Santorum Warns about Satan

[husker_99]

You can't really be this thick or you haven't been reading other posts? I have said many times that this is a big mistake on the part of the church and the priests should be arrested and given the toughest sentence allowed by law. Are you OK with homosexuals then I guess you are OK with Jeffery Dauhmer and his antics using your logic. Seriously using the priests any time you want to slam religion is really getting old and you should try to find a better argument, do you even know the percentage of bad priests? Smearing all priests or a whole religion based an the actions of a few is wrong and you know better.

 

This may have been a good point...except that the Catholic Institution's deliberate attempts to sweep this mess under the proverbial rug completely negates it.

 

When you have the governing body of a religious organization working towards covering up the actions of a few priests, then it is perfectly reasonable to indict the religion as a whole.

 

He probably also denies all the other stuff the Catholic Church has done since the middle ages and tried to cover that up also. If those priests wouldn't have covered up a few bad apples they would have been looked upon more favorably. The Catholic Church has a lot of bones to hide in their closet. I really don't think you know how corrupt the Catholic Church is.

 

 

And you do? Enlighten me about the corruption, I am always willing to listen, give me the facts please.

 

Let's see they help started the knights templar then after the crusades were over they back stabbed them but saying they were devil worshippers. They helped start the dark ages. They influenced the Holy Roman Empire on which person should next be King. Oh yeah after the schism instead of helping the city of Constantine they rather let the Muslims conquer it much of eastern europe.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Honestly, I think I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and sh*t a better argument for being President than Santorum can.

[strigori]

You can't really be this thick or you haven't been reading other posts? I have said many times that this is a big mistake on the part of the church and the priests should be arrested and given the toughest sentence allowed by law. Are you OK with homosexuals then I guess you are OK with Jeffery Dauhmer and his antics using your logic. Seriously using the priests any time you want to slam religion is really getting old and you should try to find a better argument, do you even know the percentage of bad priests? Smearing all priests or a whole religion based an the actions of a few is wrong and you know better.

 

This may have been a good point...except that the Catholic Institution's deliberate attempts to sweep this mess under the proverbial rug completely negates it.

 

When you have the governing body of a religious organization working towards covering up the actions of a few priests, then it is perfectly reasonable to indict the religion as a whole.

 

He probably also denies all the other stuff the Catholic Church has done since the middle ages and tried to cover that up also. If those priests wouldn't have covered up a few bad apples they would have been looked upon more favorably. The Catholic Church has a lot of bones to hide in their closet. I really don't think you know how corrupt the Catholic Church is.

 

 

And you do? Enlighten me about the corruption, I am always willing to listen, give me the facts please.

 

Let's see they help started the knights templar then after the crusades were over they back stabbed them but saying they were devil worshippers. They helped start the dark ages. They influenced the Holy Roman Empire on which person should next be King. Oh yeah after the schism instead of helping the city of Constantine they rather let the Muslims conquer it much of eastern europe.

And that doesnt even cover the issues surrounding the Protestant Reformation.

[johnnyrodgers20]

You can't really be this thick or you haven't been reading other posts? I have said many times that this is a big mistake on the part of the church and the priests should be arrested and given the toughest sentence allowed by law. Are you OK with homosexuals then I guess you are OK with Jeffery Dauhmer and his antics using your logic. Seriously using the priests any time you want to slam religion is really getting old and you should try to find a better argument, do you even know the percentage of bad priests? Smearing all priests or a whole religion based an the actions of a few is wrong and you know better.

 

This may have been a good point...except that the Catholic Institution's deliberate attempts to sweep this mess under the proverbial rug completely negates it.

 

When you have the governing body of a religious organization working towards covering up the actions of a few priests, then it is perfectly reasonable to indict the religion as a whole.

 

He probably also denies all the other stuff the Catholic Church has done since the middle ages and tried to cover that up also. If those priests wouldn't have covered up a few bad apples they would have been looked upon more favorably. The Catholic Church has a lot of bones to hide in their closet. I really don't think you know how corrupt the Catholic Church is.

