Ask the member of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church AKA Interrogate the Catholic ;) — Page 12

To which meat are you referring?

Cow, mostly.

Well, we can eat that now, so that isn't a problem. The practical reason for disallowing certain kinds of meat under the Mosaic law was probably because they didn't know how to cook it properly, so God, instead of giving them a Mosaic cookbook, prohibited it, which also served as a discipline and to set the Israelites apart from other nations.

lol, it was just a joke.

So I sort of guessed...sort of. I was more confused than amused though. :)

It's a variation of an old joke that isn't very funny...

http://cadryskitchen.com/2012/09/15/going-vegan-what-to-do-when-the-jokes-on-you/

I'm just trying to get to 30,000 posts before the New Year.

I get it now.

Well, good luck Frink, you only have 376 posts to go...not bad.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Bingowings said:

Lucifer for example is literally the Morning Star (the Planet Venus) the light of which is banished by the Sun. It was a Roman pagan religious ornament woven into the early Christian church like the whole Osiris worship bag you guys have over Mary/Diana/Ishtar.

 Things like this make me wonder if you know what you are talking about. Christians have never worshiped Mary. We pray to her to ask her to pray for us as is embedded in the Hail Mary ("pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death"). It's very similar to asking someone on earth to pray for you. It isn't worship.

 See Bingo here is why I question your research.  If your research was really complete and non-biased you'd understand how the Catholics view Mary without RicOlie_2 having to explain to you.

Also Bingo, not all Christians view Mary the way Catholics do.

True but I refer you to the thread title and all other reactions to the character of the mother of the being Catholics call the Christ are variations or reactions to the same character.

Biblical Literalists (people who believe the Eden etc story to have actually happened) need to square that belief with the recorded facts of the history of that story.

The God El had a wife and a mother but his name is found in Israel, Micheal and Kal-El (being the creation of Jewish people trying to comment on antisemitism by creating an otherworldly Samson like figure).

In the past churches have argued that the other Virgin mothers who birth saviors near the Winter Solstice were placed in the historical record by the Devil (a being that doesn't actually exist in the Bible but is a medieval word for multiple characters stolen from the gnostic name for God) to confuse the faithful.

This is the same tactic used by Creationists to explain evidence suggesting that the world is older than the Biblical record. (God or the Devil planted the Dinosaur bones to test/confuse the faithful).

I'm not saying that if God were to be real he couldn't manipulate the ancient cultures of the world, the oral traditions of the Canaanites, the writing of the Torah, the compilation and translations of the various texts forming the Bible until they were eventually absolutely true contrary to all evidence in 2014 but it does seem like a very odd method of communication. Such a being might well be very odd but that doesn't mean I should worship him.

BTW I never said, suggested or hinted that you were homosexual.

Typically for yourself you got the wrong end of the stick and beat around the burning bush with it.

I also didn't say you were the things you agreed you were.

I was using those as examples of unreasonable things to write like comparing my brand of genital rubbing with child rape or car theft or saying that everything I write is deliberately contrary for effect and therefore not a valid opinion worthy of consideration.

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Bingowings said:

Lucifer for example is literally the Morning Star (the Planet Venus) the light of which is banished by the Sun. It was a Roman pagan religious ornament woven into the early Christian church like the whole Osiris worship bag you guys have over Mary/Diana/Ishtar.

 Things like this make me wonder if you know what you are talking about. Christians have never worshiped Mary. We pray to her to ask her to pray for us as is embedded in the Hail Mary ("pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death"). It's very similar to asking someone on earth to pray for you. It isn't worship.

 See Bingo here is why I question your research.  If your research was really complete and non-biased you'd understand how the Catholics view Mary without RicOlie_2 having to explain to you.

Also Bingo, not all Christians view Mary the way Catholics do.

True but I refer you to the thread title and all other reactions to the character of the mother of the being Catholics call the Christ are variations or reactions to the same character.

