- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tom Homan: “As a Catholic, I think they need to spend time fixing the Catholic Church."
Posted on 11/15/25 at 12:08 am to SouthernHog
Posted on 11/15/25 at 12:08 am to SouthernHog
quote:
I disagree, I'm researching now to convert and it is more true than any protestant church ive ever attended.
Bible disagrees with your “opinion”.
0
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:26 am to 3down10
Study to show thyself approved, a workman need not be ashamed, rightfully dividing the truth.
You have some unscriptural fears and ideas that are probably caused by your lack of knowledge of the entire bible.
You have some unscriptural fears and ideas that are probably caused by your lack of knowledge of the entire bible.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 9:50 am to LSUbest
quote:
Study to show thyself approved, a workman need not be ashamed, rightfully dividing the truth.
You have some unscriptural fears and ideas that are probably caused by your lack of knowledge of the entire bible.
You just don't believe it when Jesus says the holy spirit will teach you.
I on the other hand know it's true because I've experienced it.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 9:52 am to Jack Ruby
quote:
Why is Homan standing in front of a green screen?
Nice catch. You wonder, "Why??"
These Green Screen interviews and fake backgrounds (and also presumably, fake background noise) started with Biden. We'd best verify everything we see and hear forevermore. Including the sky.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:56 am to Tbone2
quote:
The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 11:02 am to gaetti15
You wrote:
And foo wrote:
The first half of Foo’s comment is correct, but the second part he has arse backwards. The ones that ignore Paul and stick with Jesus’ words are the ones who might be ignorant of history but are NOT ignorant of what the Bible “says” - particularly between Jesus’ message and Paul’s message. There are contradictions between the two that are irreconcilable.
For instance, Paul calls the Law a curse and claims there is no salvation in the Law and that Jews no longer need to follow the Law. Paul writes that followers are saved by faith (Protestants like to add “alone” to the text though it was not original and was added by Martin Luther) and not by works of the Law. Jesus on the other hand, especially in Matthew in the sermon on the Mount, specifies that works of the Law for Christians is even more important - that they need to take the Law more seriously - than even the Pharisees who were known for following every little aspect of the law. In reality, the author of Matthew was writing to rebuke the Pauline Christians who disregarded the law. In the sermon on the Mount, “Jesus” says he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it by teaching others that must follow the Law even going above and beyond the law. For instance, don’t just not murder, but don’t even get angry. Don’t just not commit adultery, but don’t even look at a women with lust.
Some people who read the Bible notice the differences in Paul’s Christianity verses the Christianity of authors such as the one who wrote our Greek composition we call “Matthew”. Who should they believe? A guy who claims to have only known Jesus through revelation and visions and hidden messages in Jewish scriptures? Or should the believe the mouth of “Jesus” who “said” whoever relaxes any of these commandments or teaches others to do the same will be called least in the new kingdom?
quote:
Thanks Foo, I was hoping you find that question
And foo wrote:
quote:
There are some professing Christians (individuals, not denominations that I'm aware of) that like to ignore or downplay Paul's writings and stick with just Jesus' words, but that's usually done by people who are mostly ignorant of what the Bible is and what it says, including Jesus' words.
The first half of Foo’s comment is correct, but the second part he has arse backwards. The ones that ignore Paul and stick with Jesus’ words are the ones who might be ignorant of history but are NOT ignorant of what the Bible “says” - particularly between Jesus’ message and Paul’s message. There are contradictions between the two that are irreconcilable.
For instance, Paul calls the Law a curse and claims there is no salvation in the Law and that Jews no longer need to follow the Law. Paul writes that followers are saved by faith (Protestants like to add “alone” to the text though it was not original and was added by Martin Luther) and not by works of the Law. Jesus on the other hand, especially in Matthew in the sermon on the Mount, specifies that works of the Law for Christians is even more important - that they need to take the Law more seriously - than even the Pharisees who were known for following every little aspect of the law. In reality, the author of Matthew was writing to rebuke the Pauline Christians who disregarded the law. In the sermon on the Mount, “Jesus” says he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it by teaching others that must follow the Law even going above and beyond the law. For instance, don’t just not murder, but don’t even get angry. Don’t just not commit adultery, but don’t even look at a women with lust.
