|
Post by Harris on Nov 4, 2008 9:12:40 GMT
I do not have the information you seek. Any answer I give you would be mere speculation on my behalf. Speculation rarely, if ever, is a sound method of uncovering facts. I can only refer you to my previous answer. If you engage in debate with them on this issue I'm sure they will state their position. However in the specific cases of the two members recently banned, it is my understanding that they were invited here. " Dear Harris, Initially at the immediate presentation of the atheists on this forum should you go back into the record to see for yourself, I was open to dialog in rationality. Since then I have been convinced that the particular atheists who have posted on this site so far have been obsessed with refuting Catholic beliefs and not open in the slightest to discovery. Unfortunately I must conclude that they bore me to tears with their close mindedness and incessant desire to argue all Catholic faith statements. Should any atheists return to this site after banning, I will do my best to either ignore their comments or stay clear of their topics not because they threaten my intellect, rather because their redundancy is so repetitive that it reminds me of those long ago days when I educated the mentally handicapped. Repetition bores me to tears and so does redundancy. If atheist wish to discuss Catholic Doctrinal beliefs with Catholics then they owe it to those Catholic members the courtesy of gaining first a primary understanding of what they are refuting in order to debate in a rational manner. Anything less than that amounts to immature denials of openmindedness. Rather I could easily prove to you that Catholic Doctrine and persons of Catholic faith are a frightening reality to those who do not believe in God and so from the Godless comes the cry, "God is unjust and punishes the unrepentant"! Stephen, As I stated on another thread, I have saved the debates both Hemingway and Inedifix were engaged in and see no evidence that they breached the rules. In the short time I have been posting here I can state, however, that I have noticed that you are extremely intolerant of others who do not share your "unique" form of Catholicism. I do not share this trait with you Sir and may I state for the record that I want to distance myself from some of the odd and frankly poorly constructed arguments that you have posted here. They really do not embody the teachings of Jesus and the golden rule of "Love thy Neighbour". I seriously considered totally ignoring you posts when I saw their tone and your arguments' lack of cohesion when you try to make a case but I have decided to persevere. I hope that through god and maybe some reflection on your behalf you can amend your blinkered vision and learn to accept others regardless of what they believe.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 4, 2008 10:02:32 GMT
Dear Harris, I was looking to obtain your opinion on the question of why you believe atheists are obsessive compulsive about posting on Catholic forums? As I said before this is not so. You are only on those forums and you only see us therefore on those forums. As I said before if you only see cars on the roads you drive on you do not assume therefore that cars only drive on those roads. It would be stupidity to assume that. By saying there is a compulsion to go to catholic forums you are doing this however. You are not just assuming that cars only drive on the roads you are on, but that cars only drive on roads! I, for one, am on muslim websites, atheists websites, catholic websites and websites from some of the other 33820* versions of christianity that are out there. I am also on several sites that have nothing to do with religion but where religion can often come up. The compulsion to only post on catholic sites therefore is not one the atheist have, but clearly one that YOU have. *World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version)
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Nov 4, 2008 13:38:07 GMT
Hi mel, nice to meet you. Something you said I would like to respond to;
'The answer to the question of how jumpers arise is: people knit them. We know, because we have evidence. The answer to the question of how life arose on earth is: no one knows. Because we don't have enough evidence. Saying: "God did it." is as empty as saying: "Evolution did it." Neither explanation shows how, or provides evidence, or proof in itself.'
As a Catholic I say this is atheist think, nay, more than that, heresy. It is a DOGMA of Catholic faith that it has been revealed that
"All that exists outside of God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God" (de fide) "God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of REASON from created things' (de fide)
I have alluded to this point on other threads and spicifically to the book of Wisdom "For by the greatness of the beauty and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen." and St Paul " For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made."
Again, as I said elsewhere, if there is a Devil then this visibility HAD to be removed from man's MIND (it cannot be removed from our sight - but the MIND can blind out the sight). It was under the auspices of this dogma that I studied carefully the history of the VISIBLE and revealed geocentric universe and how it was later cast as a MIND-controlled heliocentric universe. Here the devil had his greatest victory over this DOGMA and man could no longer see a universe that could only be if it were created.
