catholics/christians

[kateliz]

That's awesome LittleShepherd! I'm excited along with you, and hope that it's because God has decided to claim her for Himself.

I also don't want to jump into this debate between you guys. I would just like to say that in response to this thread and my earlier involvement in it I bought myself a Catechism and a dictionary of Catholic terms or practices and all that. Noel, you misunderstand the official teachings of your own denomination so very much.

Thankfully you, along with a good percentage, (guess, I can't back it up with a number,) of Catholics, hold to some basic Protestant beliefs. You believe that Christ is your salvation, and penance, good deeds and all that won't save you a lick. That is biblical, but not Roman Catholic doctrine, (or dogma, I haven't yet looked up definitions of those terms.) I don't want to start quoting the Catecism again or other Church approved documents, but let me just say that it seems the Catholics on this forum and probably a percentage, (again a guess,) of all Catholics don't know and don't agree with the true theologies of their Church. I think this is where a lot of the debates on Catholicism get off track. Those against the RCC point to the official stances and the Catholics themselves point to their individual beliefs as well as their misunderstanding of the official doctrines. This is a general statement, and I acknowledge that it's not always the case in these debates.

I would also like to add that while all true Christians, Catholic or other, are the Body of Christ, doctrines do matter. It's not technicalities, it's truth about God that benefits versus lies that harm. Why should we, as I've recently stated in another thread, sit back, smile, and allow our Brothers and Sisters to teach and practice lies regarding God just because we are one Body? If part of the Body is hurting itself it would be unchristian of us to let it continue to do so or to let it spread. That would, I believe, be sin and allowing God to be slandered, (people saying He's different than He is.)

[Forge]

I would also like to add that while all true Christians, Catholic or other, are the Body of Christ, doctrines do matter. It's not technicalities, it's truth about God that benefits versus lies that harm. Why should we, as I've recently stated in another thread, sit back, smile, and allow our Brothers and Sisters to teach and practice lies regarding God just because we are one Body? If part of the Body is hurting itself it would be unchristian of us to let it continue to do so or to let it spread. That would, I believe, be sin and allowing God to be slandered, (people saying He's different than He is.)

That is true.

However, the debates still rage over what is truth. (in regards to Catholicism and Protestantism)

[kateliz]

Compare the Catechism and the Bible for yourself. Or, just read the Catechism and find out what the RCC really believes. It's quite shocking and would startle many a Catholic.

[Anonymous]

I might be accused of saying "thanks" again...

Again, I will point out this little web page.
http://abandonware.com/Documents/Church_Desk/Cults.htm

I really hate to say this but... if this is your basis for your damning of the Catholic Church, then there's a deeper problem here than I thought.
Your "little web page" isn't exactly definitive commentary on Catholic theology or doctrine. It is an interesting display of Revelation...and someone's interpretation of it in regard to the Catholic Church.

With some willpower and Google, you can find the same diatribe directed at (1) The United Nations (2) The Southern Baptist Convention (3) The Arab States (4) OPEC (5) The Red Cross in Geneva and (6) insert your favorite hated organization here. Just type in "Whore of Revelation" and see what I mean.

Again...it's an opinion and a rather far fetched one at that. I'm a personal fan of the UN as the whore, but to each his own.

If you scroll down to the Roman Catholic Church section, you will see a few different heathenistic practices.

I see Catholics being described as the whores of Revelation Incidentally, email the author and let him know that The Vatican is a soverign country, not a part of Italy or Rome. I'd do it...but he hates Catholics worse than you.

Cathlics often use Bible verses to claim that "holy tradition" is as important as holy scripture, but they often leave out one important fact.

You've amazed me again. I am not personally aware of any doctrine or dogma that supercedes Scripture. In fact, Pope John Paul went to great lengths to insure that the Papacy made it clear to the body of the church
that this was contradictory to Christs teachings.

As such, your claim has no basis in fact, nor validity.

None of the RCC traditions were practiced by the early Christian church when the epistle claiming that church traditions were good was penned.

Given that the previous statement is blatantly false, this one is irrelevant.

An important question to ask is "What traditions is this talking about?" Since the RCC didn't even exist until the early 300s, it's safe to say the answer is "None of the traditions established by the RCC." They are, therefore, heretical.

I'm still waiting for you to present a tradition that's heretical. What your saying defies all teaching of the church.

