I find it hilarious that someone can be voted INto infallibility.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Like clockwork, the clueless come out with the “infallible Pope” meme.

Is it a requirement for every Catholic thread?

Thanks for letting everyone know that you have no idea how the Catholic Church works and we can safely ignore whatever you write.

Just a bit of advice; Jack Chick comics are not a good place for research.

They “Vote”…LMMFBO! Is there a bigger group of idiots gathered in one place? Wait, yeah there is. But I’d say Washington and Rome are tied.

Tbone McGraw on March 9, 2013 at 8:30 AM

You got the acronym wrong, & you contradicted yourself in the last two sentences.

I’m certainly no Catholic, but one doesn’t have to be Catholic to spot the biggest idiot in this conversation.

itsnotaboutme on March 9, 2013 at 9:18 AM

I believe I upset the Alter Boy. LMMFBO = Laugh My Mother F’n Balls Off…I bet “itsnotaboutme” was the Priests favorite Alter boy, he held the their bags just the way they liked it.

The Holy Roman Criminals…

Video: How does a Pope get elected?

Promising free birth control works.

I find it hilarious that someone can be voted INto infallibility.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM

The US has done it twice now.

Or are the Cardinal-Electors the only ones in the room?

Does the junior C-E get everyone coffee?

And please, stop talking about the ‘shroud’. If you need science to prove your faith, you have NO faith.

“What is your quest?” LOLZ!!!!

KS Rex on March 9, 2013 at 11:59 AM

LOLZ! And “What is your favorite color?”

Two very great videos, Ed. Thanks for sharing.

There was no Social Security administration, education system, no selective service, no IRS. There wasn’t even a centralized police force. If you weren’t a patrician you did not matter. Of COURSE there aren’t going to be any records of Jesus apart from historians’ accounts.

Do you know what we know of Caesar’s upbringing before he became famous? Nothing. No records of that period at all. The only reason we know what he was doing around age 16 or so (running from Sulla’s proscription lists) is that he told us so in his own later writings. And he was a patrician.

Even IF these records existed, Jerusalem was sacked after 2 revolts in the 70′s and 130′s.

Also, Burke for Pope.

Greek Fire on March 9, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Have you read this? I was very impressed.
http://www.taylormarshall.com/2013/03/pope-prediction-10-reasons-cardinal.html

gryphon202 on March 9, 2013 at 10:27 AM

…you spelled BUTCH wrong!

SauerKraut537

It is interesting that you brought up the subject of the Shroud of Turin. No one knows why or especially how the image on the shroud was created.

wukong on March 9, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Isn’t it though?

The latest scientific paper on The Shroud of Turin concludes the image was produced with an energy burst phenomena comparable with modern lazers.

There is also the phenomena of pollen,microbes,dust and resins etc. embedded in the weave specific to both geographic region and historic cultural use dating to the period of the Crucifixion.

It’s most likely that Socrates actually existed….. Too many sources mention his existence. It was not only Plato who wrote about him, but also Xenophon, Aeschines etc., and the Socratic dialogue became a literary genre. Aristotle refers to him quite often as a real figure.

But aristotle was not a contemporary of Socrates. He was a student of Plato. And how do we know that all those mentions of Socrates weren’t due to come cult-like ferver? Hell, the earliest found manuscripts of Plato’s dialogues may or may not have been written by Plato! There’s no way to know for sure.

I cannot think of any scholar who has seriously argued in the last couple of centuries that Socrates did not exist. (I don’t deny that there may have been some crank somewhere who did; but I would be inclined to doubt that anyone who regarded that as plausible could properly be regarded as reasonable.)

Nor can I think of any scholar who has ever seriously argued that Jesus didn’t exist. Your double standard here is stunning.

Ceasar’s existence is not in doubt. Too many civilizations wrote about him to ever doubt that he existed… It is likely, with Ceasar being a learned man in his day, that he did in fact keep records and journals where he wrote his thoughts down. I have no doubt of this. It may be that he embellished facts in HIS writing of it, but I don’t doubt he kept journals of his life.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 11:24 AM

I didn’t ask you about Caesar’s existence, genius. I asked you if you believed the journal manuscripts, written hundreds of years after his death, were historical in nature. Did they describe things that actually happened? A simple yes or no would do.

Or not. You don’t have to bother. Your biases are shining like the mid-day sun.

It is interesting that you brought up the subject of the Shroud of Turin. No one knows why or especially how the image on the shroud was created.

