Fox News’ Father Jonathan Morris is Quitting the Priesthood So He Can Have Sex

[Drich]

It's so funny how superior most of you think you are with your fancy book a learn-n.

Did somone say "the Dunning-Kruger effect"?

Hel-lue... it was me who just now referenced the dunning-kruger effect upon those who have to be taught what the rest of us can manage on our own.

Hasn't anyone every point out we just have different names than what the science boys call things? We are all talking about the same things even same source or you will insist on a source that real makes no never mind to us, but because you think you've named something differently it no longer exists the way God says it does. Do you understand what shakespeare meant when he said a rose by any other name would smell jut as sweet?

He means it is not what you call a rose that gives it it's smell. it is what the rose is that makes it smell sweet, so no matter how we understand it the rose or in this case the principles are the same.

The only difference is because you can identify HOW God does something in the natural world it some how precludes God... When in fact it only points to him more indepthly. All your relabeling does it show you how archaic your understanding of an all powerful God has to is. It shows you to be the fool that think God has to be magic in everything he does and creates but if man can understand how the trick works it can't be of God...

Do you even know what you're talking about here? In any case it probably doesn't have to do anything with this topic. It doesn't even have anything to do with my post that you're quoting which was already part of a awry from the topic.

perfect example of "the Dunning-Kruger effect".. You don't know for sure what is being discussed, look at the words you used. "probably doesn't yet you preceed trying to discredit what was said based on your guess?
what a garbage mind you have. otherwise who are you clearly you see yourself and your world view as far superior to anyne elses with no reason or no reason you can or have explained.

When in fact "science' used to be the holy pursuit of the church

Hmm, I don't know about that. Sure that some monks over the millennia discovered something here and there but that doesn't mean that the Church was pursuing science. Hell, by that logic you could say that shepherds used to pursue science because the first magnet was discovered by a Cretan shepherd named Magnes 4000 years ago.

You don't know because when faced with a question you do not research anything. you rely on yourself as a primary source ("the Dunning-Kruger effect") you see your knoweledge as being near complete, meaning when you object and when you doubt these are not just on douche's take this is the way it is... again that is the base defination to the "the Dunning-Kruger effect".

Now one might accuse me of doing the same.. in that when I say something I count is as undisputable truth. but there is a hge difference when I do it and when you do it. When I do it there are at least three points of substantied reference that supports myfindings or my statments.

wiki:
Historically, the Catholic Church has often been a patron of sciences. It has been prolific in the foundation of schools, universities and hospitals, and many clergy have been active in the sciences. Historians of science such as Pierre Duhem credit medieval Catholic mathematicians and philosophers such as John Buridan, Nicole Oresme, and Roger Bacon as the founders of modern science.[1] Duhem found "the mechanics and physics, of which modern times are justifiably proud, to proceed by an uninterrupted series of scarcely perceptible improvements from doctrines professed in the heart of the medieval schools."

pbs-
Throughout the late Middle Ages and Renaissance, most scientific leaders were men of the church, They included the great medieval champion of mathematical science Robert Grosseteste (Bishop of Oxford, and the man who reinvigorated the science of geometric optics); the medieval champion of experimental science Roger Bacon (a Franciscan monk, sometimes known as the medieval Galileo); the fifteenth century proto-physicist Nicholas of Cusa (a cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church and the man who first championed the idea of an infinite universe); and Nicholas Copernicus (a canon at Frauenburg Cathedral, and the man who more than any other introduced the idea of a sun-centered cosmos.)

Up until the eighteenth century, most of those in Europe studying science were indeed men of deep religious faith, many of them formally schooled in theology. In part that was because the church controlled the institutes of higher learning - particularly the universities, which had originally been set up as training grounds for the clergy and other church functionaries.

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blo...gion/5697/
the above is neil degrasse tyson extoling some of the great works early priest scientist did!

Do you see the diffrences dimwit?

you "i don't think science has anything to do with church so I will make fun of it and minimalize it and try and make your look stupid and discredit you for saying something that does not sound right to me!

And what did I do?

I provided 3 sources that proved you wrong.

Do you see the difference between your Dunning-Kruger dumb fuk-ery where you are the source where what you know is the bench mark, and what I have to say being backed by legit history and fact?

This is not just here sort this is across the board. Every argument you put together is done this way. like wise everything I have to say is done the opposite way! That makes you wrong on just about every time you oppose what I say!

So prattle on if it helps you feel better about whatever you are compensating for by railing against God.

I'm railing against god because I said how Jesus instructs you to pluck out your eyes if you look at a woman and think she's good looking and then cut off their limbs; as well as live like a bird because God provides the necessities of life - seems rather like you're avoiding to face the nonsense of the Bible and blame me for it.

keep reading dummy! not only by this standard of law keeping are we to pluck out our eyes we are to cut off our hands then he even goes further and says if we even think of having sex we are guilty of this sin or if we hate we are guilty of murder, then penality for that is death. by your logic are we to kill ourselves the first time we get cut off in traffic? Or is there a greater point, one that he makes at the end of the chapter? In that in order to be righteous by the law we must be perfect as our father in heaven is perfect.

If you have made one just one mistake/sin ever up to this point you are already disqualified.

If you have sinned and are not perfect you must seek another form of righteousness, one that come from atonement.