The test of truth, is evidence. Is this a listing of your unsubstantiated greivances...or is there some substance here?

We're talking about how people were reacting to an <B>idol,</B>

YOU are talking about an idol. What "we" are talking about is viewed as the spontanrous miraculous appearance of "allegedly" the spirit of a biblical person. Not an idol. While I don't personally buy in to that...there are cultural differences that preclude me from saying it's hogwash. i.e. it doesn't happen in America to speak of...usually in Spain, Italy etc.

Indicentally, were you listening to these people as they prayed? It would seem that you have some privvy knowledge that the rest of us poor sinners don't.

which can hardly be compared to how people react around <B>Christ Himself.</B>

Not having personally been in the presence of Christ, I can't speak to that.You however may expound on it at will.

Christ is not an idol -- He is God Himself; ergo dancing, weeping, and falling prostrate before him would not be idolatry.

Agreed.

An image on the side of a building(or other such place) of Mary, on the other hand, is not God, and falling prostrate before it and crying and the such is idolatry.

No, that would be an overflowing of emotion. Praying TO the image or WORSHIPPING the image...that's idolatry. It's important to keep these facts straight, you seem to blur the line in your perception and description.

Listen, when the Red Sox won, lots of people cried, laughed danced and prayed. They weren't praying TO the Red Sox...but a Miracle is a Miracle.

I'm saying that Catholicism appears idolatrous to many people not familiar with its teachings.

I don't hold ignorance against people. I try to teach them. Further you seem to make the assumption that "straight line" Christianity isn't viewed that way. The news here is that 1 Nillion muslims and 900,000,000 Hindus disagree with you.

As do I.

Many people associate Catholicism with Christianity -- ergo it is often deceitful and misleading.

Probably because Catholicism IS Christianity. (look this one up..."Followers of Christ")

And you're making a logical fallacy here... "ergo is is deceitful..." Christianity is? Catholicism is? Or just your personal view of it?
I hate to drag the big guns into this, but you'll find that the overwhelming
majority of Christianic Threlogians disagree with your view on Catholicism.
It is, in fact, the foundation of modern Christianity. Your personal views and these as yet unpresented heretical practices not withstanding.

Even knowing the explanations behind their teachings, however, I must state that it still looks borderline idolatrous to me.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion.

Code: Select all

I've yet to see an explanation that does not contradict the Bible, ergo failing to convince me otherwise. 

That might be difficult...in that you have yet to prove your assertion. One cannot prove or disprove a thing that has not been revealed.

No. By God's standard as set forth in the second commandment(the last half of the first in Catholicism, I believe). They were bowing down before a graven image -- their intent means nothing at this point. The best intention(to praise God) cannot make a wrong action(outright disobedience) okay. It doesn't work like that.

I think you lost the context here. But you are correct, ignorance of the truth does not forgive the transgression.

You mentioned the Bible in your list of items of things that Muslims might consider "idols" in Christianity. Therein lies the relevance.

As such, you must recognize that The Bible is a symbol of Christianity, as such it is viewed as an idol because it is revered...by your own logis, if the face of the virgin in a Dunkin Donut can be an idol...there's no question the Bible can be. The Cross is included as well. That should be blatantly obvious.

And here you contradict yourself. You say they view the cross itself as an idol, which they very well may -- that doesn't change the fact that their Quran makes it clear that Christians believe Jesus died on a cross, therefore making it possible for them to see its significance to us.

I most certainly did not. You are making a long assumption that muslims say "oh...well this is a very very important piece of christianic belief". For me to believe that you would think that, would be an insult to you. The Quran states specifically that "the people of the book" (christians/jews) believe that Christ died on the cross.. .yet he was replaced and they believe not the truth".

There is no exposition on it's religious relevance to Christians. While muslims will appreciate your attempt to read far more into this than is there, it does not impose on them any belief structure other than to reinforce their belief that christians corrupted the bible and worship a false god. Nothing more. To believe they islamists have some tender understanding of this is beyond laughable, it's patently absurd.

You next statement makes you contradiction quite clear -- "worship of <B>a dead man</B> on a stick." Note the wording -- worship of the <B>man,</B> not the stick itself.

