[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Catholic Perversion Throughout History

Catlix are the worst: you can see how it came about. Slavering deluded, papists converting their unrequited lust for women to Satanic hatred. Banning everyone else from their God Given conjugal rights.

They had too much time to think; they thought that because they could, they should. They continued making even more ridiculous pronouncements as if God's Word were not enough for any man!

Church Traditions, Dogma, and all the other weird stuff that God never mentioned - too much time! A man with a wife seems to have very little of that.

Kudos, Brother Temperance, I have read your articles 3 times and feel I ought to phone the nearest den of iniquity - the presbytery at St Mary of the Bleeding Heart, Eternal Torment and Guilt in Mason City (if it's not the one that burned down.)

But not only that, even the communist BBC could not conceal this detail:

The Nigerian sang for 19 years in the Giulia Choir, which performs at St Peter's Basilica when the Pope is not present.

in their brief coverage of the vatican rentboy scandal

(sadly, I know what a rentboy is, but perhaps others are more fortunate so I'll include a picture, just for general information re. the sort of thing being imported into the vatican "to greet important visitors")

a rentboy, yesterday

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Catholic Perversion Throughout History

Catlix are the worst: you can see how it came about. Slavering deluded, papists converting their unrequited lust for women to Satanic hatred. Banning everyone else from their God Given conjugal rights.

They had too much time to think; they thought that because they could, they should. They continued making even more ridiculous pronouncements as if God's Word were not enough for any man!

Church Traditions, Dogma, and all the other weird stuff that God never mentioned - too much time! A man with a wife seems to have very little of that.

Kudos, Brother Temperance, I have read your articles 3 times and feel I ought to phone the nearest den of iniquity - the presbytery at St Mary of the Bleeding Heart, Eternal Torment and Guilt in Mason City (if it's not the one that burned down.)

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: Catholic Perversion Throughout History

2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

I've often wondered whether we inherited the names of the devils Chlamydeous, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Herpes, and the three Hepatitis' (known as A, B, and C) passed down to us from Biblical times.

3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

This is just one more reason to believe that Jesus was a virile and vigorous man and not some peace loving wuss.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Catholic Perversion Throughout History

It is tempting, and I would like to try some of that famous Irish hospitality one day, and to see some of the sights, but for the moment there are plenty of Catholics to educate on the internet. Anyway, it's time for the penultimate installment in my series:

ARE CATHOLICS BETTER THAN JESUS?

It may seem like a simple question to any True Christian™ reading this, but not so to a Catholic theologian.
CONSIDER:
Did Jesus cut himself off from women?
NO! He travelled with many of them!
Luke 8:1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: And the twelve were with him,
2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.
Then why did the Catholics impose ever stricter regulations on the women their priests were allowed to keep company with? Because they wished to be holier than Jesus – BLASPHEMY!
The Synod of Rome in 743 said priests could have in their house ‘no women except for their own mother or nearest relative.’ However, even this was felt to give them too much room, and by 888, Article 10 of the Synod of Mainz stated:
‘Clerics may have no females whatsoever in their house, since some have gone astray even with their own sisters.’

We can draw two conclusions from this:
1) By forbidding all contact with women, even nuns and their own mothers, the Catholic priests were trying to out-do JESUS himself in piety, thus committing an unbelievable blasphemy.
2) Catholics are incredible perverts. Their own sisters? Yech!

Leviticus 18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
This is important!
Leviticus 18:11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
So important that they repeat it two chapters on!
Lev 20:17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

This priestly perversion got so out of hand that by 906, Abbot Regino of Prüm gave orders to check to see if ‘the priest has a cubicle near the church or if there are suspicious little doors thereabouts.’ (Cited in Karlheinz Deschner, Daz Kreuz mit der Kirche: Eine Sexualgeschichte das Christentums, p160)
The irrepressible randiness of these so-called priests is attested to by the fact that, despite all the commands to repress their sexuality, an organisation calling itself ‘The Association of Catholic Priests and Their Wives’ was set up in Germany in 1984, and soon claimed that one in five priests were married. As long as it keeps them away from the alter(ed) boys, I suppose…

[Liam the ex-drunk]

Re: Catholic Perversion Throughout History

Rather than preach to the converted, perhaps you would consider a tour of Ireland. I doubt there'd be too many Catholics left here if you give them a true history of catholicism.

