have no clear choices sometimes. Someone once wrote if Pius XII has spoken out against the Nazis loudly the Papal Bashers would have condemned him for trying to make himself look good & heroic not caring about how the Nazis retaliated against the Jews.

You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. In specific instances you have to make prudent judgements and sometimes they are not clear. What matters is you act in good faith.

As for proclaiming Christ risen. The Pope has done that.

http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/Pope-Francis-on-Divine-Mercy-Sunday-5327

If Muslims capture the Pope he might have to choose martyrdom but even St Sir Thomas More said "It is natural for us to flee and avoid conflict till we are cornnered."

Have you never seen a man for all seasons? St Sir Thomas More held back harsh criticism of Henry VIII. Was he any less a Saint?

I want the Pope to make peace and nice with moderate Imams. I also want Trump to be President and kill the Jihadists without pity. I don't see a contradiction in wanting both.

Crude said...

As for proclaiming Christ risen. The Pope has done that.

And I'm asking what happens if they'll riot if he says that. Christians were saying that two thousand years ago under far worse conditions.

Now we not only have to avoid saying anything that will make them riot, but we ALSO have to encourage millions of them to set up shop in nominally Christian countries? We have to invite them, bring them into churches?

St Sir Thomas More held back harsh criticism of Henry VIII. Was he any less a Saint?

Do you have any idea what Thomas More wrote to Martin Luther, back when protestants and Catholics were literally at each other's throats?

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>And I'm asking what happens if they'll riot if he says that. Christians were saying that two thousand years ago under far worse conditions.

You are asking a meaningless hypothetical & you forget history. They have not as of yet taken such control as to absolutely impose such restrictions.
BTW the riot during Benedict's reign happened because he "mocked" Muhammad not because he proclaimed Christ. I know Coptic Christians. Their Church has proclaimed Christ Risen under the Thumb of Muslims since Egypt was conquered by Arabs. If they denounced Muhammed as a child raping cunt then there would be blood.


>Now we not only have to avoid saying anything that will make them riot, but we ALSO have to encourage millions of them to set up shop in nominally Christian countries? We have to invite them, bring them into churches?

The Pope should avoid needlessly cheezing off Muslims as the chief head of the Church on Earth. We who wield the sword should kill the Jihadists and break their power so the Pope can have more freedom to speak. He shouldn't imprudently and needlessly risk lives. How do you not get this brother?


>Do you have any idea what Thomas More wrote to Martin Luther, back when protestants and Catholics were literally at each other's throats?

Of course he wasn't under threat of losing his life to the Lutherans or getting others killed by them and the schismatic Anglican Church under Henry VIII was against Luther and rather High Church. Their Sacraments and Priests at the Time where still Valid so this is a bogus comparison. A knowledge of History is the death of Pope bashing.

Crude said...

You refuse to answer my question, Ben, because as I said - you're fucked. And you're fucked if you don't answer too.

If you say 'They should say it even if they're vicious riots in response', then the fear of riots is irrelevant. Your defense of Francis - and of Benedict - becomes irrelevant. Threats of riots by savages should not suppress talk.

If you say they shouldn't say it because riots trump all, then the Church is doomed, and its entire history is a mistake. Just about every instance of a martyr is an instance of an immoral action - they spoke and acted when violence was risked.

Let me make this clear here, Ben: you made a bad argument, and you just lost. Because you refuse to accept ANY criticism of the Pope. Which means all I have to do is show that some criticism is valid - and it's easy to do. Now you're spinning off into weird pleas about muslims and 'authority'. Rioters have no authority - they are petty thugs. The threat of violence is all the authority they have, and you were arguing it's sufficient. You dug your own hole here.

And no, there's plenty of reason to bash Popes throughout history. They fucked up, they make mistakes, and Francis may well be remembered as exactly what I regard him as: a failure. I made peace with this possibility long before I even heard of Bergoglio. If your faith can't suffer a shitty Pope, I warn you, you're in the wrong religion.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>You refuse to answer my question, Ben, because as I said - you're fucked. And you're fucked if you don't answer too.

Choosing not to answer a "Do you still beat your wife?" type question is trivial.

>Your defense of Francis - and of Benedict - becomes irrelevant. Threats of riots by savages should not suppress talk.

If you are such a hardcore champion of being imprudent get off your arse go to Saudi Arabia and start preaching in the streets. See what it gets you.

You have a Protestant's either/or mentality not a Catholics both and. You have been listening to Voxday to much me thinks.

>Let me make this clear here, Ben: you made a bad argument, and you just lost. Because you refuse to accept ANY criticism of the Pope.

No I just defended him from these specific criticism. Not my fault your criticisms are bad or that you kvetch over what he said about Trump but refuse to interact with his actual words.

>And no, there's plenty of reason to bash Popes throughout history. They fucked up, they make mistakes,

And I will gladly tell you what I think Pope St Victor did wrong in the Second Century or Pope Paul VI in the 20th but this viciousness that stalks the Francis bashing crowd is I think diabolic in origin.

