Catholic encyclopedia: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11535b.htm
what's the heresy here in your view
First Saturday Prayers (explains history of devotion):
searx.me is another alternative that lists instances, their main being searx.org I think
another alternative search engine: searx.me has a collection of instances, searx.org is their main public one I think
reposting possible alternatives:
brave as the others mentioned: search.brave.com
searx.me has search instances people run
yandex.com is russian
> post more
reposing possible alternatives:
brave as the others mentioned: search.brave.com
searx.me has search instances people run
yandex.com is russian
> post more
well, the top level link kind of goes in to that issue. Some of us follow popes up until the 1950s, and then do have some agreement with you but for different reasons that the Vatican is no longer Christian (or Catholic). I do think Benedict was against Christ and that's why he wore those things you mention. But I don't think this of the popes from the 1950s back to Jesus, which frequently I thought your comment would get in to.
yeah I mean the Scripture may describe it with less graphic violence, but I've seen bloody crucifix designs in churches and the event itself was violent. I can appreciate the complaint but it was still going to be a violent film regardless if it cut parts where some blood might be spilled.
what did you not like about it?
some people have complained about graphic violence, and I could see that argument
I'd respond that I'm critical of non-orthodox, non-catholic "Christianity" as being ahistorical, and also from our view would be considered to be "non-Christian" in a sense (since many non-Catholic protestants seem quick to call Catholics "non-Christian", it only seems fair in response that some Catholics do this in kind).
The ancient Christians attempted to "baptize" pagan practices - essentially tried to remove anything pagan, but still did something like what the pagans were doing. So like around Valentine's Day, say there were pagan festivals of fornication. Christians decided maybe to instead emphasize a love of God and spouses, which is compatible with Christianity, but which was influenced by pagans with their festivals and rites. So, yes I believe Christianity was influenced by paganism in this way, but without being pagan itself.
As another discussion tangentially related, Hutton Gibson (Mel Gibson's Father) Identified as "traditional Catholic" and "wrote critically of those who reject Sedevacantism" (actually I think it was sedeprivationism): https://infogalactic.com/info/Hutton_Gibson
this is kind of a weird conflict because don't leftists think Putin is like "literally Hitler" but Russia was communist which was more like their beliefs, and the U.S. fought against Nazis but may be acting like them by creating such labs...
all over the political map?
reality check
Also State of the Union is Scheduled
is it being brought back?!
I mean I think there's been nazi posts on consumeproduct for a while now, maybe you just weren't aware of it?
yeah my experience was similar, maybe we took smaller doses? I've also tried nicotine and didn't find that to be that addictive either tho so maybe it's just not as addictive for me or kratom isn't as addictive for our brains as other people? I also think it's much safer than like caffeine or alcohol - idk if people are doing high doses but it's not like it will destroy you like overdosing on alcohol will.
I agree with this, to me it's kind of like a gun: useful for protection, can cause harm if misused. Use with care and caution. But I think it should be legal, so you can have your own pain medicine available if needed, and to keep off harder drugs for those who fall in to the illegal drug abuses and then risk dying of overdose.
My further personal reflections on the quote:
With protestants, some people argued this quote applies with respect to the creation of so-called "megachurches", and "progressive" groups. Since protestants have no central authority like a pope, it seems to me there is an easier barrier to entry and fake churches could just be spun up by people who hate anything to do with Christianity (Communists, etc.).
With orthodox, I'm not sure as much of what's happened, but I assume a similar attack happened as Catholicism is undergoing: I'm guessing those like Communists have become orthodox priests and bishops. The few orthodox I know are married to "Catholics" and otherwise live "modern" lives.
With Catholicism, there's been a push of the condemned heresy of "modernism", and some of us think the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s was obviously heretical and the creation of a new schism and weird situation that hasn't happened with Catholicism ever in the past, but which has some precedents. Remember that a counterfeit looks like the real thing - so the Vatican 2 church looks very much like the Catholic Church, but then they decided to change some things, like get rid of the "latin mass" and other "traditional" practices, and have been more ambiguous towards secular and leftist developments in the world.
So while I favor the traditional Catholic view which opposes the current Vatican, I also think this is a broad movement to try to falsely unite "Christians" together in to one false world religion along with other religions. I don't know how this will be accomplished, but we see some of the buzzwords pop up like false "ecumenism" which encourages "Christians" to put aside differences and unite only on what they agree on. I would like to note that I have also seen this trigger a false "anti-ecumenism" at times which I also don't subscribe to, for example so-called "RaDiCaL cAtHoLiC tRaDiTiOnAlIsTs" who can be pretty harsh, judgmental, etc. - I suspect there are some (like Communists) also creating "hardline" movements like this; they create the fake modernist groups, then these fake "traditional" groups to drive away people who simply want to follow the old normal Christian ways. As a different example, in Catholicism, we think the SSPX was created as a fake "traditional" half-measure to the Vatican 2 movement.