The second victory of the devil or 'atheism' if you like over the Catholic dogma was evolutionism whereby all glory of things is now credited to NATURAL PROCESSES, all under the domain of 'science', not God the Creator.
I pray even one Catholic will get the grace to see what I have discovered and why I can now look upon the sun and stars as they turn around mother earth, the place of the crucifixion as is fitting to human and sacred reasoning, and see for myself the power and glory of God in the visible heavens.
Outside of revelation there exists a doctrine that accepts
"The existence of God can be proved by means of causality"
Pope Pius X included the following in his anti-modernist oath:
" God, the beginning and end of all things can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason, as a cause is known by its effects, from those things that are made, that is by the visible works of creation and can be equally be demonstrated (to be)." D 2145.
And this is why Confusius, Aristotle and other great philosophers without the aid of revelation (the Scriptures) reasoned out the certain existence of God. Then came St Thomas Aquinas and his famous PROOFS for God based on this reasoning.
Atheism as I said elsewhere - I read in a recent book tracing the history of atheism - evolved from anti-Catholic thought. It emerged in its present form in the sixteenth/seventeenth centuries, in line with the Copernican revolution. It gathered strength with the interpretations of new discoveries that showed dates and methods contrary to REVELATION. Using the term SCIENCE as a means to silence all it ('SCIENCE') became the modern BIBLE that reveales NATURAL beginnings and natural evolution, making God redundant, or at best for theistic evolutionists - an observer to evolution creating things according to their kind.
For us Catholics then we have supernatural and natural intelligence asa proof for the existence of God. I now see that the atheist has rejected these proofs. To argue the point has proven fruitless on this forum, and I now see it would be better to pray for their conversion rather than to cross swords. And even if we do ever get the chance to debate with them again, we must do so as Christ would, take insults on the chin, but resist the temptation to return any. I for one have learned that lesson on this forum, so from that point of view I have gained from this discussion with atheists.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 4, 2008 15:05:53 GMT
I can't comment about inedifix or why the moderator chose to exclude him from the Forum. I would prefer if hemmingway were here to give his version of my comments, but he isn't. There was a heated discussion on one of the Latin Mass threads between two sides and Guillaume and I were on opposite sides. This happens in Latin Mass debates quite a lot. Guillaume made an injudicious comment about atheists which I ignored because it had nothing to do with the thread. On reflection, I probably should have commented. Hemmingway came on the thread and likened Guillaume to two anchormen on Fox News. I believed this to be out of place, as Hemmingway had no contribution to make to the thread otherwise. Following that intervention, Hemmingway made an adverse comment about me on a second thread (on Hallowe'en) which he again had no contribution to make and attempted to justify his presence on the Latin Mass thread by making a bland comment that any participant could have agreed with - something which may well have been sincerely meant, but was not a contribution to the thread. I was surprised how thin skinned he seemed. I suspect that this was the reason he may have been expelled from the forum. I think the sanction may have been heavy, but I am not sure Hemmingway was totally keeping the rules here.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Nov 4, 2008 15:37:22 GMT
I can't comment about inedifix or why the moderator chose to exclude him from the Forum. I would prefer if hemmingway were here to give his version of my comments, but he isn't. There was a heated discussion on one of the Latin Mass threads between two sides and Guillaume and I were on opposite sides. This happens in Latin Mass debates quite a lot. Guillaume made an injudicious comment about atheists which I ignored because it had nothing to do with the thread. On reflection, I probably should have commented. Hemmingway came on the thread and likened Guillaume to two anchormen on Fox News. I believed this to be out of place, as Hemmingway had no contribution to make to the thread otherwise. Following that intervention, Hemmingway made an adverse comment about me on a second thread (on Hallowe'en) which he again had no contribution to make and attempted to justify his presence on the Latin Mass thread by making a bland comment that any participant could have agreed with - something which may well have been sincerely meant, but was not a contribution to the thread. I was surprised how thin skinned he