My point about why with all your research, RicOlie_2 still had to explain to you how the Catholic Church views Mary still stands.

Bingowings said:

Biblical Literalists (people who believe the Eden etc story to have actually happened) need to square that belief with the recorded facts of the history of that story.

The God El had a wife and a mother but his name is found in Israel, Micheal and Kal-El (being the creation of Jewish people trying to comment on antisemitism by creating an otherworldly Samson like figure).

In the past churches have argued that the other Virgin mothers who birth saviors near the Winter Solstice were placed in the historical record by the Devil (a being that doesn't actually exist in the Bible but is a medieval word for multiple characters stolen from the gnostic name for God) to confuse the faithful.

This is the same tactic used by Creationists to explain evidence suggesting that the world is older than the Biblical record. (God or the Devil planted the Dinosaur bones to test/confuse the faithful).

not sure what your point is here. 

Bingowings said:

I'm not saying that if God were to be real he couldn't manipulate the ancient cultures of the world, the oral traditions of the Canaanites, the writing of the Torah, the compilation and translations of the various texts forming the Bible until they were eventually absolutely true contrary to all evidence in 2014 but it does seem like a very odd method of communication. Such a being might well be very odd but that doesn't mean I should worship him.

you are free to worship him or not as you choose.   It is not for me to judge and I am not one you might have to answer to.  

Bingowings said:

BTW I never said, suggested or hinted that you were homosexual.

actually you did hint at it.

Bingowings said:

Typically for yourself you got the wrong end of the stick and beat around the burning bush with it.

whatever.

Bingowings said:

I also didn't say you were the things you agreed you were.

you implied I was, otherwise why say those things.

Bingowings said:

I was using those as examples of unreasonable things to write like comparing my brand of genital rubbing with child rape or car theft

I didn't make that comparison.   It you wish to complain about that, talk with RicOlie_2(and I am not even sure he meant to imply that he thought that being gay was as bad as those things).

Bingowings said:

or saying that everything I write is deliberately contrary for effect and therefore not a valid opinion worthy of consideration.

 It much, much, MUCH more unreasonable for you to write that I am gay than it is for me to write that you play devils advocate.    Me being gay is completely unfounded.   You playing devils advocate is not.   And again, I am not the only one that believes this about you.   The fact that you decided to resurrect this debate adds more proof to that conclusion.   I suppose you do have a point that not everything you say is an invalid  opinion and unworthy of consideration, but that doesn't mean what you say shouldn't be taken with lots of grains of salt.

Okay Mr Quotemeister.

Quote me where I actually hinted you were homosexual.

And you do realise that when I post here it's not a conversation between the two of us right? I never accused you of equating homosexual behavior with car theft or child rape either so THINK.

If you don't get the points I'm making perhaps you should think a bit about it before pushing the quote button to tell me you don't get it while not pushing the quote button while accusing me of things I haven't done.

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

This is one of the reasons I can't get along very well with Bingo.   Not only do we see things very differently but instead of having reasonable debate he has to play devils advocate and post stupid things like the photo above and and nonsense like "The Devil isn't in the Bible either" and lots of other points nonsense that simply can't be understood by most people.

...

And saying I'm "just playing Devil's advocate" all the time is just another way of saying my opinion doesn't count because you say so.

It's the debating equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Naaa naaa naaa naaa I CAN"T HEAR YOU naaa naaa naaa naaa".

I could say "you are blinded by tradition", "painfully provincial" or "ridiculously literally minded" or accuse you of something totally unfounded like being a closeted homosexual.

That would unfair right?

Time to settle this. Bingowings was equating something like accusing Warb of being a closeted homosexual with you telling him he was playing the devil's advocate. He didn't say Warb was homosexual.

Many of his comments were unproductive and rude and shouldn't have been in this thread, but I don't think he was really playing devil's advocate now that I've reread his comments.

Warb's accusation was not unfounded though, so I don't think it is fair, Bingo, to compare his accusation with something as unfounded as your example.