I would be only to happy to accommodate you and pay for any expenses incurred while you convert the land of mary worshippers. God knows, it is hard to find a True Christian™ in Ireland.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Catholic Perversion Throughout History

The evolution of Catholic hatred of marriage.
Or,
How 1 Timothy 3:2 was turned on its head.

As far back as 402, Pope Innocent (hah! Likely story) I declared that ‘Bishops, priests and deacons must be unmarried.’ I really can’t say enough how heretical this is, but it gets worse.
The Synod of Tours of 567 declared that ‘The Bishop may look upon his wife only as his sister(!)’ (Canon 12.) It went on to state that ‘since very many archpriests in the country, along with deacons and subdeacons, are under suspicion of continuing relations with their wives, the archpriest should always have a cleric with him who will accompany him everywhere he goes and who must have his bed in the same room as him.’ (Canon 19) Think about that for a second. This so-called ‘church’ was never anything more than a massive organisation for the promotion of buggery!
This lunatic doctrine was one of the major causes of the split between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic cults. And so it was that a bizarre insistence on the sinfulness of marriage would help lead up to the mass murder of Orthodox Serbs by Catholic Croatian Fascists in the 20th Century.
Of course, for the small minority of heterosexual catholic priests, this doctrine was also completely impossible to follow. As the Bible predicts, this lead inevitably to fornication and concubinage on a massive scale. In 1542, Archbishop Albrecht of Brandenburg asked despairingly ‘I know all my priests are living in concubinage. But what should I do to stop it? If I forbid them concubines, they either want to have wives or become Lutherans.’ (Found in Monumenta Vaticana, 1861, p 412)
This reveals the full insanity of this doctrine. Since he would obviously have never allowed them to become Protestants, the Archbishop was presented with a choice between allowing his priests to continue fornicating, or allowing them to marry as the Bible commands – AND CHOSE THE FORMER. Unbelievable.
At the Council of Trent in 1562, Augustin Baumgartner reported that, in Bavaria, ‘of a hundred priests scarcely three or four could be found who did not live in public or secret concubinage or else had not openly gotten married.’
That shocking statement concludes today’s lecture. From the archpriests sodomising their cleric in 567, to the overwhelming majority of priests living in sin 1000 years later, the Catholic "church" has consistently acted in Satan’s interests by waging war on the holy institution of marriage.

Next time: Are Catholics better than Jesus?

[Liam the ex-drunk]

Re: Catholic Perversion Throughout History

Brother temperance, thank you so much for your history lessons. It is amazing that the priests and nuns who taught me never mentioned any of the perversions and biblical distortions you are teaching.

For example; Ambrose, Bishop of Milan is regarded as one of the most distinguished early Church figures in Catholicism, not only for his stance on mixed marriage but for his (as we were taught) dedication to the vow of charity and poverty. He was supposed to have given away all of his land and money to the poor. Now I'm not so sure, perhaps again this is another Catholic smoke screen designed to keep the simple sheep following their despotic popes.

Thank you again.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Catholic Perversion Throughout History

Where are all the Catholics? Why are they so scared of the truth?

Anyway, today's lesson is on Augustine:

