A fan of the Knights Templar was verbally rigmaroling me half an hour ago. He won't take offence at the word bullshit, except maybe for me applying it to his stands, so I hope you won't either. Not all of the answers were belated. Not sure of getting all sub-debates in right order, though.
The Templars were put to the stake for two reasons: allegations of sodomy, and, more importantly, since confirmed by trials without torture in Spain (there was no torture in Spain back then): stepping on a cross during initiation.
Spain was/is not a Catholic country.
It was back then.
You just answered yourself.
Belatedly, here: Back then Burgos and Girona were solidly Catholic, whereas Seville and Granada were in Moorish hands.
There were trials in Spain, the sacrilege was confirmed without torture.
Templars were soldiers. Only a soldier can judge a soldier, if you have never served, you do not know what it is like, you cannot judge.
Belatedly, here: Thank God St Ambrose did not know that but excommunicated Emperor Theodosius (that was a soldier for you) for an act of cruelty.
The Templars were not on trial for cruelty in battles, but for sodomy and stepping on a cross.
Well, only the Catholic Church is both a Church and a Bank? Funny isn't it?
The Vatican Bank did not exist until Pope Pius XI accepted damage payments from Mussolini (belatedly, here:) for the robbery on the Papal States in second half of XIXth C.
The Catholic Church was, he claimed, envious because the Templars were smart businessmen.
I answered, if some kinds of smart business deals are not done by Catholics (or were not back then) it is because they are immoral. Like lending someone 100 dollars and getting 110 dollars back next year.
Not a bad deal at all.
Nor a moral one.
Wait, if I lend someone 100 bucks for a year, I have to do without that money during the time.
If you get 100 dollars back a year later, it means you have them a year later. Only other way you could have had them a year later was by not using them during the year.
But the lender does a service, right? He could get paid for the service.
Belatedly, here: as he is by the giving back.
And the Templars thought a stable financing was a good idea, but maybe if people have money they go less to Church.
Some people do indeed get a lot of money and then into bad habits, and then they do not go to Church because they live in bad habits.
You know that every revolution was started because of the Church?
Belatedly, here, since he did not let me get through: Actually quite a few were started by peoples hating the Church.
Some Anti-Catholic diatribe from him:
Vatican is the most corrupt institution ... like Jerusalem was lost because the Pope Ordered the Templars to raid peaceful caravans.
Rubbish, the Pope ordered to fight against Moslem troops.
There were no Moslem troops in Jerusalem during the massacre.
It was neither order by the Pope nor by Geoffroy de Bouillon, it was a spontaneous act of madness.
Belatedly, here: Crusaders and divers orders have not been famous for obedience to Papal directives. Pope John XXII made a peace with Lithuanian Grand Duke Gedimynas, in which the Archbishop of Riga was involved too. Teutonic order bribed his Samogitian subjects to threaten rebellion if he became a Christian, they also sacked Riga. Pope Innocent III specifically forbade Crusaders (IVth Crusade) to get involved in Doge of Venice's vendetta with Byzance, and guess what they did?
... or like Pope forbidding the condom in South America where everyone has AIDS ...
Because it is immoral.
Who makes morality? A man who says so?
God.
The Pope is not God!
No, but have you read Genesis what God did about Onan?
Here he got off about Genesis being "the fifth book of Judaism" and later Torah "not being a book but a scroll" - which is irrelevant. And scrolls not being books is overmore incorrect: books were scrolls before they got the codex form.
He must have known very well that the moral of God killing Onan is the same as Church forbidding interrupted intercourse and a close parallel, namely use of condom.
But, though it is a lie to say S. America has a majority of AIDS patients and only a minority of no contamination, that is of little purpose. When both man and woman of a couple already have the virus, the condom mainly serves stopping them from having children, not saving them from AIDS. So that is no answer against the Pope.
I never got to answer what he said about covering up sexual abuse, but no, the Vatican/Catholic clergy is not the chief culprit in todays world. Schools and boy scouts are worse.
... BBL, maybe (that was not all, sad to say)
PS, same evening:
the guy had a T-shirt with a scull and did some homage to masonry.
Same day's evening, I was abother time again asked to explain why I left Malmö and was told to remain "free in conscience": I wonder if he included the freedom to be a Trad Cath? Masons often do not. They do not count that as free.
