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