Some people who read the Bible notice the differences in Paul’s Christianity verses the Christianity of authors such as the one who wrote our Greek composition we call “Matthew”. Who should they believe? A guy who claims to have only known Jesus through revelation and visions and hidden messages in Jewish scriptures? Or should the believe the mouth of “Jesus” who “said” whoever relaxes any of these commandments or teaches others to do the same will be called least in the new kingdom?
Posted on 11/15/25 at 11:07 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:I think the conversation we had about the 10 commandments shows that you have no idea what "irreconcilable contradiction" means, but you've shown that you don't actually care about that. You are just responding because you hate your creator and try to lead people away from the truth.
There are contradictions between the two that are irreconcilable.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 11:17 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I think the conversation we had about the 10 commandments shows that you have no idea what "irreconcilable contradiction" means, but you've shown that you don't actually care about that.
There’s no way for me to convince you that just because you can gin up some hare-brained excuse for a contradiction doesn’t make it reconcilable. You already don’t believe it is possible for the Bible to have a contradiction- a dogma you impose upon the text despite the clear evidence. You think “take nothing except a staff” and “don’t take a staff” mean the same exact thing. You’re a nut job Foo. You need help.
quote:
You are just responding because you hate your creator and try to lead people away from the truth.
You don’t get tired of posting this drivel?
Posted on 11/15/25 at 11:52 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:See, this is what I mean. I'm talking about a logical contradiction, meaning a violation of the law of non-contradiction. You seem to be calling something an "irreconcilable contradiction" if the conclusion in your mind is a contradiction, rather than accepting that there are explanations or interpretations that don't lead to a logical contradiction. I'm talking about the latter.
There’s no way for me to convince you that just because you can gin up some hare-brained excuse for a contradiction doesn’t make it reconcilable.
For instance, if I affirm that there is a distinction between men and women, and then go on to address a mixed group of men and women with "hey guys", you could either say I have committed an "irreconcilable contradiction" buy calling even girls "guys", showing that I really don't see a distinction, or you can accept that it's possible that the word "guys" in this context was used generically and wasn't representative of my position of gender distinctions.
quote:Again, "clear evidence" is merely your opinion. The "evidence" you provide is just your own conclusion that a contradiction exists when it doesn't need to. You are biased against the Bible, so whenever there is an apparent (though not actual) contradiction, you always side with the least generous interpretation, concluding a contradiction must exist, and that it is irreconcilable.
You already don’t believe it is possible for the Bible to have a contradiction- a dogma you impose upon the text despite the clear evidence.
quote:No, I don't. This is another example of how you twist the truth.
You think “take nothing except a staff” and “don’t take a staff” mean the same exact thing.
We've been over this before:
Mathew 10:8-9 says, "Acquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics or sandals or a staff, for the laborer deserves his food."
Mark 6:8-9 says, "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."
In Matthew, Jesus is telling them not to go out and get anything extra. Mark is saying the same thing. They can bring what's on them (except food and money) but not to go get anything extra for their journey. The point is to have the disciples rely upon God for their provision rather than themselves.
You see a contradiction but contextually, all you need to do is to say that in one narrative, Jesus is saying not to bring anything but what they have on them, while the other narrative, Jesus is saying not to bring anything but what they have on them.
quote:You are a sinner and God is at war with you. If you do not turn from your rejection of Him and trust in Jesus Christ as your savior, you will be beyond help. You are the one who needs help.
You’re a nut job Foo. You need help.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 5:13 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You seem to be calling something an "irreconcilable contradiction" if the conclusion in your mind is a contradiction, rather than accepting that there are explanations or interpretations that don't lead to a logical contradiction. I'm talking about the latter.