Augustine lived with a woman for over ten years, and she bore him a son. Eventually, he converted to Christianity, or at least what he called Christianity, and sent his woman away instead of marrying her. She might have thought that Augustine’s conversion was bad for her, but it was as nothing compared to the disastrous impact that this loon would have on ‘Christian’ thinking. He is claimed by the papists as one of their greatest theologians, but do they actually follow his teachings?
Pope John Paul II, currently burning up in Hell, used to recommend that married couples who wished to avoid pregnancy should copulate only at the infertile points of the woman’s cycle, rather than use contraception. All well and good (I think), but hardly in line with the teaching of Augustine, who said that ‘it is impermissible and shameful to practice intercourse with one’s wife while preventing the conception of children’, (The Adulterous Relations 2) and without childbirth ‘husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, marriage beds are bordellos, and fathers-in-law are pimps.’ (Against Faustus 15) It’s not often someone makes the effort to condemn the father-in-law. Bloody heretics! If they can’t follow the Bible, they should at least bother to follow their own teachings!
He retracted the heresy of Gregory of Nyssa and John of Chrysostom, who claimed that Adam and Eve remained virgins in the garden of Eden. However, he replaced it with another one just as bad, asking ‘Is there any reason why we should not believe that before the sin and its punishment of corruptibility, the members of a man’s body could have been the servants of man’s will, without any lust, for the procreation of children?’ (The City of God 14, 24) Uh, this is just a guess, but maybe because it’s a nutty idea that isn’t mentioned in the Bible? Did that ever cross your mind, you stupid dead heretic? If, as he claims, Adam felt no lust until after he ate the fruit, then why did he eat the fruit in the first place? When did any man ever do something a woman told him to except when he thought he might get laid as a result? Augustine is damned by his own words! In one of his most sensible passages, (De genesi ad litteram 9) he said ‘I don’t see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes the purpose of procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, what help could she be?’ Precisely!
This man’s ideas were nothing more than a load of half-formed, contradictory codswallop. In his final, incomplete work (section 4, 29), he advised his followers that ‘Physical sensation is good, physical desire is a bad impulse.’
Back to the Bible for a minute:
1 Corinthians 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
Clearly, this means that married couples are not commanded to refuse or 'defraud' each other, just that they can if they wish. However, in Augustine’s wacky world, this was interpreted as meaning that intercourse between husband and wife is a permission, not a commandment, and that if permission is needed, then it must be a potential sin (Numerous works, including De Peccato Originali 42, De nuptius et concupisicentia 1, and his incomplete work, 4.) From Paul’s granting of the right to refuse conjugal rights by mutual agreement for some time, Augustine turned sex between husband and wife into a sin.
I could write pages and pages more about the kind of bizarre, desire-free marriage advocated by this wacko, but my brain is aching already. He even claimed that it was better to fornicate with many women in order to knock them up than to have sex with one wife out of love, writing in De doctrina christiana 3, 18 that ‘I rather approve using the fertility of many women for an unselfish purpose rather than the flesh of a single woman for her own sake.’
I must go and wash my hands now, after typing such vile muddle-headedness, but I’ll leave you with one last quote that just about sums him, and the entire Mary-worshipping cult, up: ‘Anyone in our day who has arrived at perfect love of God surely has no more than spiritual desire for children.’

Next time: More on the Catholic hatred of marriage.

[Mistress Cookie]

Re: Catholic Perversion Throughout History

Mistress Cookie I could make a lot of off color remarks about Lesbos, drag queens and Homers, but I am above that. I am however surprised that the Catliks did not claim immaculate conception, and that God changed a man into a woman so ......... never mind I am above that.

I wonder if they "kept mum" about the whole incident and now claim Pope Joan never existed because she was some sort of "in-house" sex slave for The Vatican't in her day?

(But then, why would they have kept a female sex slave when the Catlicks are all homogay? Maybe she was kept on hand for visiting dignitaries, heads of state, etc? It's very curious!)

Here's a photo with good detail that refutes the claim she was imaginary:
.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Catholic Perversion Throughout History

Just time for a short one today (as the Catholic bishop said to the person he was having a conversation about altar boy-molesting with):

Jerome was one of the most important theologians in forming the twisted Catholic doctrine on sexuality. It was Jerome who helped create the Popish obsession with virginity, and created the myth of the perpetual ‘virgin’ Mary in order to attept to justify this. This cannot be said often enough: Catholics do not praise virginity and run down marriage because they are following Mary’s example. They created the myth of the "virgin" Mary, twisting the Bible into an unrecognisable load of gibberish in the process. Once again he repeats the idea, which came not from the bible but from paganism, that ‘anyone who is too passionate a lover of his wife is an adulterer.’ (Against Jovinian I, 49.) This is getting even worse – Clement of Alexandria condemned ‘commerce’ in marriage as being equal to adultery, but Jerome, an even more influential heretic, actually spoke out against passion between husband and wife! But, let’s be clear about this – not even Jerome could out-and-out condemn marriage as a sin. Instead, he says something even more depraved, claiming that the only redeeming feature of marriage is that ‘it produces virgins. I gather the rose from the thorns, the gold from the earth, the pearl from the mussel.’ (From his Epistle 22, 20) I don’t know how to put it any more plainly than this: The man was clearly a paedophile. He also praises a widow named Blesilla, because ‘the loss of her virginity caused her more pain than the death of her husband.’ The word for someone like this is ‘psychopath.’ Incidentally, Blesilla’s death was widely blamed on Jerome, because she was following his recommendations on fasting at the time of her decease. However, he did not take such a hard line on everything, claiming, (in Epistle 121, 4) that ‘the seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs.’ Let’s be clear about this: Jerome said that some abortions don’t count. He said that life doesn’t begin at conception. Who knows how many innocent unbaptised fetuses are burning in hell right now, simply because their limbs had yet to take shape, so Mr. Self-Appointed Guardian of Christian Sexual Morality Jerome decided that killing them didn’t count? One thing’s for sure though, they’ll have Jerome to keep them company – IN HELL!
Praying for the Lord to put an end to this heretic cult,
Temperance