Again there's no contradiction here in the context of what I said.
Were you to read the entire text of Al Sistani's tirade against christians, he in no less than 7 instances speaks to "the cross worshipers" "the wood worshipers" and finally to the worship of "the dead man on a stick"

Speaking to Christ and to "the stick". I am of the growing opinion that you may well be muslim by your thought process and presentation of ideas.

That would certainly explain your hatred of Catholicism...and your inability to present substantive evidence to support your claims. Not withstanding the opinion expressed on "your little website". Come now...I'm no 12 years old, you'd do well to keep that in mind.

And again, this very statement, while it contradicts Christianity, makes it clear to the Muslims that Christians believe otherwise. Ergo, it actually <B>helps</B> them to understand what the cross means to us, rather than hinders.

I must say, what you lack in perception you make up for in tenacity. Sorry but that dog doesn't hunt either. You make the presumption that muslims have some "innate" knowledge of Christianity to be supplanted by their Quran...which according to you is a veritable HANDBOOK on Christian beliefs. Your logic...defies logic.

They know what it means to us; they just believe otherwise.

Let me correct this statement for you ."Muslims know they are right and that Christians are wrong, because the bible is corrupt and full of lies...as the Quran tells them. Muslims know that one day Islam will rule, by the sword and all the infidels will submit...or pay the tax (your head).

Sorry, I hate correcting people, but that was seriously needed.

Oh, wow. Now I'm the one having trouble laughing. If you thought for even an instant that I thought Islam was some "religion of peace," or that they were worshipping the same God...yeah, right. You totally misread that one.

Based on what I've read in this one...I had that post nailed right to the wall.

Not as a rule, no. But the number of Muslim-to-Christian converts tell a different story. Most of them enter a church at one time or another, and doubtless there are others who enter the church seeking, but don't end up converting. I know it's not common, but it does happen.

I'm with you 100% on that.

And here is the comment made to the second half of the sentence in question. I in no way said that Muslims did not practice idolatry, and I also in no way said that they held to the belief in one god without idolatry. What I said, if you put both parts of the sentence together, is that Muslims are much like Catholics in this one respect -- they both have practices that can easily be seen as idolatry, yet both will deny that it is so and that they are only serving one god and that what they are doing is merely ritual that's not <I>really</I> idolatry.

Nope, I got that meaning the first time. My response is the same, the exact same statement applies to the 57 Flavors of Christianity, in fact the only place it couldn't be appropriately applied would be to the Amish or the Quakers in that there are no symbols, crosses, adornments of any kind. Point is, YOU don't see a cross as an idol any more than I do...but THEY do.

Issues, yes. Unresolved, no. God saw to reveal the truth to me, I've compared my findings to the Bible itself and saw that they fit, and my course is clear.

Charles Manson said he had a revelation from God, so did Jim Jones...
That revelation doesn't represent any validity for speaking untruths or bearing false witness.

To refer to a previous statement...not knowing it's wrong, doesn't forgive the fact that it IS wrong.

Completely, no. In part, yes. Muslims already have wrong beliefs about Christianity from what's mentioned in their Qu'ran. Catholicism just further complicates things. Adds yet more hurdles to overcome.

Catholicism complicates things...but the 178 Denominations and 39 branches of Christianity, with 28 different bibles doesn't?

ooooooooook.

I'll take issue with this only to the point that I'll say you obviously have found your scape goat. I might suggest building a few bridges rather than killing the messengers.

One of the HUGE issues with islamists is "all the bible versions and all the sects of christianity" and the FOOD that FEEDS THEIR DEMON is strife within Christianity.

So it would seem that you're serving 2 masters here...your personal demon of hate for Catholics...and the false pagan god of islam that knows the only way to beat christians is to divide and devour them. I find it very difficult to belive that your distaste for The Church is predicated on embracing your islamic brothers with "true" christianity.

You might try explaining it to them rather than slitting the throats of...yes I'm gonna say it...FELLOW CHRISTIANS. Call me fickle. but personal pomposity has put many of the mighty in the grave.

The churches have to be there first before they can be burned down, right? So my point that there are indeed many churches in Egypt holds true.

Not exactly, the churches are individual homes.
But hey, never let a few dead bodies get in the way of the truth, right?

For every church that's treated in such a way, how many are left alone for the most part? If 6 churches are burned down, that's still a pretty small percentage of the total number of churches in Egypt. It's still tragic, yes, but it's still a much better treatment overall than the churches get in most other Islamic countries.

