RE Card. Pell, it didn’t turn out for them as they had hoped. It appears Becciu was thrown under the bus before his doings could be traced back to Pope Francis, who won’t run for much longer now that his true self has emerged.

Cf His Eminence George Pell, a true Prince of the Church!

Ultraviolet

I can't do what you do at this site on an almost daily basis. The posters (with very few exceptions) are stupid beyond any hope. Responding to them does no good for them (if they can even comprehend a contrary view to theirs) but it would frustrate me to no end dealing with such a miserable pack of dolts. One even goes to the point of adamantly campaigning for a flat earth. I think you know who I mean. One can only imagine how twisted some of his other views are.

The posters are an embarrassment to Catholicism and I suppose we can hope that visitors to the site don't think we are all so stupid. So then, until the administration gets adequate moderation, for jollies I'll pop in now and then and take a couple of shots.

Refuting others' falsehoods and exposing them for what they are is its own reward @Holy Cannoli Doing so is just like any form of debate. It's a given you're not going to change your opponent's opinion. However, by debating them, you can show their views are in error. Christ Himself engaged the Pharisees and scribes for just this purpose.

It's also fun and, on GTV, not very challenging. As you said, without moderators, GTV attracts the most mindless bottom-feeders... flat-earthers, anti-Semites, spammers, people whose nonsense would get them banned within a day on a conventionally moderated site.

Look how long it took for Crazy Jimmy from Ohio to finally wear out his welcome, and only after days of making serious death-threats..

It helps to look at bickering with the numbskulls on GTV as using a leather strop. It touches up the debating edge with just a few swipes. ;-)

Besides, most of the people on GTV are pleasant and friendly and often wholesomely entertaining. As with everywhere else, it's just a few idiots who give a place a bad name.

Honestly, I've missed watching your approach to the "flat earth" propaganda. Our resident Kenyan Copernicus got @Jim Dorchak more than a little irate over the issue. I suspect you would have spared him that aggravation very quickly.

Ultraviolet

Refuting others' falsehoods and exposing them for what they are is its own reward
If those with whom you are refuting are honest and willing to accept as valid those opinions other than their own then you are getting somewhere. However, in most cases, that rarely happens at this site.

Christ Himself engaged the Pharisees and scribes for just this purpose.
I don't believe I have ever nor do I intend to ever use an example of Our Lord in the gospels for what happens at GTV.

It's also fun (debating losers)
Take lessons, get a gun and go target shooting at paper targets. That's fun. Some of the targets are images of bad guys who you are free to name.

"If those with whom you are refuting are honest and willing to accept as valid those opinions other than their own then you are getting somewhere." @Holy Cannoli

If you can show an opponent as dishonest and bigoted, so much the better! Then you've proven they're arguing in bad faith because they, themselves, recognize their position is false.

As I said, the point of such debates isn't to change your opponent's opinion. You probably won't. But you -can- and will expose their opinion as based on falsehood to everyone else who's reading. That keeps it from spreading and confusing others.

I've spent a huge amount of time debunking the "Benedict XVI didn't resign/ Francis isn't the Pope" crowd for just that reason. I may personally dislike Pope Francis intensely. But he -is- the Pope. People who claim otherwise seek to validate their stupidity by leading others into sharing it. As Catholics, we have a duty to protect our bretheren from falsehoods that them away from the Church.

Sure, I know I'm never going to change some derpy schismatic's view of Pope Francis. But if -can- keep 'em from misleading genuine Catholics, then I'm definitely getting somewhere.

"I don't believe I have ever nor do I intend to ever use an example of Our Lord in the gospels for what happens at GTV."

You should. ;-) There's Scriptural precedent for it. Christ was a masterful debator. He was also a scathing critic and an inspired name-caller. We, as Catholics, are obligated to follow His example as He said we must in John 13:15

"Take lessons, get a gun and go target shooting at paper targets."

Have you seen ammunition prices these days? Even when it's in stock? Oh maaaan.... feelsbadman.jpg Besides, the targets on GTV are much better than paper. They're even better than reactive targets. The ones on GTV are interactive.

They get butthurt when you blast a hole through 'em. Then they form petty grudges which drive them to become even bigger and more entertaining targets the next time around.

The usual reactive zombie targets are like... a hundred bucks a shot, they wear out quickly, and a bunch of ranges don't allow them.