seemed. I suspect that this was the reason he may have been expelled from the forum. I think the sanction may have been heavy, but I am not sure Hemmingway was totally keeping the rules here. Hi alaisdir6, I want to clarify this for the other posters on here so they can judge for themselves the issues you bring up above. I actually saw the comment RE Latin Mass. My reading of it was that Guillaume made a comment about atheists that Hemingway disagreed with and he stated that his position on atheism was similar to that of a Fox News anchor man. I remember you being exceptionally annoyed at this comment (and you expressed a wish that you hoped that the moderator was watching) because it was off topic and after that Hemingway stated that he was responding to Guillaume's remark regarding atheists and asked why Guillaume hadn’t been pulled up on this remark as he was also off topic. I then believe hemingway went on to make what appeared to be a genuine comment regarding the Latin mass i.e. a comment about the topic under discussion. Is that a fair reflection on what transpired? As regards the Halloween thread I have that post saved as a word document. I believe you were commenting to someone posting a rational response on whether Halloween was glorifying evil and you stated that you were happy that: "At least someone here has common sense" It appears hemingway chose to interpret your remark as possibly offensive to the other members of the site and he then went on to state that personally he wouldn’t take offence to your remark nor express a wish that the moderator was watching because: "thats not my style".I believe that comment was a "touché" remark as you had expressed a wish for the moderator to examine his comments on the Latin Mass thread. Is this also a fair reflection of what transpired?
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 4, 2008 20:08:32 GMT
I can't comment about inedifix or why the moderator chose to exclude him from the Forum.... I was surprised how thin skinned he [Hemingway] seemed. I suspect that this was the reason he may have been expelled from the forum. I think the sanction may have been heavy, but I am not sure Hemmingway was totally keeping the rules here. I repeat: CPM deleted Inedifix and Hemingway for one simple reason: because the threads they were active in were generating the most traffic on this forum. They were not banned or expelled - they were deleted. Without warning, without notification, and without subsequent explanation. They were not deleted because they broke any rules, nor for the nature or tone of their posts. They were deleted because they were attracting too much attention. To date, one week after the deletion, CPM has still failed to explain his actions either to the members of this forum (many of whom have also lost their posts), or privately to the two members he deleted. This would be considered unacceptable behaviour by a moderator on any web forum, but not, it seems, on one that has as its platform, the ideals of courtesy, charity and Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 4, 2008 20:18:19 GMT
Has there been any follow up on the Gerry Ryan show or any other media discussions of the topic and this site?
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 5, 2008 6:42:21 GMT
Dear Mel, Do you have any evidence to back your statements? Show us the evidence. Hello Saint Stephen, Yes, I do. But before I present it, I would like it noted by all, that you, Saint Stephen, have falsely accused me, Inedifix/Mel of discourtesy and disrespect, and of insulting the hosts of this site: CPM and Michael G. You have also stated that I was deleted because of these offences. Yet despite being requested on several occasions by other members to present evidence to support these claims, you have either failed, or refused, to do so. So before I provide evidence to back up my statement, I want it on the record that you have repeatedly failed to do what you now request of me. I
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 5, 2008 6:49:02 GMT
Dear Mel, Do you have any evidence to back your statements? Show us the evidence. Here it is... The following private messages were sent by Michael G to me, Inedifix on Thursday 30th October, the day after my membership was deleted. (N.B. At Atheist.ie, Michael G posts as ‘Superstitious Fool’). Message 1. Message 2. So there is your evidence Saint Stephen? Not complete proof of course, because CPM himself has still not spoken. To anyone. Not the forum, not me, and not you (I think). Indeed, Michael G passed a total of 5 messages from me to CPM requesting dialogue, yet to date, CPM has declined to respond, or to provide any explanation for his actions. But I guess I should congratulate myself at least, that I wasn't banned for being "stupid and incoherent." I
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 5, 2008 9:13:00 GMT
I love how one side demands evidence here and is refusing to provide any themselves.