Hmm. I wish I could take such a cavalier attitude about the birthplace of Christ, Israels 2nd holiest site being desecrated by pagan followers of a murderous pagan moon god. (that church was in Israel) Those 6 churches contained 53 women and children.

Don't feel compelled to be a Muslim Apologetic, I got the drift of your leanings. My command of Arabic, Islam and their culture is quite good.
Perhaps that's why I have a different view of it.

Last I checked, Paul was long dead by the early 300s when the new Roman emperor formed the amalgam known as the RCC. It bore little resemblance to the "early church" of Paul and the other Apostles, and to this day the differences are still numerous.

Your history of Paul is correct, however Paul is considered the original head of the Catholic Church and it's foundings based on his teachings. Whatever the personal bias you have against catholicism...you'll foind that the body of the church still holds those teachings sacred...and in practice.

Even though the sarcasm of what I said apparently burned a vapor trail overhead.

What I'm saying matches up with history. What I'm saying also matches up with the Bible, specifically Revelations chapters 17 through 19. If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and the prophecies of Revelations chapter 17 through 19 fit the Roman Catholic Church down to the smallest detail...I dare say I'm not the one bearing false witness here

Toss me somma that history. As stated in the opening of this message, Revelations 17 thru 19 may be applied to MANY things, you happen to believe it applies to Catholics, I disagree. Believe what you like. Afterall 1 billion muslims believe we're both wrong and we'll both lose our head for it. The only difference is I'm watching for them, you aren't.

The Bible is the "inspired" word of God. Although that's a nice touch to say inerrant...exactly as the islamists put it "the inerrant recitation of God".

Your underwear is showing again.

I'll pass on your implication about false witness, it's casting aspersions where none exist. I have fully answered all your charges, specifically and to the point. Unflinchingly.

As to my assertion that you have borne false witness, I will stand by that.

It may make you feel better to know that muslims believe that Mary, mother of Christ was a street whore, if that's any consolation.


Noel

[Anonymous]

Noel, you misunderstand the official teachings of your own denomination so very much.

While I appreciate your intent. 30 minutes with the Catechism does not an understanding of Catholics make.

I would point you to the proceeding of The Vatican II. It will take you about a month to digest it so I won't hold my breath waiting for a response.

Again, I thank you for your interest, my faith is firmly in place...in the right place.

[Anonymous]

Compare the Catechism and the Bible for yourself. Or, just read the Catechism and find out what the RCC really believes. It's quite shocking and would startle many a Catholic.

Catechism is doctrine, not the word of God. It is a process, not a promise.

You'll find few Catholics startled by it since most never need or use it.
It is a throwback to a heavily doctrine driven period.

Having said that, I note the constant use of the terms "Christians...or Catholics"

I'm white, my son is not white, He's my son...not my non white son.
Christians are Christians. There is no division, if none is implied.

But then, this is being dealt with in another thread.

N.

[LittleShepherd]

I have fully answered all your charges, specifically and to the point. Unflinchingly.

You've done no such thing. You've simply spouted the same rhetoric that I've seen numerous other people say. On top of that, you claim that my leanings are much like Muslims, which couldn't be further from the truth. Who should I trust on this issue? A Catholic who has visited some Muslim-controlled countries in her lifetime? Or people who <B>grew up</B> in these countries, and who later became Muslim-to-Christian converts, all of whom went through much persecution due to this decision. Your outside view, or their inside view?

As for being an apologist for Muslims -- you're just making stuff up at this point. It's true that I have much care for them, and that God has lead me to a number of books and teachers in order to learn more about them, their life, and their religion(perhaps in preparation for a future mission). But one thing I will not do is "apologize" on their behalf for their beliefs. The only comment I made concerning their beliefs, in fact, was that they are not stupid people. That they can, in fact, make one tiny <B>common sense</B> inference from one of the verses of their Qu'ran. Their Qu'ran states that Jesus did not die on a cross. If nobody believed this, then it wouldn't need to be mentioned, but it is. It's not a huge leap for them to <I>not be as stupid as a lot of people try to make them out to be</I> and to actually catch the relevance of that verse. That the "people of the book" do, in fact, believe that Jesus died on that cross. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And then you claim that I hate Catholics, another statement that is easily refuted if you actually bother to <B>read</B> any of my previous posts. It's obvious that I grew up with Catholics, that I've seen the negative effects(my mother's side of the family is practically in tatters), and that I actually <B>care deeply</B> for the people enslaved by its teachings.