The zombie targets on GTV are self-repairing and best of all they're free! :D

HC wrote: "I don't believe I have ever nor do I intend to ever use an example of Our Lord in the gospels for what happens at GTV."

Ultraviolet responded:

You should. ;-) There's Scriptural precedent for it. Christ was a masterful debator. He was also a scathing critic and an inspired name-caller. We, as Catholics, are obligated to follow His example as He said we must in John 13:15
------------------------------------------------------------------

So then, you believe that Christ (if he were a member of GTV ) would post daily refutations to those who needed corrections for their errors? Would Our Lord be another Ultraviolet who would argue and fight with posters each day? Since you are fond of referring to scripture, can you show when and where Christ would debate/converse/critique every day with the pharisees and scribes as you are fond of doing (“for fun”)? Or, did He recommend something else for those who would not listen?

I think He did recommend something else and it is absurd to think that Christ would waste so much time daily debating those who will not or who are unable to listen.
---------------------------------------------
There's Scriptural precedent for it. Christ was a masterful debator. He was also a scathing critic and an inspired name-caller. We, as Catholics, are obligated to follow His example as He said we must in John 13:15

The above is an example of the fallacy of Proof Texting.

Here’s an example, incidentally, of a “proof text” that’s relevant.

[7] And he called to him the twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. [8] He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; [9] but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics. [10] And he said to them, “Where you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place. [11] And if any place will not receive you and they refuse to hear you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet for a testimony against them.” [
catholicmannight.com/…dust-warnings-of-the-judgment/

"So then, you believe that Christ (if he were a member of GTV ) would post daily refutations to those who needed corrections for their errors?"

I don't presume to guess what Christ would do if He were a member of GTV. That... oh, that would be epic. :D

"Would Our Lord be another Ultraviolet who would argue and fight with posters each day?"

Since this is entirely speculation, I don't think Our Lord would need to be "another Ultraviolet". Jesus was extremely skilled at shutting down his opponents so effectively they didn't come back for seconds.

(Luke 20: 1-8) demonstrates Our Lord skill at verbal fencing.

The chief priests and scribes trie question Jesus' authority, Jesus asks them to explain the basis of John The Baptist's authority, they can't, and Jesus leaves them looking stupid in front of the crowd.

Luke 20 is like a highlights reel for what happens when people try debating with God Incarnate.

The results...

(Luke 20: 26) "And they could not reprehend his word before the people: and wondering at his answer, they held their peace."

(Luke 20: 40) "And after that they durst not ask him any more questions. "

"Since you are fond of referring to scripture, can you show when and where Christ would debate/converse/critique every day with the pharisees and scribes as you are fond of doing?"

Can you can link a debate I've engaged in from every day I've posted on GTV? If you can't, then your comparison is baseless.

It's a near certainty Jesus didn't debate every day since He also spent His time travelling from one place to another, performing miracles, preaching the Good News to friendly audiences.

I'm not even counting those forty days He spent fasting alone in the desert, though they certainly should be included since they -are- part of Scripture.

You have the luxury of full access to every comment I've made on GTV. By contrast, I don't have access to the transcripts of every day of Jesus' public life and ministry. But I don't mind giving you an unfair advantage since you're destined to fail in the attempt.

Show I debate/ converse/ critique a "pharisee" or "scribe" (i.e. critic) every day I've posted since I joined Feb 16, 2019.

Go for it. When you can show that, then you have the right to demand I show the same for Jesus, but not until then.. :-)

There is ample evidence Jesus did regularly debate His critics, well beyond just Luke 20 which proves my point.

I'd rather not beat you over the head with Scripture, since it's an easy matter to do a quick bible search (Bible Gateway is excellent, btw) for "pharisees" or "scribes" in the Gospels and come up with a whole bunch of hits where Jesus does "debate/ converse/ critique" with these groups. If I have to link 'em up, I certainly can...

The issue here is Jesus' motives for debating with people He knew wouldn't listen. Scripture does state clearly Jesus could read minds. "And Jesus seeing their thoughts, said: Why do you think evil in your hearts?" (Matthew 9:4) unrelated... "But Jesus seeing the thoughts of their heart, took a child and set him by him", (Luke 9:24)

So then, Jesus debated with opponents even when He knew He would not change their opinion. Why then did He do so? For the benefit of the audience. He was debating the scribes and the Pharisees for the education of everyone else present. Jesus knew His opponents were a lost cause.