 

 

And you do? Enlighten me about the corruption, I am always willing to listen, give me the facts please.

 

Let's see they help started the knights templar then after the crusades were over they back stabbed them but saying they were devil worshippers. They helped start the dark ages. They influenced the Holy Roman Empire on which person should next be King. Oh yeah after the schism instead of helping the city of Constantine they rather let the Muslims conquer it much of eastern europe.

 

 

They started the dark ages, I love this one, oh do tell , how did they start the dark ages? Now, you are mad because they WOULDN'T fight with the muslims, please make up your mind. They are bad for fighting and now they are bad for not fighting. Sounds like someone doesn't like them for some reason. I didn't know the holy roman empire had kings, are you sure they had kings?

[johnnyrodgers20]

Husker 99 Quote:

 

If you don't know the difference between government and people then i can't help your stupidity.

 

 

You seem to be the one who lacks the knowledge to defend your own statements. Scopes monkey trial was one of your defenses that happened in the 1920s Einstein!! You know 50 comes after 20 don't ya?

[johnnyrodgers20]

strigori Quote:

 

And that doesnt even cover the issues surrounding the Protestant Reformation.

 

 

 

 

And getting off subject. He tried to assert that America started to slide in the fifties because govt. got more religious so far he has not given any proof while I, on the other hand, have shown that we have become more secular. So prove govt has gotten more religious, we are still waiting for your great evidence.

[knapplc]

Let's see they help started the knights templar then after the crusades were over they back stabbed them but saying they were devil worshippers. They helped start the dark ages. They influenced the Holy Roman Empire on which person should next be King. Oh yeah after the schism instead of helping the city of Constantine they rather let the Muslims conquer it much of eastern europe.

 

While the Catholic Church has much to answer for over the course of the last millennium and a half, there are some gross historical inaccuracies in this post.

 

The Catholic Church did not found the Knights Templar. They were founded by a few knights in the Holy Land, and gained favor with the Church some time later. They were not controlled by or beholden to the Church - they were their own separate entity, and never an arm of Catholicism. The Templars weren't back-stabbed by the Church. They grew to a large and powerful organization based on the perception that they were God's Soldiers, blessed by him with the ability to keep the Holy Land safe for pilgrims. When the Holy Land was overrun by the Saracens, the Templars lost much of their clout. They were also heavily involved in usury in Europe to fund their organization, and King Phillip of France ended up owing them more money than he could repay. His solution was to declare them outlaws, seize their castles and absorb their wealth. He persecuted many of them, although it's debatable whether they deserved what they got. The demise of the Knights Templar had far more to do with Philip of France than with the Church.

 

The Catholic Church did not "help start the Dark Ages." The Dark Ages were a period of poverty throughout Europe, and while it is certainly true that the Catholic Church didn't give up its wealth to feed the poor, it is not true that they caused the Dark Ages, unless you believe the Catholic Church could create a mini Ice Age for a couple hundred years, or you believe they had some nefarious reason to do so. Now, could they have made it better? Absolutely. But they did not create it, nor did they sustain it. They profited by it by perpetuating the ignorance of the masses and thus keeping themselves in charge, but the same could be said of most every major and minor royal of the time, too.

 

The fall of Constantinople was as much political as it was a failure of the Catholic Church. The Church was heavily involved in politics at the time, and it is true that the Eastern Orthodoxy was in opposition to that of the West, whose seat was Rome, and this is entirely not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus that the Church claims to follow. Be that as it may, there is simply no historical accuracy to the idea that Muslims "conquered much of eastern Europe." I believe you're speaking of the Mongols, who were an unstoppable force as far as the West was concerned, and had the Mongols chosen to continue pushing West there is little or nothing The Church could have done to stop them.