The Templars were put to the stake for two reasons: allegations of sodomy, and, more importantly, since confirmed by trials without torture in Spain (there was no torture in Spain back then): stepping on a cross during initiation.
Spain was/is not a Catholic country.
It was back then.
You just answered yourself.
Belatedly, here: Back then Burgos and Girona were solidly Catholic, whereas Seville and Granada were in Moorish hands.
There were trials in Spain, the sacrilege was confirmed without torture.
Templars were soldiers. Only a soldier can judge a soldier, if you have never served, you do not know what it is like, you cannot judge.
Belatedly, here: Thank God St Ambrose did not know that but excommunicated Emperor Theodosius (that was a soldier for you) for an act of cruelty.
The Templars were not on trial for cruelty in battles, but for sodomy and stepping on a cross.
Well, only the Catholic Church is both a Church and a Bank? Funny isn't it?
The Vatican Bank did not exist until Pope Pius XI accepted damage payments from Mussolini (belatedly, here:) for the robbery on the Papal States in second half of XIXth C.
The Catholic Church was, he claimed, envious because the Templars were smart businessmen.
I answered, if some kinds of smart business deals are not done by Catholics (or were not back then) it is because they are immoral. Like lending someone 100 dollars and getting 110 dollars back next year.
Not a bad deal at all.
Nor a moral one.
Wait, if I lend someone 100 bucks for a year, I have to do without that money during the time.
If you get 100 dollars back a year later, it means you have them a year later. Only other way you could have had them a year later was by not using them during the year.
But the lender does a service, right? He could get paid for the service.
Belatedly, here: as he is by the giving back.
And the Templars thought a stable financing was a good idea, but maybe if people have money they go less to Church.
Some people do indeed get a lot of money and then into bad habits, and then they do not go to Church because they live in bad habits.
You know that every revolution was started because of the Church?
Belatedly, here, since he did not let me get through: Actually quite a few were started by peoples hating the Church.
Some Anti-Catholic diatribe from him:
Vatican is the most corrupt institution ... like Jerusalem was lost because the Pope Ordered the Templars to raid peaceful caravans.
Rubbish, the Pope ordered to fight against Moslem troops.
There were no Moslem troops in Jerusalem during the massacre.
It was neither order by the Pope nor by Geoffroy de Bouillon, it was a spontaneous act of madness.
Belatedly, here: Crusaders and divers orders have not been famous for obedience to Papal directives. Pope John XXII made a peace with Lithuanian Grand Duke Gedimynas, in which the Archbishop of Riga was involved too. Teutonic order bribed his Samogitian subjects to threaten rebellion if he became a Christian, they also sacked Riga. Pope Innocent III specifically forbade Crusaders (IVth Crusade) to get involved in Doge of Venice's vendetta with Byzance, and guess what they did?
... or like Pope forbidding the condom in South America where everyone has AIDS ...
Because it is immoral.
Who makes morality? A man who says so?
God.
The Pope is not God!
No, but have you read Genesis what God did about Onan?
Here he got off about Genesis being "the fifth book of Judaism" and later Torah "not being a book but a scroll" - which is irrelevant. And scrolls not being books is overmore incorrect: books were scrolls before they got the codex form.
He must have known very well that the moral of God killing Onan is the same as Church forbidding interrupted intercourse and a close parallel, namely use of condom.
But, though it is a lie to say S. America has a majority of AIDS patients and only a minority of no contamination, that is of little purpose. When both man and woman of a couple already have the virus, the condom mainly serves stopping them from having children, not saving them from AIDS. So that is no answer against the Pope.
I never got to answer what he said about covering up sexual abuse, but no, the Vatican/Catholic clergy is not the chief culprit in todays world. Schools and boy scouts are worse.
... BBL, maybe (that was not all, sad to say)
PS, same evening:
the guy had a T-shirt with a scull and did some homage to masonry.
Same day's evening, I was abother time again asked to explain why I left Malmö and was told to remain "free in conscience": I wonder if he included the freedom to be a Trad Cath? Masons often do not. They do not count that as free.
1 commentaire:
This morning same person brought up pains of AIDS again after which he turned to subject of there existing cures for AIDS and Cancer.
And military confiscating the one, pharmaceutical companies the other.
I do not claim to know whether he spoke truth or was fooled or was lying.
I do however observe that if true, the Pope did well not to favour the pharmaceutical companies that use latex for condoms.
Enregistrer un commentaire