"The above is an example of the fallacy of Proof Texting."

Not so.

You haven't shown the context of the passage changes the meaning I've given. Nor have you shown the rest of Christ's teachings contradict this passage's meaning either.

If you wisn to argue that Christ didn't want to us to follow His example, or the rest of Christ's teachings showed just the opposite, or the context imparts a different meaning, you're more than welcome to try. :D

The oft-quoted advice Christ gave in Mark 6: 7-12 about shaking off the dust doesn't apply here.

Quoting your site, "Jesus has some very strong words for those who refuse to listen to His Gospel..."

...and your own site just explained why this passage from Mark is irrelevant.

I'm not preaching the Gospel.

Nor should I even need to preach the Gospel on what is presumably a Catholic site with what appears to be an near-exclusively Catholic audience who (in theory) already believe in the Gospel.

Applying this passage to GTV poses further problems for you.

Christ said, "And if any place will not receive you and they refuse to hear you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet for a testimony against them.”

This "place" (GTV) does not belong to nor are its users composed entirely of those who "refuse to hear" me. Only a few are deliberately "deaf". As I've said, I recognize I won't change their beliefs. My intent is to keep them from changing anyone else's beliefs with their falsehoods... to preven others from being led astray. I've already written off the morons. I'm more interested in the undecideds, the non-partisans, and even my supporters.

I get a consistent number of "likes" even for some of my more acerbic comments. Thus some people DO "hear" me. Uncounted are the many who visit GTV, read the posts and comments, and offer no opinion at all. If I've kept one reader from falling into schism, and thus outside the Church, then my time has been well spent.

The fundamental error you keep making is assuming I'm trying to change the minds of the people I'm debating. I'm not. I'm exposing their errors for the benefit everyone else reading.

Again, this was the reason Christ publicly debated His opponents and, as always, He IS a worthy example to follow.

P.S. You simpy MUST post on GTV more often! This is.... *happy sigh*

Ultraviolet wrote:
I don't presume to guess what Christ would do if He were a member of GTV.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yet in an earlier post you justified your own behavior by writing:
There's Scriptural precedent for it. Christ was a masterful debator. He was also a scathing critic and an inspired name-caller. We, as Catholics, are obligated to follow His example as He said we must in John 13:15

TO REPEAT:
We, as Catholics, are obligated to follow His example as He said we must in John 13:15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must think you are dealing with one of the little mindless imbeciles that you are so fond of corresponding with. They change subjects when they are exposed in an untruth and that is exactly what you have done.

What you have demonstrated with the above several lines is intellectually dishonesty that, although unbecoming, is explainable. You have acquired the habits of the rubes you deal with on a daily basis and, at least in part, have become one of them.

I have found the individuals who waste (and indeed it is a waste) so much time in nonsensical activities e.g. daily rants on a meaningless website, have personal issues that lead them to this kind of useless behavior. These types are unwittingly trying desperately to make up for one or more deficiencies in their own lives without the perceived embarrassment of having to be physically seen by others. Obesity combined with a lack of comeliness can be primary factors. Whether that is true in this case is the subject of speculation???

I will leave you now and I didn’t read all of your latest crap. You will want the last very lengthy word (that’s a part of the profile/syndrome) and you can have it.

P.S. You simpy MUST post on GTV more often! This is.... *happy sigh*

Not going to happen under current conditions. Addio. I’m forever done with you but will leave you with what could be - in your case - a life changing suggestion.

'course I'm gonna reply and you're gonna to read it, even if you claim otherwise, because that's a part of YOUR "profile/ syndrome".

"Yet in an earlier post you justified your own behavior by writing:..."

Wrong. I was justifying what you don't intend to ever do. Namely using "Christ as an example of what happens on GTV" which are your words direct quote, from one post previous
---
HC wrote: "I don't believe I have ever nor do I intend to ever use an example of Our Lord in the gospels for what happens at GTV."

Ultraviolet responded:

You should. ;-) There's Scriptural precedent for it. Christ was a masterful debator. He was also a scathing critic and an inspired name-caller. We, as Catholics, are obligated to follow His example as He said we must in John 13:15
----

So I wasn't "justifying my own behavior" I was justifying what you intend not to do namely "use an example of Our Lord in the gospels for what happens at GTV."

