Morality without god

Did I get Theodoric wrong then? Seemed to me he was agreeing with the interpretation of two Patricks as the most common view which I figured must be the RCC view since he was agreeing with it, or at least the idea that much of what was said about Patrick was really Palladius.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Seems all that can only have been the result of the RCC trying to make Patrick into a Roman Catholic when he wasn't and getting him all mixed up with Palladius who was. Richard Bennett's sources seem to have it sorted out best: Patrick the indigenous early Briton missionary who planted hundreds of churches in Ireland without Roman influence and Palladius coming along some thirty years later with his Roman message that didn't fit in so he had to leave. Only the RCC's insistence on putting their own stamp on the situation could explain all the confusion.

You didn't say anything I didn't already know about Patrick's names,* family etc. Being born in the Roman Empire did not make him a Roman Catholic, and yes, I believe the sources I'm familiar with and reject yours. I personally don't care whether he was RCC or not, but I've heard from too many sources that he was a Christian I could appreciate instead and that he doesn't deserve what the RCC did to him.However, you are right this is off topic.* ABE Correction: Not HIS names but his family's Roman names. It WAS the Roman Empire and he knew Latin. But there is no mention of Pope anybody in any of his histories. Or priests either. The excuse to insert Pope Celestine seems to be based only on the Roman names, but assuming the histories I've been aware of are the true ones the excuse is really only that the RCC wants to own Patrick and to own Ireland. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm aware of Bennett's talk which I linked, in which he mentions three historians as his sources, the book I posted on at my blog and the two writings by Patrick himself which are the only trustworthy sources. I know you prefer the RCC versions which I consider untrustworthy.Funny you call Bennett a revisionist, when he's in the position Protestants in general are up against in dealing with the history of this sort of thing, having to untangle all the RCC lies and forgeries from the truth.

Somewhere back on this thread I did list the historians Bennett gave but the sound quality is bad enough I don't know whether I heard right and he didn't give enough information to look them up -- something like Wylie and Ware and one other.Bennett is clearly an honest man. As for the lies and forgeries of the RCC there is a ton of information out there, most of it in old books since the newer histories aren't trustworthy. I have a long list of online books at my Catholicism blog on the right margin, most of which give information about all this. I've just started making myself an index of the information in those books so I can have it available but I've only just started.Theodoric, I'm being honest about all this, I'm sorry I keep rubbing you the wrong way but I'm giving true information to the best of my ability. When it comes to the RCC information I know this stuff can come as a shock to Catholics and even ex-Catholics. Well, it came as a shock to me too when I first got into it.Sorry I don't have more on Patrick. I believe the book I reviewed and I believe Bennett. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Surely it's obvious that the same could be said about your position, that you believe it because it confirms your worldview. And not being willing to check out the list of books at my blog suggests strongly that is probably the case.