 

The Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople, but again this is a far more complicated situation than simply stating that The Church didn't help. The Eastern Empire was a shell of its former self, the Western Empire was as devastated by the effects of the Dark Ages and the Black Plague as the East, and it's unlikely, again, that had the western Church wanted to do anything to stop the Turks from conquering Constantinople that they could have. Medieval Europe simply wasn't capable at the time of resisting the Turkish forces as they conquered Constantinople.

 

Again, there's a lot of wrong to discuss with the Church over the years. But if we're going to discuss them, we should be as accurate as is reasonable.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Let's see they help started the knights templar then after the crusades were over they back stabbed them but saying they were devil worshippers. They helped start the dark ages. They influenced the Holy Roman Empire on which person should next be King. Oh yeah after the schism instead of helping the city of Constantine they rather let the Muslims conquer it much of eastern europe.

 

While the Catholic Church has much to answer for over the course of the last millennium and a half, there are some gross historical inaccuracies in this post.

 

The Catholic Church did not found the Knights Templar. They were founded by a few knights in the Holy Land, and gained favor with the Church some time later. They were not controlled by or beholden to the Church - they were their own separate entity, and never an arm of Catholicism. The Templars weren't back-stabbed by the Church. They grew to a large and powerful organization based on the perception that they were God's Soldiers, blessed by him with the ability to keep the Holy Land safe for pilgrims. When the Holy Land was overrun by the Saracens, the Templars lost much of their clout. They were also heavily involved in usury in Europe to fund their organization, and King Phillip of France ended up owing them more money than he could repay. His solution was to declare them outlaws, seize their castles and absorb their wealth. He persecuted many of them, although it's debatable whether they deserved what they got. The demise of the Knights Templar had far more to do with Philip of France than with the Church.

 

The Catholic Church did not "help start the Dark Ages." The Dark Ages were a period of poverty throughout Europe, and while it is certainly true that the Catholic Church didn't give up its wealth to feed the poor, it is not true that they caused the Dark Ages, unless you believe the Catholic Church could create a mini Ice Age for a couple hundred years, or you believe they had some nefarious reason to do so. Now, could they have made it better? Absolutely. But they did not create it, nor did they sustain it. They profited by it by perpetuating the ignorance of the masses and thus keeping themselves in charge, but the same could be said of most every major and minor royal of the time, too.

 

The fall of Constantinople was as much political as it was a failure of the Catholic Church. The Church was heavily involved in politics at the time, and it is true that the Eastern Orthodoxy was in opposition to that of the West, whose seat was Rome, and this is entirely not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus that the Church claims to follow. Be that as it may, there is simply no historical accuracy to the idea that Muslims "conquered much of eastern Europe." I believe you're speaking of the Mongols, who were an unstoppable force as far as the West was concerned, and had the Mongols chosen to continue pushing West there is little or nothing The Church could have done to stop them.

 

The Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople, but again this is a far more complicated situation than simply stating that The Church didn't help. The Eastern Empire was a shell of its former self, the Western Empire was as devastated by the effects of the Dark Ages and the Black Plague as the East, and it's unlikely, again, that had the western Church wanted to do anything to stop the Turks from conquering Constantinople that they could have. Medieval Europe simply wasn't capable at the time of resisting the Turkish forces as they conquered Constantinople.

 

Again, there's a lot of wrong to discuss with the Church over the years. But if we're going to discuss them, we should be as accurate as is reasonable.

 

 

Great post, I was going to explain to him that the dark ages were not caused by the church but you did it better than I would have. The fall of the Roman empire was a major cause of the dark ages also.

 

But all of this is just a huge deflection, his big assertion is that the govt has become more religious since the 50s and that has caused the slide of America.

[strigori]

Let's see they help started the knights templar then after the crusades were over they back stabbed them but saying they were devil worshippers. They helped start the dark ages. They influenced the Holy Roman Empire on which person should next be King. Oh yeah after the schism instead of helping the city of Constantine they rather let the Muslims conquer it much of eastern europe.