Bingowings said:

Okay Mr Quotemeister.

Quote me where I actually hinted you were homosexual.

And you do realise that when I post here it's not a conversation between the two of us right? I never accused you of equating homosexual behavior with car theft or child rape either so THINK.

If you don't get the points I'm making perhaps you should think a bit about it before pushing the quote button to tell me you don't get it while not pushing the quote button while accusing me of things I haven't done.

 Of course I easily quote where you hinted that I was a homosexual, but you would just argue that you weren't hinting it and you already where I think you hinted that I was gay.

Yes I know it is not just a conversation between the two of use, but  I generally assume that what you say after you quote something of mine is said to me.

I fail to see what is wrong with me saying I don't get something, when I really don't get it.  

And of course I don't think I have accused you of things you haven't done.  

RicOlie_2 said:

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

This is one of the reasons I can't get along very well with Bingo.   Not only do we see things very differently but instead of having reasonable debate he has to play devils advocate and post stupid things like the photo above and and nonsense like "The Devil isn't in the Bible either" and lots of other points nonsense that simply can't be understood by most people.

...

And saying I'm "just playing Devil's advocate" all the time is just another way of saying my opinion doesn't count because you say so.

It's the debating equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Naaa naaa naaa naaa I CAN"T HEAR YOU naaa naaa naaa naaa".

I could say "you are blinded by tradition", "painfully provincial" or "ridiculously literally minded" or accuse you of something totally unfounded like being a closeted homosexual.

That would unfair right?

Time to settle this. Bingowings was equating something like accusing Warb of being a closeted homosexual with you telling him he was playing the devil's advocate. He didn't say Warb was homosexual.

that is why I chose the word 'hinted'.   He could have chosen something else to make that comparison with, yet he chose me being gay.  That kinda implies something doesn't it?

RicOlie_2 said:

Many of his comments were unproductive and rude and shouldn't have been in this thread, but I don't think he was really playing devil's advocate now that I've reread his comments.

I'll agree to disagree with you here.  perhaps if you knew more about our history here, you'd understand why I accuse him of playing devils advocate.

RicOlie_2 said:

Warb's accusation was not unfounded though, so I don't think it is fair, Bingo, to compare his accusation with something as unfounded as your example.

 thank you.

Warb doesn't even seem to know what Devil's advocacy is. I play it now and then, everyone does it's a legitimate tool of rhetoric but to just bleat that everything I say lacks legitimacy because I sometimes try to get readers to see beyond the tramlines is like saying everything Warb says is legitimate because he wears glasses and is therefore studious and therefore wise.

But I guess I'm calling Warb unwise now, seeing as saying something is like something that isn't being stated is now the same as hinting something which is clearly not the case though denied with such intense vigour it gives one pause for thought even though it isn't bad as long as you don't act out the thing which isn't being stated???

After all love the not sinner not the totally unfounded and yet somehow hinted sin right?

BTW I 'resurrected' the debate because I was away due to the Santanic Winter Fest 2013. Santa Claus, Melek Taus, Saturn and Satan all being the same figure as Wotan/Odin/Shani.

I have no problem with you saying you don't understand things but try and think things through before you say it.

If you believe the Bible to be literally true from cover to cover you have to square that with the parallel stories that often predate those found between those covers.

The epic of Gilgamesh has the Eden story but with a twist and it's older than than the King James version of the Genesis version of the story. You can argue that ancient Mesopotamia despite having the oldest written version is wrong but the 1611 British version is closer to the truth because God is pointing you that way or you can say the later version is an alteration of the older version.

You can blame it on the made up Devil or God or just the clumsiness of Men.

But you have to square it somehow like the Dinosaurs have to be squared for the Creationists.

Can't we all just be gay and get along?

Get a long what?

I'm not a size queen.

Bingowings said:

Warb doesn't even seem to know what Devil's advocacy is. I play it now and then,

I know what it is and thanks for finally admitting to it.