Innocent until proven guilty people, its a rule our societies are built upon. Try to live by it. There is a user here providing evidence of his innocence for a crime that no one has provided any evidence for his guilt.
SaintStephen would like it to be one rule for him and one rule for everyone else it seems. HE is innocent of all crimes until proven guilty, but everyone else is guilty solely by means of accusation.
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 6, 2008 3:44:56 GMT
So Stephen, you asked for evidence... any comment?
I
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 6, 2008 9:45:24 GMT
I thought it only fair to let members know (if anyone is still logging in), that CPM has finally made contact with me by pm. This is what he had to say...
Hi Inedifix, I am writing to you to apologise for the actions I took last week in deleting both you and Hemingway from the Irish Catholics Forum. I regret doing it and I realise that it was foolish, unethical, unfair and wrong of me to do so. The reason I did it was because I felt that the atheistic talk was partly dominating the Irish Catholics Forum. I hope you accept my apology. In Nomine Christi, CPM
Naturally, I accepted his apology. I
|
|
|
Post by hackenslash on Nov 7, 2008 1:06:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 9, 2008 22:34:01 GMT
Now that you are here how about some fellowship with Christ to whom we both owe our very existance? I am all for it. Your audacity is breathtaking. You lie about your identity, you tell more lies to the members of this forum to cover it up, then you start telling lies about me when I reveal you as a liar. Whatever will you make up next? That you can toss out such bald-faced lies and then invoke Christ says a lot about you. I may be a godless heathen and a right pain the proverbial to everyone on this site, but I am not a liar. Please stop lying and apologize for the lies you are making up about me. I
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Nov 24, 2008 14:44:42 GMT
I can't comment about inedifix or why the moderator chose to exclude him from the Forum. I would prefer if hemmingway were here to give his version of my comments, but he isn't. There was a heated discussion on one of the Latin Mass threads between two sides and Guillaume and I were on opposite sides. This happens in Latin Mass debates quite a lot. Guillaume made an injudicious comment about atheists which I ignored because it had nothing to do with the thread. On reflection, I probably should have commented. Hemmingway came on the thread and likened Guillaume to two anchormen on Fox News. I believed this to be out of place, as Hemmingway had no contribution to make to the thread otherwise. Following that intervention, Hemmingway made an adverse comment about me on a second thread (on Hallowe'en) which he again had no contribution to make and attempted to justify his presence on the Latin Mass thread by making a bland comment that any participant could have agreed with - something which may well have been sincerely meant, but was not a contribution to the thread. I was surprised how thin skinned he seemed. I suspect that this was the reason he may have been expelled from the forum. I think the sanction may have been heavy, but I am not sure Hemmingway was totally keeping the rules here. Hi alaisdir6, I want to clarify this for the other posters on here so they can judge for themselves the issues you bring up above. I actually saw the comment RE Latin Mass. My reading of it was that Guillaume made a comment about atheists that Hemingway disagreed with and he stated that his position on atheism was similar to that of a Fox News anchor man. I remember you being exceptionally annoyed at this comment (and you expressed a wish that you hoped that the moderator was watching) because it was off topic and after that Hemingway stated that he was responding to Guillaume's remark regarding atheists and asked why Guillaume hadn’t been pulled up on this remark as he was also off topic. I then believe hemingway went on to make what appeared to be a genuine comment regarding the Latin mass i.e. a comment about the topic under discussion. Is that a fair reflection on what transpired? As regards the Halloween thread I have that post saved as a word document. I believe you were commenting to someone posting a rational response on whether Halloween was glorifying evil and you stated that you were happy that: "At least someone here has common sense" It appears hemingway chose to interpret your remark as possibly offensive to the other members of the site and he then went on to state that personally he wouldn’t take offence to your remark nor express a wish that the moderator was watching because: "thats not my style".I believe that comment was a "touché" remark as you had expressed a wish for the moderator to examine his comments on the Latin Mass thread. Is this also a fair reflection of what transpired? This is a fair and true re-telling of what happened IMO.
|
|