"Your own behavior" (i.e. my behavior)
is not
Your intention not to do something, namely "ever use an example of Our Lord in the gospels for what happens at GTV".

Simply put you pulled a subtle switcheroo you lied by substitution and then accused me of lying outright. You naughty little scammer. :D

As for justifying MY behavior, you're still wrong. I was justifying "what happens at GTV" -which includes debating and name-calling.

I may do so as well, but I"m not the only one who debates or calls people names. On both points it's fair to say I was justifying "your own behavior", as well meaning yours. ;-)

Nice try, but not good enough, HC

Now let's talk about Christ in the Gospels. Following Christ's example (what He HAS done) does not grant me the ability to predict what He personally WOULD do.

Christ was omniscient and omnipotent. It's impossible for someone who isn't to appreciate His full skill-set much less how He would employ it.

Breaking News: I'm not the Son Of God. I can't do what He did the way He did it and I can't predict what He WOULD do or how He would do it.

Got that, champ? There are way too many variables that don't have any parallel to Scripture. Impossible to guess what Christ wouuld do were alive today and online and a member on GTV and engaging the same audience

My best guess is Jesus would shut down those critics the same way he did in Scripture and they wouldn't come back again because that's also what happened in Scripture.

Imagine the sort of pointed corrections an omnisicient GTV user would deliver, one who knows every thought and sin of his opponent. And you presume to expect me to predict Christ's posting style on GTV? Get bent.

Following Christ's example and predicting His future actions ain't the same thing, you sop.

"You must think you are dealing with one of the little mindless imbeciles that you are so fond of corresponding with."

I think I'm dealing with a gifted writer with a vicious personality whom I've grossly overestimated. I assumed your skill at humiliating those "little mindless imbeciles" stemmed from comparable skill in reasoning and crafting effective arguments. My mistake. ;-)

"They change subjects when they are exposed in an untruth and that is exactly what you have done."

...and that's simply not true, then or now . I directly addressed the false substitution you presented.

Let's recap:

HC wrote: "I don't believe I have ever nor do I intend to ever use an example of Our Lord in the gospels for what happens at GTV."

UV replied: "You should. ;-) There's Scriptural precedent for it. Christ was a masterful debator. He was also a scathing critic and an inspired name-caller. We, as Catholics, are obligated to follow His example as He said we must in John 13:15"

And now HC claims: "Yet in an earlier post you justified your own behavior by writing:..."

...and that isn't what I justified. I justified what you don't intend to ever do: "use an example of Our Lord in the gospels for what happens at GTV".

I'm also addressing your stupid "What If" scenario of Christ as a member of GTV. I'm just not accepting your fallacious reasoning or obliging your asinine demand. I'm not going to try predicting the actions of the Son of God in your contrived, utterly preposterous scenario

Essentially your demand is based on a Fallacy Of Composition. Because Christ DID do this under a specific, documented situation, then Christ WOULD (or might) do that under a wildly different, hypothetical scenario .

Applying what Christ HAS done, following His example is what Christ TOLD us to do.

I can say with full Scriptural support Christ DID debate with opponents, repeatedly, even though He knew He wasn't going to change their minds.

Christ did so for the benefit of the audience: exposing the errors of His opponents so the audience would not follow them.

That is what I am doing and for the same reason. Thus, I am following Scripture. (and that ain't a "proof-texting fallacy" either, bub).

That does not enable me to predict what Christ WOULD do 2000 years in the future using technology that didn't exist when He was alive, much less just thirty years ago.

There is no dishonesty in pointing that out and you saying otherwise doesn't make it true.

I'd always wondered what would happen when you'd eventually turn on me and, in truth, I was anticipating much, much better from you. I'd always imagined it would be over something serious, but you've always been weirdly erratic over what sets you off.

"I have found the individuals who waste (and indeed it is a waste) so much time in nonsensical activities e.g. daily rants on a meaningless website, have personal issues that lead them to this kind of useless behavior."

Well... since you're resorting to this...;-)

First. What you personally have found is unprovable. Your Logical Fallacy Is: Anecdotal Evidence . Whoo, you're off to a fine start, HC.

And so the rout begins... :D This is a perfect time to revisit your criticism: "They change subjects when they are exposed in an untruth and that is exactly what you have done."