Bingowings said:

everyone does it's a legitimate tool of rhetoric but to just bleat that everything I say lacks legitimacy because I sometimes try to get readers to see beyond the tramlines

the readers here don't need you to get them to look "beyond the tramlines"

It amazes me the number of people here that think it is their job to educate me.

btw, when I do look "beyond the tramlines"  I am going to look at and look for things other than what you want to look at and for.  

Bingowings said:

After all love the not sinner not the totally unfounded and yet somehow hinted sin right?

huh?

Bingowings said:

BTW I 'resurrected' the debate because I was away due to the Santanic Winter Fest 2013. Santa, Saturn and Satan all being the same figure as Wotan/Odin/Shani.

see this is what I can't stand.  You just have to spew this asinine crap instead of just saying you were away for Christmas.  And why do you spew it?  to mock my and other Christians' religious beliefs. 

Bingowings said:

I have no problem with you saying you don't understand things but try and think things through before you say it.

how do you know I don't?

Bingowings said:

If you believe the Bible to be literally true from cover to cover you have to square that with the parallel stories that often predate those found between those covers.

The epic of Gilgamesh has the Eden story but with a twist and it's older than than the King James version of the Genesis version of the story. You can argue that ancient Mesopotamia despite having the oldest written version is wrong but the 1611 British version is closer to the truth because God is pointing you that way or you can say the later version is an alteration of the older version.

You can blame it on the made up Devil or God or just the clumsiness of Men.

But you have to square it somehow like the Dinosaurs have to be squared for the Creationists.

the Kings James Version of the Bible is a translation of a book that is much much older than 1611.    However, as I think I have said in the past, I am not sure I believe every single thing in the Bible.

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

Warb doesn't even seem to know what Devil's advocacy is. I play it now and then,

I know what it is and thanks for finally admitting to it.

Bingowings said:

everyone does it's a legitimate tool of rhetoric but to just bleat that everything I say lacks legitimacy because I sometimes try to get readers to see beyond the tramlines

the readers here don't need you to get them to look "beyond the tramlines"

It amazes me the number of people here that think it is their job to educate me.

Bingowings said:

After all love the not sinner not the totally unfounded and yet somehow hinted sin right?

huh?

Bingowings said:

BTW I 'resurrected' the debate because I was away due to the Santanic Winter Fest 2013. Santa, Saturn and Satan all being the same figure as Wotan/Odin/Shani.

see this is what I can't stand.  You just have to spew this asinine crap instead of just saying you were away for Christmas.  And why do you spew it?  to mock my and other Christians' religious beliefs. 

It's not our job to educate you.

It's a discussion forum so when you say that I'm being acting like a donkey for 'insulting' your religious belief in Dec 25th being the Birthday celebration of the the savior being you call Jesus, it is a continuation of that discussion point to remember that the festival has little if anything to do with Christianity to the point that in the middle ages the Catholic Church tried to de-paganise it in much the same way that Jehovah's witnesses do today.

The statue of Saturn the bearded lord of time was bound in his temple in great woolen stockings and in December he was put on display and people would get drunk at office parties and children would be given presents and everyone would wear silly hats.

In the North children left their boots outside with food for Wotan's steed and hoped to receive presents in return.

Satan was the accuser of man and kept an angelic log of all their misdeeds as did Shani who is represented in the heavens by the Planet Saturn which viewed from the naked eye looks like it has a pair of horns.

Buddha was born on Dec 25th on a homeward journey and was visited by a holy man who read the stars that proclaimed he would be a great king or a savior.

It's not an insult to say this it's just the facts of the feast. Either through parallel evolution or outright stealing Christmas as we know has virtually nothing Christian about it.

It served the point I was making to point it out so it's hardly in the manner that meek animal ridden by the Celtic goddess Epona or the Hindu Goddess Kaalatri or the Mother of God Mary, for me to utilise that opportunity to do so.