Do I have an extreme dislike of the organization that is the Roman Catholic Church? Yes. And yes, it is a bit personal. Read the post about my mother again -- she's a practicing Catholic(hopefully not for much longer), and the RCC's doctrines have messed with her head so much that she can't give a straight answer concerning salvation, faith, or grace. But oh, can she recite the rosary, and she always knows just the saint for the job at hand.

Do I have any animosity towards the people who follow it? No. Even its leaders, as viewed by me, are just pawns of something much more sinister(principalities, powers, and all that behind-the-scenes stuff). I don't believe it's their true intention to deceive so many people -- that would be absurd.

You say "Oh, those prophecies can be applied to anything," and then give 5 examples that all fail the most basic of comparison tests. The RCC comparisons, on the other hand, easily stand up to this test. Your mentioning that Vatican City is its own sovereign country also leaves one important detail out -- it is surrounded by the city of Rome. International law may recognize it as a separate entity, but that does not change the fact that it is, in fact, intimately tied in with the city of Rome. In some places, it's even described as an "enclave of Rome."

[August]

Your history of Paul is correct, however Paul is considered the original head of the Catholic Church

I'm confused, I thought the RCC claimed Peter was their founding father:
From Vatican I, Session IV, chapter 1:
"Wherefore, resting on plain testimonies of the Sacred Writings, and adhering to the plain and express decrees both of our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, and of the General Councils, we renew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, in virtue of which all the faithful of Christ must believe that the holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff possesses the primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is true vicar of Christ, and head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter to rule, feed, and govern the universal Church by Jesus Christ our Lord; as is also contained in the acts of the General Councils and in the sacred Canons."

[Felgar]

my faith is firmly in place...in the right place.

Indeed, YOUR faith is in the right place. And if you look back in this thread, you'll see how I try to walk this subject carefully so as not to cause a brother to stumble.

So from your response to my objections, you are basically denying that you believe what I always thought Catholics believe. I gotta admit, a lot even comes from movies where characters enter the confession booth and utter "forgive me father, for I have sinned." So I am open to the possibility that you truly don't believe that penance can save you, and that infant baptism somehow guarantees salvation leter in life.

But then I must ask one final time: In all honesty, does the rest of the body of the Catholic church actually believe as you do?

[kateliz]

30 minutes with the Catechism does not an understanding of Catholics make.

Actually, apart from reading a book directly comparing Church approved statements with Bible verses I probably did only spend thirty minutes or so on the Catechism. Maybe more, but since I'm not sure I won't claim it! However, that doesn't change what I did read in that time, and that it's unbiblical and supports salvation by kinds of works along with other serious fallacies. Besides, I don't need to understand Catholics themselves if what I'm disagreeing with here is the RCC's official stance. Like I tried to point out, a lot Catholics don't agree with a lot of what the RCC teaches as Catholic doctrine, (again info gotten from various places that I can't back up with facts.)

I was quite tempted to purchase that Vatican II book, but figured I'd first read the shorter books. Someday maybe I will read it.

my faith is firmly in place...in the right place.

Don't mean to be picky, but are you referencing the Church here or God? If we so choose to belong to a denomination we should in no way hold to it as if it were another Bible, (but with maybe less credit given it.) We should never feel like our denomination of choice is something to rest on but should always keep both of our hands in God's own. It should never be that one hand is in God's and the other in a denomination's.

Make sure to constantly be on gaurd and ready to buck any unbiblical statements, (here I'm talking to everyone,) even if it came from the Pope, a council, or your own pastor. You've stated before that there are some things you disagree with that the Church teaches, so I'm not sure of your loyalty to it, but I'm guessing you, (as most Catholics- which is again an informed guess,) don't feel too much of a need to fully research your denomination's exact teachings; you trust them to a certain degree anyway. Be careful with that, even if it still doesn't affect your own relationship with God.

Catechism is doctrine, not the word of God.