 

While the Catholic Church has much to answer for over the course of the last millennium and a half, there are some gross historical inaccuracies in this post.

 

The Catholic Church did not found the Knights Templar. They were founded by a few knights in the Holy Land, and gained favor with the Church some time later. They were not controlled by or beholden to the Church - they were their own separate entity, and never an arm of Catholicism. The Templars weren't back-stabbed by the Church. They grew to a large and powerful organization based on the perception that they were God's Soldiers, blessed by him with the ability to keep the Holy Land safe for pilgrims. When the Holy Land was overrun by the Saracens, the Templars lost much of their clout. They were also heavily involved in usury in Europe to fund their organization, and King Phillip of France ended up owing them more money than he could repay. His solution was to declare them outlaws, seize their castles and absorb their wealth. He persecuted many of them, although it's debatable whether they deserved what they got. The demise of the Knights Templar had far more to do with Philip of France than with the Church.

 

The Catholic Church did not "help start the Dark Ages." The Dark Ages were a period of poverty throughout Europe, and while it is certainly true that the Catholic Church didn't give up its wealth to feed the poor, it is not true that they caused the Dark Ages, unless you believe the Catholic Church could create a mini Ice Age for a couple hundred years, or you believe they had some nefarious reason to do so. Now, could they have made it better? Absolutely. But they did not create it, nor did they sustain it. They profited by it by perpetuating the ignorance of the masses and thus keeping themselves in charge, but the same could be said of most every major and minor royal of the time, too.

 

The fall of Constantinople was as much political as it was a failure of the Catholic Church. The Church was heavily involved in politics at the time, and it is true that the Eastern Orthodoxy was in opposition to that of the West, whose seat was Rome, and this is entirely not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus that the Church claims to follow. Be that as it may, there is simply no historical accuracy to the idea that Muslims "conquered much of eastern Europe." I believe you're speaking of the Mongols, who were an unstoppable force as far as the West was concerned, and had the Mongols chosen to continue pushing West there is little or nothing The Church could have done to stop them.

 

The Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople, but again this is a far more complicated situation than simply stating that The Church didn't help. The Eastern Empire was a shell of its former self, the Western Empire was as devastated by the effects of the Dark Ages and the Black Plague as the East, and it's unlikely, again, that had the western Church wanted to do anything to stop the Turks from conquering Constantinople that they could have. Medieval Europe simply wasn't capable at the time of resisting the Turkish forces as they conquered Constantinople.

 

Again, there's a lot of wrong to discuss with the Church over the years. But if we're going to discuss them, we should be as accurate as is reasonable.

 

 

Great post, I was going to explain to him that the dark ages were not caused by the church but you did it better than I would have. The fall of the Roman empire was a major cause of the dark ages also.

 

But all of this is just a huge deflection, his big assertion is that the govt has become more religious since the 50s and that has caused the slide of America.

Who is making an arguement that America is slid anywhere? Santorum is trying. I have disagreed with that statement. I think we are better off now. I think there were some very bad things that started post WWII that we are STILL trying to get past. Over the past 30 or 40 years this country has become less religious and that is a very good thing. There are groups of people who have always said that things were better in 'the good ole days' in every era. Just a result of people unwilling to change, and fearful of things they don't fully understand, or of people who are different than them.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Let's see they help started the knights templar then after the crusades were over they back stabbed them but saying they were devil worshippers. They helped start the dark ages. They influenced the Holy Roman Empire on which person should next be King. Oh yeah after the schism instead of helping the city of Constantine they rather let the Muslims conquer it much of eastern europe.

 

While the Catholic Church has much to answer for over the course of the last millennium and a half, there are some gross historical inaccuracies in this post.