I am not saying you are diabolic Crude so calm your pits.

>If your faith can't suffer a shitty Pope, I warn you, you're in the wrong religion.

Segius III was a Shitty Pope as was John XII(XI?) and Alexander VI. For you the Pope not calling for a Crusade against the Muslims makes him "shity" I say that is not his job.

The Church BTW CANNOT be doomed. If you believe that then you are the one in the wrong religion.

The Church is here forever.

Crude said...

No, Ben, I nowhere said the Pope should call a crusade.. I'm taking him to task for his inability to even criticize them meaningfully. He's like Obama - Islam is never, ever, ever the problem, because Islam is a great and peaceful religion which is awesome. Christianity is the religion with the REAL faults.

I asked a fair question, and you're scared of it. Because there's no way to answer it and maintain a credible position, and you know it. 'But someone may riot' is no excuse for the Pope. It's a cowardly, craven way to try and absolve him of responsibility.

Oh, I see in Argentina he just refused a donation from a centre-right figure, saying that the amount donated had a 666 in it which was wicked, and also because he can't stand austerity measures in a country which is fucking broke due to left-wing policies. Funny, the circumstances under which his holiness finds the guts to condemn anyone. More than happy to dole out medals to abortion boosting celebrities, though.

Wait, let me guess. He HAD to give a medal to George Clooney, or there may be riots! It was an act of corporeal mercy, lest there be blood on his hands! His fans would riot! Some of them are muslim, after all!

Ha ha haaaaa.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>No, Ben, I nowhere said the Pope should call a crusade.. I'm taking him to task for his inability to even criticize them meaningfully.

Except you have “Nowhere” given any specific example of “meaningful” criticism that he is allegedly not giving. You have a standard nobody can meet because it has no spelled out criteria. Pope Francis is nothing like Obama. He believes in God. Obama, I am not so sure about. BTW Islam isn’t the problem it is a symptom of the Problem which is sin.

>Christianity is the religion with the REAL faults.

No Christians to whom much is given, much is expected, have real faults & those faults are more grievous if I believe the Council of Trent & I do.


>I asked a fair question, and you're scared of it.

It was neither fair nor coherent nor rationally answerable. It lacked a certain thing we call content. Thus in your game the only winning move is not to play and I don't.


>Because there's no way to answer it and maintain a credible position, and you know it.

Rather questions born of sophistry in essence can’t be answered.

>'But someone may riot' is no excuse for the Pope. It's a cowardly, craven way to try and absolve him of responsibility.

How brave does it make one to have the Pope needlessly risk other people’s lives by berating Muhammed or Islam directly?

Again you might as well bitch about St John Paul II kissing a Koran etc….

Who cares if he gives a metal to Clooney? The Vatican honored an Italian gay Atheist Communist director for making a B/W film on the Gospel of Matthew. This was during St John Paul II’s time. This is nothing new nor is it evil.

Crude said...

Except you have “Nowhere” given any specific example of “meaningful” criticism that he is allegedly not giving.

Because he's not giving ANY criticism of Islam at all, even on the eve of Islam-inspired mass murder. He plays the Obama game of 'Aww, they didn't do nothing. It's just extremists who have nothing to do with Islam. Oh and the Christians!' It ain't believable when the idiot-in-chief plays that game. It doesn't suddenly become credible just because the Pope says the same thing.

No Christians to whom much is given, much is expected,

This is extrapolated nonsense made up to make Christians feel good about their propensity towards unjust and sinful self-mortification. Paul and Christ both had -plenty- of condemnation for non-believers. In fact, Christ's strongest condemnations were for people who DENIED him. The idea that Christians can't condemn anyone but Christians is a modern fable, and an entirely liberal one at that.

Your excuse up until this point has been that the Pope's hands are tied because muslims will riot. And as I keep pointing out, and as you keep hoping will go away: if that's the move, then the Church is done for. We'll close up shop rather than face down a riot.

Rather questions born of sophistry

When you're getting your ass kicked by me, Ben, it ain't sophistry. It's because you made a shitty argument and took an indefensible position. Those are the terms you're losing on. Calling it 'sophistry' won't make it so.

How brave does it make one to have the Pope needlessly risk other people’s lives by berating Muhammed or Islam directly?

Good logic, man. Hey, when they're raping some women, we can stay quiet too, on the grounds that if we condemn them harshly, they may well fucking kill them. That's REAL bravery.

That's not Christianity. That's SJW mock-religious pussy-dom with a piss-soaked cross hanging off of it. It's alien to me, and it's alien to the Church historically.

If the muslims riot because they don't like something the Pope said, that is THEIR sin. NOT his. And if you believe otherwise, then in all seriousness: Go fuck yourself, because you're a traitor to the faith you purport to defend. At that point you're not defending the Church or even the Pope, you're defending a man's failures and his political machinations.

This was during St John Paul II’s time. This is nothing new nor is it evil.