[James Dewitt]

Re: Catholic Perversion Throughout History

Mistress Cookie I could make a lot of off color remarks about Lesbos, drag queens and Homers, but I am above that.
I am however surprised that the Catliks did not claim immaculate conception, and that God changed a man into a woman so ......... never mind I am above that.

[Mistress Cookie]

Re: Catholic Perversion Throughout History

Uggh. One of the Catlick's most lauded and revered popes was Pope Joan, who was a woman living "her" life disguised as a man. (This is called "The Drag".) I think they still have a Feast Day for her and say their "black masses" in her name.

The church's secret about her came out when she gave birth to a baby during a parade (they might have been walking to the hospital?), and the shocked crowd tore her to pieces.

Look it up.
.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Catholic Perversion Throughout History

Revisiting this thread, I've noticed that I never finished re-posting all my scholarly classics. I'll post up the rest of the series shortly, starting with this one:

The freak parade: How early cathylick theologians distorted the Bible.

There were numerous fathers of the church, and each of them got to make up their own heresies. However, most of them were very long and boring, and consisted of prurient speculation, with little or no scriptural basis, on the subject of what Adam and Eve got up to in the garden of Eden. However, there was one aspect which many of them agreed upon, and went on to form one of the most deviant doctrines of cathoholicism: The idea that the purpose of marriage is to produce children.

Now don’t get me wrong here. I am not saying that marriages shouldn’t produce children – I do not advocate murder of unborn children, or even unconceived children (which is all that condom use is.) I think that children are an important part of marriage. But I also think that slapping your wife around when she gets out of hand is an important and necessary part of marriage, but I wouldn’t claim that the purpose of marriage is to have someone to slap.

What is the purpose of marriage? Numerous times in both testaments we are told that we should get married simply because the Lord tells us to (good enough reason for me), that we should get married because it is not good for man to be alone (as Genesis 2:18 can testify) and, as 1 Corinthians 7:2 puts it, to avoid fornication. I’d say that all this shows that children are not the only, or even the main point of marriage, but what else would you expect from a religion dreamed up by pederasts?

In 1 Apology 29, Justin Martyr wrote ‘from the first we have either entered marriage with the sole purpose of raising children, or we have renounced getting married and remain wholly continent.’ Is this a biblical attitude? Is this the attitude of Abraham or the apostles? No, it is the attitude of a pagan Gnostic, but why would that bother a catheretic?

Way back in my first lecture, we saw the influence of pagan philosophers like the stoics on the Catholic cult. This influence shows up again, specifically in the stoic ideal of ‘no-feeling’, or apathia. Clement of Alexandria (another cathy father), for instance, misinterprets Paul in support of his child-obsessed deviancy, by quoting his words ‘Do not refuse one another’ (1 Cor. 7:5), and claiming that ‘he (Paul) is referring to the marital duty of begetting children.’ (Miscellanies III, 107, 5) Where does this idea come from? Last time I checked, the Bible was perfectly capable of saying what it meant! But this pervert was evidently thinking about children, and so he dragged them into a completely unrelated bible verse for no good reason whatsoever. And do you remember that Seneca quotation from my first post about ‘adultery with one’s wife’? Up it crops again, as Clement wrote that ‘one commits adultery with one’s own wife if one has commerce with her in marriage.’ (Paedagogus [no, I’m not going to make the obvious pun] II, 10, 99, 3) It’s still a pagan stoic idea, not a biblical Christian one, but those perverts will drag up any half-baked idea they can in order to avoid intercourse with a woman.