 

The Catholic Church did not found the Knights Templar. They were founded by a few knights in the Holy Land, and gained favor with the Church some time later. They were not controlled by or beholden to the Church - they were their own separate entity, and never an arm of Catholicism. The Templars weren't back-stabbed by the Church. They grew to a large and powerful organization based on the perception that they were God's Soldiers, blessed by him with the ability to keep the Holy Land safe for pilgrims. When the Holy Land was overrun by the Saracens, the Templars lost much of their clout. They were also heavily involved in usury in Europe to fund their organization, and King Phillip of France ended up owing them more money than he could repay. His solution was to declare them outlaws, seize their castles and absorb their wealth. He persecuted many of them, although it's debatable whether they deserved what they got. The demise of the Knights Templar had far more to do with Philip of France than with the Church.

 

The Catholic Church did not "help start the Dark Ages." The Dark Ages were a period of poverty throughout Europe, and while it is certainly true that the Catholic Church didn't give up its wealth to feed the poor, it is not true that they caused the Dark Ages, unless you believe the Catholic Church could create a mini Ice Age for a couple hundred years, or you believe they had some nefarious reason to do so. Now, could they have made it better? Absolutely. But they did not create it, nor did they sustain it. They profited by it by perpetuating the ignorance of the masses and thus keeping themselves in charge, but the same could be said of most every major and minor royal of the time, too.

 

The fall of Constantinople was as much political as it was a failure of the Catholic Church. The Church was heavily involved in politics at the time, and it is true that the Eastern Orthodoxy was in opposition to that of the West, whose seat was Rome, and this is entirely not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus that the Church claims to follow. Be that as it may, there is simply no historical accuracy to the idea that Muslims "conquered much of eastern Europe." I believe you're speaking of the Mongols, who were an unstoppable force as far as the West was concerned, and had the Mongols chosen to continue pushing West there is little or nothing The Church could have done to stop them.

 

The Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople, but again this is a far more complicated situation than simply stating that The Church didn't help. The Eastern Empire was a shell of its former self, the Western Empire was as devastated by the effects of the Dark Ages and the Black Plague as the East, and it's unlikely, again, that had the western Church wanted to do anything to stop the Turks from conquering Constantinople that they could have. Medieval Europe simply wasn't capable at the time of resisting the Turkish forces as they conquered Constantinople.

 

Again, there's a lot of wrong to discuss with the Church over the years. But if we're going to discuss them, we should be as accurate as is reasonable.

 

 

Great post, I was going to explain to him that the dark ages were not caused by the church but you did it better than I would have. The fall of the Roman empire was a major cause of the dark ages also.

 

But all of this is just a huge deflection, his big assertion is that the govt has become more religious since the 50s and that has caused the slide of America.

Who is making an arguement that America is slid anywhere? Santorum is trying. I have disagreed with that statement. I think we are better off now. I think there were some very bad things that started post WWII that we are STILL trying to get past. Over the past 30 or 40 years this country has become less religious and that is a very good thing. There are groups of people who have always said that things were better in 'the good ole days' in every era. Just a result of people unwilling to change, and fearful of things they don't fully understand, or of people who are different than them.

 

 

Read post #36 by husker 99. I have been trying to tell Husker 99 that the bolded statement is true, he is the one who said that part about America Sliding, post your remarks toward him.

[johnnyrodgers20]

If you don't celebrate Christmas, you're probably a dirty communist.

 

 

Thank you DUDE!! Finally somebody gets it. I wish all pinko commy liberals would get this simple law!!

[johnnyrodgers20]

I think O'reilly get angry about stores that have a policy that won't allow anyone to say Merry Christmas, at least that is my take on it.

 

Perhaps they want to also welcome people of other religions, other than Christians.

 

An official store greeting should be generic, but that should not exclude personal greeting that are targeted to a specific individual and their holiday of choice.

 

I have no problem with "Feliz Navidad" when I am in a Hispanic area... but I wonder how English First Conservative Christians would deal with that.

 

 

I would say Feliz Navidad to you also!!

[Sub-Husker]

Muchas gracias, Juan Rodgers!

[johnnyrodgers20]

Molto bene Goomba!!

[johnnyrodgers20]

or maybe I should have said Buon Natale a voi, Goomba!!