'Another Pope did it that means it's okay because they're ALL great.' Yeah, it ain't convincing. PJPII made mistakes too. So did Benedict, and so did Saint fucking Peter. If you can't accept that, that's your problem, not mine.

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>Because he's not giving ANY criticism of Islam at all, even on the eve of Islam-inspired mass murder.

I already gave you the links. Moving the goal posts again I see. You can’t explain to me in plain English what he should say.
At this point I don’t think even you know.


> He plays the Obama game of 'Aww, they didn't do nothing. It's just extremists who have nothing to do with Islam. Oh and the Christians!' It ain't believable when the idiot-in-chief plays that game. It doesn't suddenly become credible just because the Pope says the same thing.

Quote where Francis literally says this. I have quoted the Pope so far. The closest you have come to this is to bitch about George Clooney.
Big whoop!

>This is extrapolated nonsense made up to make Christians feel good about their propensity towards unjust and sinful self-mortification.

Nope, it is Christian truth on the level of “He is Risen”. Nothing unjust about it unless directed at clearly identified individuals who are not in need of such correction.

> Paul and Christ both had -plenty- of condemnation for non-believers. In fact, Christ's strongest condemnations were for people who DENIED him.

I am afraid not. They condemned their co-religous who should have known the Prophecies and the religious leaders. There fellow Jews.
They more harshly condemned their fellow Jews then they did the Roman terrorist oppressors. The Pope as a good Father corrects the Children not those who are not baptized and his children. Fail!

>The idea that Christians can't condemn anyone but Christians is a modern fable, and an entirely liberal one at that.

The Pope has already condemned terrorists, the mafia, child prostitution, using God’s name to murder.etc…. I gave the links and you to date can give no clear statement as to what the Pope should literally say, Just tedious ambiguous generalities. You are bad at this.

>Your excuse up until this point has been that the Pope's hands are tied because muslims will riot.

Your excuse is not to give me anything to work with other than absurd hypotheticals about the Pope using the N word and stuff he should say but you can’t tell me what specific words he must use? At this point I don’t think you have any articulate objections to the Pope.

>And as I keep pointing out, and as you keep hoping will go away: if that's the move, then the Church is done for.

No, the Pope should be prudent not reckless as you seem to advocate (of course what specifically you advocate is still a mystery. You won’t put it out there no doubt to avoid criticism).

>When you're getting your ass kicked by me, Ben, it ain't sophistry.

Your the one who punked out before after I spanked you. i suspect you will do it again.

>: Go fuck yourself, because you're a traitor to the faith you purport to defend.

With this you already lost. I said the Francis bashing was of diabolic origin. Thanks for the proof.

Crude said...

I already gave you the links. Moving the goal posts again I see.

No Ben, as I've said over and over - 'Pope condemns killing' isn't the bar here, and wasn't from the start.

Quote where Francis literally says this.

"Experience shows that violence, conflict and terrorism feed on fear, mistrust, and the despair born of poverty and frustration,” Pope Francis said in his first speech in Africa, shortly after arriving in Nairobi, the capital of Kenya, on Nov. 25."

Nope, it is Christian truth on the level of “He is Risen”.

No, that's cuck fantasy. 'Christians are to blame for everything! It's the muslims who are the real victims!'

I am afraid not. They condemned their co-religous

They blamed people who denied Christ. Saying 'Well, uh, they should have known better' doesn't help here - you can lay the same line on the muslims. And, for that matter, the atheists.

Say it with me, Ben: Christ condemned people who denied Him. His strongest condemnation, the apostles' strongest condemnation, was for non-Christians.

The Pope has already condemned terrorists, the mafia, child prostitution, using God’s name to murder.

And he's stayed silent about Islam, atheism and more. In fact, he's praised those people.

Funny how you keep defending everything the Pope says and does, then turn around and act like you can just reject everything he says. This really seems to be more about positioning yourself as 'Ben defends the Pope from all criticism' than 'Ben actually thinks the Pope is above criticism'. Which is why you keep ignoring my question.

Your excuse is not to give me anything to work with other than absurd hypotheticals

That's called 'I have my hand on your metaphorical throat, and I'm squeezing and denying you air'. You're begging me to change the subject, because you can't answer my question.

You've lost.

No, the Pope should be prudent not reckless

Haha. 'Never criticizing Islam' is the new 'prudent'. This reminds me of the anti-Trump cuck talk. "The REAL courageous people are the ones who give up and die!'

Your the one who punked out before after I spanked you.

Ben, at this point all I can say is 'Stop hitting yourself'.

With this you already lost.

Ah yes, the 'You told me to fuck off, that's a NAUGHTY WORD, therefore I win' routine.

As I said, Ben - you're a traitor to the faith you purport to defend. And not even you believe your defense of this Pope, so you lash out and attack any critic.

Get ready to run defense for him when he inevitably says that Christ can use Sharia law as a means of salvation. In the meantime, freak out somewhere else.