If you go around calling that crap why should you expect less to be said about your beliefs?

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

Warb doesn't even seem to know what Devil's advocacy is. I play it now and then,

I know what it is and thanks for finally admitting to it.

Bingowings said:

everyone does it's a legitimate tool of rhetoric but to just bleat that everything I say lacks legitimacy because I sometimes try to get readers to see beyond the tramlines

the readers here don't need you to get them to look "beyond the tramlines"

It amazes me the number of people here that think it is their job to educate me.

Bingowings said:

After all love the not sinner not the totally unfounded and yet somehow hinted sin right?

huh?

Bingowings said:

BTW I 'resurrected' the debate because I was away due to the Santanic Winter Fest 2013. Santa, Saturn and Satan all being the same figure as Wotan/Odin/Shani.

see this is what I can't stand.  You just have to spew this asinine crap instead of just saying you were away for Christmas.  And why do you spew it?  to mock my and other Christians' religious beliefs. 

It's not our job to educate you.

then stop trying.   Maybe educate was the wrong word to use, perhaps enlighten would have been better.    That is not your job either by the way. 

Bingowings said:

It's a discussion forum so when you say that I'm being acting like a donkey for 'insulting' your religious belief in Dec 25th being the Birthday celebration of the the savior being you call Jesus, it is a continuation of that discussion point to remember that the festival has little if anything to do with Christianity to the point that in the middle ages the Catholic Church tried to de-paganise it in much the same way that Jehovah's witnesses do today.

The statue of Saturn the bearded lord of time was bound in his temple in great woolen stockings and in December he was put on display and people would get drunk at office parties and children would be given presents and everyone would wear silly hats.

In the North children left their boots outside with food for Wotan's steed and hoped to receive presents in return.

Satan was the accuser of man and kept an angelic log of all their misdeeds as did Shani who is represented in the heavens by the Planet Saturn which viewed from the naked eye looks like it has a pair of horns.

Buddha was born on Dec 25th on a homeward journey and was visited by a holy man who read the stars that proclaimed he would be a great king or a savior.

It's not an insult to say this it's just the facts of the feast. Either through parallel evolution or outright stealing Christmas as we know has virtually nothing Christian about it.

Buddha was born on Dec 25th?  please show proof of this. 

What you say may be facts of the feast, but the way you said it was meant as a mockery of my beliefs. 

Bingowings said:

It served the point I was making to point it out so it's hardly in the manner that meek animal ridden by the Celtic goddess Epona or the Hindu Goddess Kaalatri or the Mother of God Mary, for me to utilise that opportunity to do so.

if your point was there was a whole lot of other stuff that went into the forming of the Holiday of Christmas other than the birth of Christ, I already knew that and I don't care.   You did not need use the statement that you were away for Christmas as yet another opportunity to show how you feel about my beliefs.   We already know. 

Bingowings said:

If you go around calling that crap why should you expect less to be said about your beliefs?

 I guess crap was a poor choice of words. 

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

Warb doesn't even seem to know what Devil's advocacy is. I play it now and then,

I know what it is and thanks for finally admitting to it.

Bingowings said:

everyone does it's a legitimate tool of rhetoric but to just bleat that everything I say lacks legitimacy because I sometimes try to get readers to see beyond the tramlines

the readers here don't need you to get them to look "beyond the tramlines"

It amazes me the number of people here that think it is their job to educate me.

Bingowings said:

After all love the not sinner not the totally unfounded and yet somehow hinted sin right?

huh?

Bingowings said:

BTW I 'resurrected' the debate because I was away due to the Santanic Winter Fest 2013. Santa, Saturn and Satan all being the same figure as Wotan/Odin/Shani.

see this is what I can't stand.  You just have to spew this asinine crap instead of just saying you were away for Christmas.  And why do you spew it?  to mock my and other Christians' religious beliefs. 

...