This senseless heretic openly praised the lunatic philosophy of stoicism, asking ‘If the reason taught by the Stoics does not even allow the wise man to move his finger any which way, how much more must the seekers of wisdom affirm their dominion over the organ of generation?’ (Paedagogus II, 10, 90, 1) Yes, and if the Stoics all jumped off a 10-foot cliff, I suppose this lunatic would want all Christians to jump off a 100-foot cliff to prove their superiority!

And, believe it or not, the nutcase Origen was even worse. He claimed to have castrated himself at the age of eighteen – not to avoid becoming a homer, which would be perfectly reasonable, but so as to avoid the duty of marriage. In the year 553, even the Cathylicking church condemned him for his wild idea that the body is a prison created for souls that fall from grace, but this was three centuries after his death, and by this time many of his other ideas had already wormed their way into mainstream catlick ‘thought.’ For example, in ‘In genesim homiliae 5’ he claimed that it was more honourable for a woman to commit incest with her father in order to conceive than to have sexual intercourse that did not result in children with one’s husband, even though the Bible specifically orders the death penalty for incest. This perverted idea was adopted by other catlicks, as it supported their fear of women and love of children.

Gregory of Nyssa was a less interesting character, mainly known for proclaiming (in De Virginitate 12) that Adam and Eve did not have sex in the garden of Eden, which would seem to mean that God meant Adam to like Eve ‘for her personality.’ The very idea! How can he reconcile this with the verse (Genesis 2:24) 'Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh' ?
There’s a name for telling lies about God, and it’s called BLASPHEMY! I’d be happy to put this heretic to death myself, if only he hadn’t died 1600 years ago. And yet, other blasphemers and marriage-haters from this period make him look almost Christian.

Next we come to Ambrose, bishop of Milan, a crucial figure in the development of the Catholic heresy, who ordered that priests should stop having intercourse with their wives (De officiis I, 50.) Did he get this idea from 1 Timothy 3? No. Did he get this idea from 1 Timothy 4? No! Did he get this idea from Titus 1? NO! Did he pull this idea straight out of his own rear end? It seems quite likely. But he was a ‘bishop’ of the early Catlick church, and so today, 16 centuries later, millions of people worldwide live and die by ideas that came from this Mary-worshipping freak’s behind rather than the Bible. Even back in the day, his blasphemous and perverted ideas had serious consequences: After Jovinian, a sensible fellow who seems to have actually read the Bible, proclaimed that marriage was as pleasing to the Lord as virginity, Ambrose used his influence with the Emperor Theodosius to have Jovinian scourged with a lead-tipped whip and exiled on the island of Boa. Truly these Papists are vile and cruel monsters, and I pray for the day that the Lord destroys every last one of them. He also claimed, in his Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, that married couples should cease intercourse as soon as they had conceived, and that older couples should not have sex at all. I cannot for the life of me work out how anyone could square this with 1 Corinthians 7:5 (Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.) Assuming that Ambrose had read the Bible, then knew what the consequences of this perverse doctrine would be (i.e. that the frustrated couple would be tempted by satan into fulfilling their desires elsewhere, through adulterous fornication and possibly also kiddy-diddling) but just didn’t care. I’m thinking of making a special journey to Milan, just to see if I can find this guy’s grave to spit on it. I’m so weary of these heretics that I can’t even find the time to describe Jerome today, but be prepared for a horrifying lesson in mind-bending Popish depravity in the very near future.

[JennyD]

Re: Catholic Perversion Throughout History

Jesus didn't have any harsh nicknames

"generation of vipers" - Pharisees and Sadducees
"dogs" - Samaritans

Ever read the Bible, Bigworm?

[Mistress Cookie]

Re: Catholic Perversion Throughout History

[Catholics] venerate Mary. You would too if your love for Christ was deeper.

I am just now beginning to read this thread, and already I feel ill. As women go, when pushed to the wall, I am made of somewhat stern stuff (not to toot my own horn). I am sorry to say that before I was Saved™, I had the misfortune to see a LOT.

But this takes the cake.

To imply that if True Christian™ Men "loved Christ more" they would kneel down before women and worship them is outrageous.

Keel down before women would be more like it...as that would be their fate, after the skies opened and they were smitten.