It seems like with Catholicism for example we had some people who took over the institution of what was formerly Catholic and they elected a "pope" of their own starting in 1958 onward, but the foundations to this movement (of modernism) were laid for some decades beforehand.
It's the same kind of problem like in medicine that a lot of us have seen today, we get people who've become doctors who use their medical degrees to try to argue for tyrannical mandates and for unproven treatments like the covid "vaccines". So they'll argue that if you're "truly for health" then you should be for these experimental procedures that we don't know the long term effects of. They may know better that people who actually care for their health may want to exercise caution against such things, but such doctors simply obtain the authority and then misuse it for their own agendas. We hear the same kind of thing from these people who've become religious "authorities" - "pope" Francis "plays dumb" and acts suprised that people are "vaccine hesitant", and says he thinks getting the "vaccine" is an "act of love".
Meanwhile, other people have raised concerns that the "vaccines" may be sinful to get because of them possibly containing aborted fetal cells. Since we don't see the Vatican creating major campaigns against obesity or smoking (which seem to contribute as much to preventing "official deaths" as these "vaccines"), and they omit any concern about the morality of taking the "vaccines", this again just suggests they're an institution that's been taken over by heretics. Whether the heresy of these people is known publicly sufficiently (public heresy exists) or not (their heresy is hidden, or "occult"), to me it's clear where their sympathy lies and thus I reject them and the movements surrounding them as non-Christian, non-Catholic. They promoted the Vatican 2 view that people ought to "follow their conscience" on issues without qualifying that people ought to inform their consciences before making decisions, and then again omit mentioning that maybe people might conscientiously object to taking a "vaccine" today, which by their philosophy should be ok to do.
"For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect." -Matthew 24:24
Anyway, so what are people's thoughts about the movement by "false prophets" to create a counterfeit Christianity today?
yeah, I posted for discussion. Some people argue it was 2 million or less. Some people argue there was a lack of an attempt at deliberate extermination, but there were more deaths due to disease and lack of supplies.
In contrast, you get Communists denying the Holodomor genocide happened at all. So either both communists and Nazis are wrong and lying and both genocides happened as the mainstream says, maybe each is respectively correct and they weren't as bad, or one was bad while the other wasn't. I assume the truth is somewhere in the middle.
The Holocaust is promoted more in my view because Jews tend to be more liberal, so it was more of a liberal tragedy, if it happened as it's thought to. This is why they don't promote remembrance of Communist or abortion tragedies which are magnitudes higher of death tolls of official numbers of Holocaust victims, since the left is sometimes openly or partially supportive of Communism or abortion.
Did Jessie say at one point that for you to accept a job offer was voluntary, added with the fact that you can quit any time you like, that it is clearly not slavery?
work is voluntary in a sense, but not in another sense - those who do not work, cannot eat, ordinarily - so it is compulsory in a sense.
If you don't like your job, then quit. Slaves didn't have that option, but you do.
True, capitalists / conservatives are simply for freedom to choose jobs, but they're arguing for the freedom to have no job at all, which would require dependence either on nature or technology (automation) or a collective or something. I think they have a point to make but it's open to criticism and modification for how a person chooses to live within the system we have.
I think what the elite are offering is no job
Yeah, I think that is used as a trap, they want to make people think they can be safe being dependent on them, then they pull the rug out from under them. Ultimately certain elites either want working class people to disappear, or work hard for them. So the dependence route must be a way of weakening them so the elites can gain more without opposition. But some of the pro-automation antiworkers want to have control of that automation so they might gain leisure, rather than being dependent on elites who own it, I'd think. Which is a different thing.
Ultimately there are certain conditions I think that lead to the anti-work mindset so I think maybe the goal is to try to diagnose what happened and try to persuade certain "workaholics" to chill out with certain "slackers" to find ways to contribute more to the world. Antiworkers may have not experienced profit from their work, which would lead to demoralization and less interest in being productive. They may have gotten wrong messaging that certain work is "beneath them". They may confuse certain other things that maybe could be straightened out.
meh, I don't even think they necessarily have to be a plague - the fungus may be a scavenger, but it turns something rotting in to something usable for something else to eat
To me if people are mad "Doreen" only walks dogs for a few hours a week, then the situation could be productively improved upon by suggesting certain jobs "Doreen" could work to be more economically productive
to me there's a mismatch of messaging and understanding of employment between the left and right at times which I could go in to in more detail - rather than shaming "Doreen" as an "unemployed loser", which is unlikely to persuade them to want to change, they could be persuaded to want to voluntarily improve themselves economically, etc.
the emperor wears no clothes