It's a discussion forum

And you happen to be having this discussion on a thread designated for asking questions about the Roman Catholic Faith.

so when you say that I'm being acting like a donkey for 'insulting' your religious belief in Dec 25th being the Birthday celebration of the the savior being you call Jesus, it is a continuation of that discussion point to remember that the festival has little if anything to do with Christianity to the point that in the middle ages the Catholic Church tried to de-paganise it in much the same way that Jehovah's witnesses do today.

Christmas was placed on December 25 for the very purpose of de-paganizing that date. It was formerly a date devoted to a celebration of the winter solstice.

Jesus was most likely born in March-April, between 6 and 4 BC.

The statue of Saturn the bearded lord of time was bound in his temple in great woolen stockings and in December he was put on display and people would get drunk at office parties and children would be given presents and everyone would wear silly hats.

Why was he placed their in December? Because that was part of the celebration of the winter solstice. Again, it was for the purpose of de-paganizing the festival that Christmas was assigned to that date.

In the North children left their boots outside with food for Wotan's steed and hoped to receive presents in return.

The whole present thing may be one of the reasons that we give gifts at Christmas, but for centuries it was a solemn feast until it started getting livelier in the Middle Ages. The other reason though, is because of St. Nicholas, a Catholic bishop born in what is now Turkey in the 400s AD (that's off the top of my head, so pardon me if I make a mistake). He was well known for his generosity, and so we continue the tradition of giving at Christmas in his name.

Satan was the accuser of man and kept an angelic log of all their misdeeds as did Shani who is represented in the heavens by the Planet Saturn which viewed from the naked eye looks like it has a pair of horns.

In my translation of the Bible, what is translated as Satan in some Bibles in the Book of Isaiah is "the morning star" or something like that, which agrees with what you were saying about that earlier (maybe you were writing about Venus; I'm not sure).

...

It's not an insult to say this it's just the facts of the feast. Either through parallel evolution or outright stealing Christmas as we know has virtually nothing Christian about it.

...

Wrong again. It is a very Christian feast designated to coincide with a pagan feast.

That's a funny name, but it doesn't belong here, Frink! :)

Also, Bingowings and Warbler, please move your discussion to PM-land...on second thought, since my thread is dead anyway, you can continue so I can correct Bingo's mistakes. ;)

The Turkish Saint Nicholas isn't the same thing as Santa Claus though.

He is Old Father Time/Saturn.

The Turkish Bishop was festooned with Pagan practise to try and infiltrate the territory of the old gods, like giving the Devil the horns of Pan and the trident of Poseidon.

One mistake I will correct is Buddha's birthday.

I fell foul of that common error of saying he was born at Christmas when he was actually born at Easter (or thereabouts as both are movable spring feasts based on the lunar calender, this year Easter is the end of April, Buddhas birthday is the beginning of May but both move around).

However it is the birth feast of

• Horus
• Osiris
• Attis of Phrygia
• Krishna
• Zoroaster/Zarathustra
• Mithra of Persia
• Heracles
• Dionysus
• Tammuz
• Adonis
• Hermes
• Bacchus
• Prometheus

If December 25th was chosen to depaganise the Mass day, why pick another significantly pagan day?

You can't get more Pagan than that period of the year without perhaps setting it on Samhain (or All Saints Day if you happen to be a Catholic).

Or is that another mistake on my part?

My sentence about Christmas was pretty much the same as saying Halloween has almost nothing to do with Christianity despite the shifting of All Saint's Day and All Soul's Day to 'coincide' with it?

As for claims that I am mocking the beliefs others I didn't start this thread or any of the religious threads on this board so please don't accuse my of hijacking it. If one is invited to discuss a subject, the discussion is bound to include this sort of material as much as DE's Mormon thread is going to discuss the 'discovery' of the book of Mormon and what it has to say about native American peoples.

Otherwise what is it for?

The thread title includes the word "interrogate."

I guess he didn't expect some sort of Spanish Inquisition.