Correct. If the best evidence shows there is a contradiction, and the evidence doesn’t allow reconciliation, then it’s an irreconcilable contradiction. Just because you can create a story in your head of things that aren’t in evidence and that go against the evidence doesn’t negate the irreconcilability of the contradiction.
You can make a black guy in a purple car headed west and a white guy in a green car headed east the same person. You could logically say, well the guy is of mixed race ancestry in a purple and green car who doubled back. You can invent anything you want to logically reconcile anything that’s not in evidence as long as you presuppose a contradiction can’t exist.
quote:
For instance, if I affirm that there is a distinction between men and women, and then go on to address a mixed group of men and women with "hey guys", you could either say I have committed an "irreconcilable contradiction" buy calling even girls "guys"
No, that’s stupid.
quote:
The "evidence" you provide is just your own conclusion that a contradiction exists when it doesn't need to.
A contradiction doesn’t need to exist. It either does or it doesn’t. The only person who needs a contradiction not to exist is you.
quote:
We've been over this before: Mathew 10:8-9 says, "Acquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics or sandals or a staff, for the laborer deserves his food." Mark 6:8-9 says, "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."
Yes that’s why I brought it up. Two different Greek words are used in Mark and Matthew but they mean the same thing in this context. Your “acquire” word also means “possess”.
Think about these two sentences. Get a coat before you leave the house. Take a coat before you leave the house. Is the guy in the first sentence “acquiring” a coat by purchasing it before he leaves his house? Two different verbs, same meaning the context.
quote:
You see a contradiction but contextually, all you need to do is to say that in one narrative, Jesus is saying not to bring anything but what they have on them, while the other narrative, Jesus is saying not to bring anything but what they have on them.
You are so retarded. Obviously “Jesus” meant for them not to take any of the shite on their journey. You would allow them though to take all the gold silver and whatever else they had on them, but not get any extra of that shite. How can one “acquire” gold that isn’t even theirs in the first place. “Matthew” was talking about the stuff they already owned. And you’re a douche.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 7:01 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:You still don't understand what a contradiction is. I thought you were smarter than that.
Correct. If the best evidence shows there is a contradiction, and the evidence doesn’t allow reconciliation, then it’s an irreconcilable contradiction. Just because you can create a story in your head of things that aren’t in evidence and that go against the evidence doesn’t negate the irreconcilability of the contradiction.
One more time: a contradiction is where there is no ability to reconcile opposite truth claims. If there is a way to reconcile two claims, then it doesn't necessarily have to be a contradiction. The problem you are having is that you assume a contradiction exists and then say because it is a contradiction, it cannot be reconciled. You aren't looking at the evidence at all, ironically.
quote:
No, that’s stupid.
why? Because you said so? Your opinions are meaningless. quote:Whether I 'need' an contradiction to exist or not exist is irrelevant to whether or not one does exist. You need contradictions to exist so you can justify your hatred for your creator.
A contradiction doesn’t need to exist. It either does or it doesn’t. The only person who needs a contradiction not to exist is you.
quote:They can mean to acquire or to possess depending on the context. You are the one that says it must be a contradiction even though it doesn't have to be. If Mathew meant "acquire", then there is no contradiction. Since the word can mean "acquire", there is no need for it to be contradictory. The fact that it can legitimately mean "acquire" means that you can't call it an irreconcilable contradiction. The way it is reconciled is for it to simply mean "acquire".
Yes that’s why I brought it up. Two different Greek words are used in Mark and Matthew but they mean the same thing in this context. Your “acquire” word also means “possess”.
quote:Ah, the argument of the intellectual
You are so retarded.
quote:They were allowed to take some things with them, but only some things they already had.