Look, we ALL want to think we’re special, and that we “know” more than the next guy, but you don’t have to sacrifice your reason to do so, you SHOULDN’T have to do so yet here you are doing it.

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM

This is amusing.

So let me ask you these two questions in closing: Did Socrates exist? Did the events in Julius Caesar’s battle journals happen?

gryphon202 on March 9, 2013 at 11:14 AM

It’s most likely that Socrates actually existed….. Too many sources mention his existence. It was not only Plato who wrote about him, but also Xenophon, Aeschines etc., and the Socratic dialogue became a literary genre. Aristotle refers to him quite often as a real figure.

I cannot think of any scholar who has seriously argued in the last couple of centuries that Socrates did not exist. (I don’t deny that there may have been some crank somewhere who did; but I would be inclined to doubt that anyone who regarded that as plausible could properly be regarded as reasonable.)

Ceasar’s existence is not in doubt. Too many civilizations wrote about him to ever doubt that he existed… It is likely, with Ceasar being a learned man in his day, that he did in fact keep records and journals where he wrote his thoughts down. I have no doubt of this. It may be that he embellished facts in HIS writing of it, but I don’t doubt he kept journals of his life.

Although it is generally recognized that the passage concerning Jesus in the extant Greek manuscripts of his Jewish Antiquities (18:63-64) was distorted by later Christian hands “the most probable view seems to be that our text represents substantially what Josephus wrote,but that some alterations have been made by a Christian interpolator.” (The Sage from Galilee – Rediscovering Jesus Genius, page 12)

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Dude, you wanna talk about “biased?” I think you’re far more biased against the historicity of the gospels than I am religiously biased, considering I am unchurched.

So let me ask you these two questions in closing: Did Socrates exist? Did the events in Julius Caesar’s battle journals happen?

gryphon202 on March 9, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Followers of cult leaders ALWAYS write biased accounts of their leaders existence gryphon… Mohammed’s followers did much the same with him, EVERY religion has “corroborating evidence” to help “support” their religions claims… People often manufacture evidence to help support their religion, like Turin’s shroud, etc… Tell me something we don’t know.

You don’t get to dismiss all the “extraordinary evidence” that supports other religions while conveniently allowing the “extraordinary evidence” that supports your own. That’s not how logic works my friend. That is nothing but self deception.

Look, we ALL want to think we’re special, and that we “know” more than the next guy, but you don’t have to sacrifice your reason to do so, you SHOULDN’T have to do so yet here you are doing it.

There is no way in hell that the god that could be, the god of the cosmos, is the god of the bible, or the koran, or any other man made religious text you wish to defend.

Religions are like farts, YOURS is good, but everybody else’s stinks.

“It is time we admitted, from kings and presidents on down, that there is no evidence that any of our books was authored by the Creator of the universe. The Bible, it seems certain, was the work of sand-strewn men and women who thought the earth was flat and for whom a wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emerging technology. To rely on such a document as the basis for our worldview-however heroic the efforts of redactors- is to repudiate two thousand years of civilizing insights that the human mind has only just begun to inscribe upon itself through secular politics and scientific culture. We will see that the greatest problem confronting civilization is not merely religious extremism: rather, it is the larger set of cultural and intellectual accommodations we have made to faith itself.”
Sam Harris

I’m not claiming anything about Plato’s dialogues or Ceasar’s journals…

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM

According to your criteria of historicity…

Socrates did not exist because we have only Plato’s dialogs and these are suspect as sympathetic to Socrates.

Hardly unbiased accounts… People caught in the thrall of cultish endeavors ALWAYS write biased accounts of their leaders existence.

I’m not claiming anything about Plato’s dialogues or Ceasar’s journals…

SauerKraut537 on March 9, 2013 at 10:55 AM

You have religious ferver confused with historicity. It beggars belief that three synoptic gospel authors, one whom wasn’t even an apostle (St. Luke), would literally conspire to make up a whole series of events whole-cloth simply to influence and con people for thousands of years to come (which they would have been successful at, by the by).

And I know you’re not claiming anything about Plato’s dialogues or Caesar’s journals, but don’t you think it’s the least bit curious that those, with less supporting evidence, are taught as historical fact while the gospels, with more supporting evidence, aren’t?

I’m not talking about religious faith. I’m talking about the work of hundreds of archaeologists, translators, and other scholars of many different faiths or even none. They agree that the gospels are historical accounts. Now, what conclusion you draw from that? I couldn’t care less. The evidence is there, and it does you no service at all to ignore it.