But doctrine should be based on the Word, and I find that the Catechism teaches doctrines that are in direct contrast with it. The book is trusted as if it's infallible, (at least by whatever percentage of Catholics, which I think would probably be a good number,) as well as what the Catholic churchs teach and as well as what the Pope says. (The Catechism itself says you are to do this, and yes puts them right up by the Bible, just a hair lower because they have to.) Yet, as you've stated, many Catholics don't bother to read these statements that they assume must be in complete agreement with the Bible. Worse than playing Russian roulette! More like voting in a government official just because they look good on TV. "Hey, as long as I don't have to stare at another ugly mug I don't care what they believe!" Not a precise analogy, but you hopefully get the point. Kind of like Christians who sit under their pastor as if everything he says is gold while they don't bother to read the Bible for themselves. Trusting a complete stranger to hold your purse while you run to the bathroom!

It is a process, not a promise.

That's the RCC view on salvation anyway! In that one book I read they did a diagram of the process... oh boy! If you're interested in looking at it, (for free at a Christian bookstore- no need to buy for this purpose,) it's The Gospel According to Rome. Actually, I ordered it by mail. It might not be on the store shelves. Can't tell you the author now either.

You'll find few Catholics startled by it since most never need or use it.

"Need" was a poor choice. Like stated above, if you put yourself under a government official without doing background checks you may just be in danger! And I meant that if they read it. But I guess you'd also have to have read the Bible to get the startle you really should, and not enough Christians/nominal Christians do.

It is a throwback to a heavily doctrine driven period.

A throwback that was 100% agreed to by Pope John Paul in... what was it, '95? Ten years if but a nano-second in terms of Catholic doctrine changes! And I do believe that we should all be pretty heavily "doctine driven." If we aren't then our (non)beliefs about who God is and how He works can have disatorous effects! Besides, isn't the Bible "heavily doctrine driven"? I would like to think so!

Having said that, I note the constant use of the terms "Christians...or Catholics"

Yes you have but you need not worry. I merely did that, (though I guess now I probably shouldn't have,) to differentiate between Catholics and Christians of other denominations. I can't exactly say "Protestants" because that would imply they would all have serious issues with the Catholic church, which wouldn't have been fair to anyone.

Noel, I admire your firm stance on the Body of Christ being one, but unbiblical doctrines must be separated from lies in an outward show. Yes, (this sounds like that other thread going on,) denominations are sins as they divide the Body in certain ways, but... now what was I going to say? Oh well, maybe you can guess. Oh yeah! But these differences must be made clear to all for the sake of God's glory and others' spiritual health. We cannot ignore doctrines.

We must all come together to see what the Bible says without bias and a mind and heart willing to hear exactly what God has to say even if it hurts. This is our problem: we don't want to do that. We also want the freedom to ignore the facts that conclusively prove the Bible is God's infalliable Word, protected by Him in a most divine way throughout all it's years. We cannot come together to study Biblical truth if we believe it was written by men with issues.

And just one more question: if you're so against division of the Body, why belong to a denomination yourself? (I don't for this exact reason.) Or, at it sort of seems, (correct me if I'm wrong,) do you feel that the Catholic church is in fact the true church? And if that's the case, because RCC doctrine does in fact officially teach that anyone not a member of it is not a Christian, how do you reconcile that with believing nonmembers of the RCC are part of the Body you belong to?

And wouldn't you then have the same attitude Christians who choose to be members of the... what 1,000... other denominations would? You chide them for dividing the Body, but you yourself have the same mind as them in that you believe your denomination is the real one. A little hypocrisy there, maybe? (Don't be too offended by that, Sis. Jus' because you're a hypocrite doesn't mean you'll be thrown where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, now does it? And of course I'm never a hypocrite! )

[ochotseat]

one thing i miss about the catholic church...the ability to kneel/the sign of the cross upon entering.
now that i'm going to a christian/non-denominational church i feel like a have a relationship with God (?

Wrong title. It should be Catholics/Protestants, since Catholics are Christians.

[Prodigal Son]

sometimes, you're beyond pathetic.

[ochotseat]

sometimes, you're beyond pathetic.

You are for sinking down to this personal level. Then again, it's expected for one who supports legalizing illegal drugs, prostitution, and relishes in committing crimes.

[Dan]

sometimes, you're beyond pathetic.

You are for sinking down to this personal level. Then again, it's expected for one who supports legalizing illegal drugs, prostitution, and relishes in committing crimes.

Leave him alone or you're banned.

[ochotseat]

Leave him alone or you're banned.

Tell him to stop calling people names then.