Obviously “Jesus” meant for them not to take any of the shite on their journey. You would allow them though to take all the gold silver and whatever else they had on them, but not get any extra of that shite. How can one “acquire” gold that isn’t even theirs in the first place. “Matthew” was talking about the stuff they already owned.
In Matthew, it says not to get/acquire anything for the journey.
In Mark it says not to take specific things with them, but they can bring their staves, sandals, and a tunic but not two tunics.
They are saying the same thing but in different words: go quickly and rely on the Lord, not getting anything for your journey, but taking your staves and sandals for traveling and a tunic for a basic covering.
quote:Are you getting frustrated that your nonsense is being called out? For someone who pretends to be an intellectual who only follows the science and the evidence, you really lower the bar for yourself when you get flustered.
And you’re a douche
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:36 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You still don't understand what a contradiction is. I thought you were smarter than that.
Ok, guy who doesn’t believe contradictions even exist.
What a maroon.
quote:
why? Because you said so? Your opinions are meaningless.
You created a very poor example. “Guys” can mean a collective of people regardless of sex in common vernacular. What you could have said was
1. There were only men in the room at the event 123 on day 1 at 12:00pm.
2. There were no men in the room at the event 123 in day 1 at 12:00pm.
That’s an irreconcilable contradiction. Just like your staves.
You could gin something up though - there were two different rooms, two different events at the same time, place, and date that had the same name, for instance. Or the “no men” means figuratively that all the men were pussies. The imagination is endless. There’s nothing you can gin up. quote:
Whether I 'need' an contradiction to exist or not exist is irrelevant to whether or not one does exist.
Well we can agree on that. Congratulations, you actually said something that wasn’t completely bone headed.
quote:
You need contradictions to exist so you can justify your hatred for your creator.
quote:
They can mean to acquire or to possess depending on the context. You are the one that says it must be a contradiction even though it doesn't have to be. If Mathew meant "acquire", then there is no contradiction. Since the word can mean "acquire", there is no need for it to be contradictory. The fact that it can legitimately mean "acquire" means that you can't call it an irreconcilable contradiction. The way it is reconciled is for it to simply mean "acquire".
Ok Foo, you’re saying Mark’s Jesus says they can take a staff, but Matthew’s Jesus says they cannot acquire (a new / another second) staff. It’s stupid because Matthew’s Jesus says to not acquire gold or silver. How would one acquire gold or silver? It would be something they already had. The verb in Matthew did not mean to “acquire” as in gold out and purchase. To think that is plain retarded.
The author of Luke though fixed Matthew by using the same verb Mark uses.
Mark’s Jesus says to not “take” anything except a staff. Luke’s Jesus says not to “take” a staff. Throw Matthew out the window because it is short circuiting your neurons. You simply can’t process it. Focus on Luke and Mark and how they use the exact same verb. It’s an irreconcilable contradiction.
quote:
They are saying the same thing but in different words: go quickly and rely on the Lord, not getting anything for your journey, but taking your staves and sandals for traveling and a tunic for a basic covering
Luke 9:3 NASB
quote:
And He said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics.
Luke 9:3 ESV
quote:
And he said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics.
quote:
Are you getting frustrated that your nonsense is being called out? For someone who pretends to be an intellectual who only follows the science and the evidence, you really lower the bar for yourself when you get flustered.
You will always be a
, Foo.Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:38 pm to 3down10
Religions are all about controlling the weak.
Killing in the name of
Killing in the name of
Posted on 11/15/25 at 10:44 pm to PurpleCrush
quote:
Religions are all about controlling the weak.
Killing in the name of
For the record, Jesus did not start a religion or try to become a religious leader. In fact, he was rejected by many because he refused to do so as they believe the Messiah will restore the Kingdom of David.
He instead fought with the religious leaders of that day and the people were constantly trying to stone him for blasphemy because of the things he said.
And of course, he was eventually murdered by his own government at the wishes of the religious powers of his day.