That's exactly what you're doing right now: changing the subject because your "proof-texting fallacy" argument got debunked and your big "slam dunk" Gospel quote from Mark 6: 7-12 was irrelevant.

You've dropped 'em like hot potatoes and suddenly you're not talking fallacies and Scripture are you, hotshot?

You're not showing how the context of John 13:15 meant Christ didn't want us to follow His example. You're not showing how "shaking off the dust" when people refuse to hear the Gospel somehow still pplies when someone isn't preaching the Gospel. Nope.

Instead, you're doing what every other "rube" on GTV does when you start floundering. You re-focusing the discussion on me personally, judging how I spend my time, etc. Meaning...

Second. you're resorting to personal attack instead of addressing the points made. Your Logical Fallacy Is: Ad Hominem

No, I don't think I'm "dealing with one of the little mindless imbeciles" on GTV. Yet in spite of all your acid contempt for them, you're already falling back on their imbecile tactics out of the same desperation. You're a better writer then any of them, your skill in crafting caustic vitriol is matchless, and I've overestimated your debating skills based on that.

You're a great writer using loser-tactics for the same loser-reason the other losers do: you blew it and you're too stubborn to admit it.

Third, you are neither my family nor my employer so you have no right to judge how I spend my time. So long as those with an emotional or financial claim to my time are happy, and they are, how I spend it is none of your business.

Again, this is an old last-ditch stand the "rubes" bring up when they've blown a debate. F M Shyanguya was fond of this. You might smirk at that clown but when it comes to presenting an intelligent rejoinder, you're no smarter than a Kenyan flat-earther.

It's a very unflattering reflection of your personality you perceive my motivations entirely in negative terms. In a word, your judgement itself is both wrong and wrong-headed.

Perhaps you feel it's "nonsensical" to keep your fellow Catholics from being scammed. Perhaps you feel it's a "waste of time" to keep Catholic readers from being misled into following errors that would excommunicate them. That's says nothing good about you.

Can't say I'm surprised you perceive things this way. You've always been a nasty piece of work, albeit an exceedingly entertaining one.

That's still true, even here, even now. All the moreso when I realize I've been intimidated all this time by a big, loud, gorgeously painted paper tiger.

"These types are unwittingly trying desperately to make up for one or more deficiencies in their own lives without the perceived embarrassment of having to be physically seen by others. Obesity combined with a lack of comeliness can be primary factors."

Cool story, Dr. Phil. Gotta give you props for the faux DSM-5 extract. Nicely written, could have come right from the book. Too bad it's moar Ad Hominem, baseless, and... hey, wait a second, you pulled the whole "prolly a fat guy" gimmick in Crazy Jimmy from Ohio already.

What? Your poor-man's Dr. Phil Show is already a re-run on the second episode? How disappointing. :P

"Whether that is true in this case is the subject of speculation??"

Using a metaphor you'll appreciate, that speculation is a flashy "kata" well out of range because you face-planted trying a "round-house". If you're this overrated just as a debator, maybe Crazy Jimmy didn't have that much to worry about if his silly street-fight fantasy ever came true.

Durr-hurr, yer prolly a fat-guy. Recycled and lame-ola. Here's something to consider. Imagine if everything you claimed was all true... just for a moment... personal issues, obesity, etc. etc.

For all that, I just wiped the floor with you. It's one thing to fight Bruce Lee and lose. But when a fat old Ed Parker with his bad pudding-bowl 70s haircut waddles over and knocks you flat on your can, that's embarrassing. :P

So don't speculate too heavily, HC. You're only gonna embarrass youself a little further.

"I will leave you now and I didn’t read all of your latest crap."

The other losers say the same thing when they lose and lose interest in losing.

"You will want the last very lengthy word."

Holy Cannoli soothes his self-resepct with a trusty swab of Preparation H.

Addio. I’m forever done with you..."

Man, that's four for four with every other butthurt loser on GTV after they tank... Yeh waste yer time, I din't read yer las post, yer gonna reply to mine, I'm done wif you ferrever

Yeah, until the next time, then you'll do what all the other losers do: act little whiney punk and talk ABOUT me real obvious-like..

Sheesh, what a letdown.

Don't snort at those rubes and little mindless imbeciles too loudly, HC. You're no different where it counts and you'll give yourself a nose-bleed.