Posted on 11/16/25 at 8:08 am to 3down10
quote:I have to disagree with you there. He came as the fulfillment of the Messianic prophesies. He was the fulfillment of the prophets, the priests, and the kings. He made claims and performed actions that were consistent with Him being God, and He was hated by the leaders for it.
For the record, Jesus did not start a religion or try to become a religious leader.
He called and taught disciples as a religious leader. He taught doctrine, created a church, gave sacraments to be performed, and appointed apostles to be leaders in His place.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that Jesus didn’t come to be merely a moral guru, but taught what true religion was.
Posted on 11/16/25 at 8:11 am to hawgfaninc
I'm not Catholic but he's spot on. Been noticing it getting worse and worse after JP II
Posted on 11/16/25 at 8:48 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Correct, and yet that is irrelevant to what a contradiction is. You continue to show that you don’t understand what a contradiction, which is an incredible thing considering you’ve spent so much time trying to prove contradictions in the Bible. That should cast doubt on everything you say.
Ok, guy who doesn’t believe contradictions even exist.
quote:I tried to make up an example that fit your own misunderstanding on what an irreconcilable contradiction is.
You created a very poor example. “Guys” can mean a collective of people regardless of sex in common vernacular. What you could have said was
1. There were only men in the room at the event 123 on day 1 at 12:00pm.
2. There were no men in the room at the event 123 in day 1 at 12:00pm.
quote:The example you provided didn’t fit the examples in the Bible you highlighted. The word “acquire” meaning to take on what you don’t currently have is what defeats your claim of an irreconcilable contradiction, as I’ve explained multiple times now.
That’s an irreconcilable contradiction. Just like your staves. You could gin something up though - there were two different rooms, two different events at the same time, place, and date that had the same name, for instance. Or the “no men” means figuratively that all the men were pussies. The imagination is endless. There’s nothing you can gin up.
quote:I’m still waiting for that moment from you. You are full of misunderstandings about the Bible, about grammar, and about logic, and show yourself to be hard-headed and hard-hearted time and time again.
Well we can agree on that. Congratulations, you actually said something that wasn’t completely bone headed
quote:How would they acquire gold? They could have had some saved in their homes. They could have asked friends or family. They could have sold things to get gold. Lots of ways they could have done it.
Ok Foo, you’re saying Mark’s Jesus says they can take a staff, but Matthew’s Jesus says they cannot acquire (a new / another second) staff. It’s stupid because Matthew’s Jesus says to not acquire gold or silver. How would one acquire gold or silver? It would be something they already had. The verb in Matthew did not mean to “acquire” as in gold out and purchase. To think that is plain retarded.
quote:In Matthew, Jesus is saying don’t go out and get anything in addition to what you have. Mark and Luke use a different word for take, which means that Mark is saying you can take a staff you already have, and Luke uses the plural of staff so that they are not to take multiple staves, implying that they can take one if they have one on them.
The author of Luke though fixed Matthew by using the same verb Mark uses.
[quote]Mark’s Jesus says to not “take” anything except a staff. Luke’s Jesus says not to “take” a staff. Throw Matthew out the window because it is short circuiting your neurons. You simply can’t process it. Focus on Luke and Mark and how they use the exact same verb. It’s an irreconcilable contradiction.
The language and grammar allow for such an interpretation, so there is no irreconcilable contradiction as you keep saying.
quote:I hope you repent of your wickedness and turn to Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. I would rather be considered a fool by you but have everlasting life than to be wise in your eyes and be damned with you.
You will always be a loser , Foo.
Posted on 11/16/25 at 9:17 am to hawgfaninc
Tom Homan has said it right. The Catholic Church needs to end this obsession with gay inclusion in the Church.
I am not for blanket exclusion of gays, Jesus called all people to repentance. But gays have an obligation to live a celebrate life. As far as inclusion into Church life, they must show evidence they are making a positive effort to overcome their gay lifestyle. Showing up at Mass on Sunday and holding hands with your gay lover will not cut it. The Gay lifestyle is abnormal and clearly against God's Law. After Jesus saved the prostitute from stoning, he reminded her not to commit this sin anymore. Biblical evidence tells us she repented and spent the remainder of her life in prayer, and penance. Nothing is impossible with God.
St. Paul never pulled his punches when it came to reprimanding people within the Church community when it came to sexual perversion. His scathing letter to the Romans (Chapter 1) lays it all out. But there were other sexual perversions (notably incest) breaking out in Church communities as well. In his first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul condemns an incident where a man was having an incestuous relationship with his mother.
So to all your gays out there reading this post, I strongly urge you to reject your gay lifestyle, repent, confess, receive forgiveness, and do penance and know that the Church has a right to demand "zero tolerance" when it comes to this abhorent lifestyle.
And to our Catholic hierarchy obsessed with gay inclusion - stop it.
*[crickets]*
I am not for blanket exclusion of gays, Jesus called all people to repentance. But gays have an obligation to live a celebrate life. As far as inclusion into Church life, they must show evidence they are making a positive effort to overcome their gay lifestyle. Showing up at Mass on Sunday and holding hands with your gay lover will not cut it. The Gay lifestyle is abnormal and clearly against God's Law. After Jesus saved the prostitute from stoning, he reminded her not to commit this sin anymore. Biblical evidence tells us she repented and spent the remainder of her life in prayer, and penance. Nothing is impossible with God.
St. Paul never pulled his punches when it came to reprimanding people within the Church community when it came to sexual perversion. His scathing letter to the Romans (Chapter 1) lays it all out. But there were other sexual perversions (notably incest) breaking out in Church communities as well. In his first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul condemns an incident where a man was having an incestuous relationship with his mother.
So to all your gays out there reading this post, I strongly urge you to reject your gay lifestyle, repent, confess, receive forgiveness, and do penance and know that the Church has a right to demand "zero tolerance" when it comes to this abhorent lifestyle.
And to our Catholic hierarchy obsessed with gay inclusion - stop it.
*[crickets]*
This post was edited on 11/17/25 at 10:10 am
Posted on 11/16/25 at 9:22 am to Tbone2
quote:
The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
God recreated and reformed the religion of the Jews, which He founded, and called them to follow His Son Jesus Christ, because the Jews had strayed so far away from His intentions.
Even if you wrongly believe God founded the Roman Catholic Church, do you think God's previous actions against the legalistic Jewish religion could tell us anything about how He would view the modern Catholic Church?
This post was edited on 11/16/25 at 9:23 am
Posted on 11/16/25 at 9:33 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Mark and Luke use a different word for take, which means that Mark is saying you can take a staff you already have
No. It’s the same Greek word just conjugated differently. Strong’s concordance 142. The word means to lift up, take, or carry away. In Mark it is “they should not take” and in Luke it is “ya’ll shall not take”. In Mark it is subjunctive third person while in Luke it is accusative second person plural. The plural is the you (all) or what you’d say as “y’all”. You’re making up lies is all you are doing.
quote:
Luke uses the plural of staff so that they are not to take multiple staves, implying that they can take one if they have one on them.
No. Seriously don’t you check before you write this kind of nonsense? “Rabdon” is used in both Mark and Luke and is an accusative feminine singular noun.
Even if the staff in Luke was plural, you would be an arse to think the way you put it in your response to me. If I tell a kid “don’t eat any snacks after you brush your teeth.” I would think they were being a little a-hole if they said “dad I only ate one snack, you said I couldn’t have any snacks-plural.”
“Take nothing for the journey, no staffs…”
Would indicate to any rational sane person (not you) that such a command means don’t take one staff, two staffs, or any amount of staffs. But it’s irrelevant because because the noun in Luke is a singular noun and you are full of shite.
This post was edited on 11/16/25 at 7:09 pm
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News