Theodoric, I meant to come back and remind you and forgot: I wasn't using that list as support for arguments about Patrick. I already said that all I have for that is Bennett and the book I reviewed a couple years ago, and the two writings I know of by Patrick. We'd gotten off the subject onto the general subject of the history of RCC falsifications. That's what the books at my blog are about.By the way a historian is somebody who has studied the history of a subject, period. If they provide sources and all those books do, some many pages of sources, that's their credentials.Paul Serup spent something like twenty years researching his book on Lincoln, Saussy spent ten years on his book.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You've read the books? I did read Saussy's and found some things I can't agree with but mostly toward the end of the book where he takes some leaps.I understand Serup culled newspapers from the time and quoted from everything he could find on the subject. He had no premise to begin with. You ought to pay more attention to the facts. I don't even think he's a Christian. The evidence was good enough without his book that Lincoln was murdered by Jesuits anyway.Find some "real historians" before the twentieth century, Theodoric. The later ones have often manipulated the facts. Yes, there is a conspiracy to protect the RCC from the truth.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here's the publisher of J D Fulton's Washington in the Lap of Rome: Is that self-published?That book also has a chapter on Lincoln's killersHe was certainly a firebrand against Catholicism, does that make him wrong? He was even stoned by a Catholic crowd for it. So was ex-priest Charles Chiniquy stoned and shot at by Catholics for his anti-Catholic speeches and book, Fifty Years in the "Church" of Rome. Chiniquy was falsely accused by his Bishop who objected to his attempts to reform the Church, and defended by Lincoln, who won the case, which was the reason for the Jesuits' hatred of Lincoln.Paul Serup's investigation into the Lincoln assassination began with reading Chiniquy's book thirty years ago. He wanted to prove to himself whether Chiniquy's claim was right or not and got so deeply into the subject it ended up a book.A quick check of some of the other books on my list shows they weren't self-published: Walsh's book on the Oxford Movement, Jacopo Leone's book on the Jesuits, Henry T Hudson's Papal Power. Chiniquy's book was republished by Chick Publications, don't know who originally published it.THIS IS ALL OFF TOPIC. WE NEED EITHER TO END THIS DISCUSSION OR TAKE IT TO A NEW THREAD. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I looked for that information and couldn't find it and in fact IIRC the address for the publisher was in a different state from his church and I didn't find a name for his church. I felt it necessary to check because you made such a big to-do about a couple you'd found to be self-published. The Trinity site has: Amazon carries twelve books by him.But the Trinity Foundation is not a Church, it's a Christian-based organization that promotes a Christian philosophical worldview and does a lot of publishing of out of print books. No, Chick publishes a viewpoint you disagree with, period. They also publish some out of print books as does Trinity. The book by Chiniquy speaks for itself, but if you dismiss it out of hand based on your prejudices that doesn't speak well for you. (The substance of your argument often seems to amount to calling people liars.) I have not told one lie to you at any point. I COULD say you are lying about that but apparently you believe it, false though it is.Anyway, it's amazing that you would believe that all those books were written by people who just love to lie for no good reason. What on earth could they gain by that, or I either?And funny you don't seem to see how bias-driven your own thinking is.And you are wrong about the topic problem, we are off topic. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's really impressive how good you are at debunking an argument based only on something like who published it and who called it a hate group (which isn't surprising coming from the liberal to radical socialist Southern Poverty Law Center, which is not one of MY authorities though apparently it is yours), while not concerning yourself for half an instant with the SUBSTANCE of the argument. Really impressive, Theodoric. Sure way to learn absolutely nothing that might disturb your ingrained assumptions.Most of these books AREN'T "scholarly" as we think of that term today, they are the work of men who had learned something about a subject and wrote about it for the benefit mostly of Christians. The style of many of the older books is much more casual and more personal and subjective than we are used to today. They have an old fashioned sound to them. None of this in itself discredits the work as far as I can see. And I have no idea what explanation there might be for in-house or self publishing. Might not be what you assume it is. The times were different.I'm not very familiar with Chick Publications but a quick look at Wikipedia suggests that they are considered a "hate" group BECAUSE they preach against Catholicism. Interesting. You brand me with the word "hate" too for the same reason. It doesn't matter whether there is any actual emotion of hatred involved, or whether some things are truly evil and deserve to be hated, or what the actual truth is of what is being said, if you brand your enemy or enemy viewpoint with an emotion-laden word like "hate" you don't have to think about what they are actually saying or whether there is any truth to it, you can "win" the argument on smear tactics alone. It's a form of violence in a way. Same with branding your opponent a liar. You really want to win that way?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Paul,
I for one am pleased to see you come and post here in response to Theodoric's ridiculous accusations against a book that has as much scholarly support as yours does.If others are rudely going to complain that it's off topic, however, although the off topic posts are quite lengthy on this thread, perhaps another thread should be started. It would do more justice to your thoughts to have a separate thread anyway. You can start a Coffee House thread without going through Proposed Topics. Just copy and paste your post into a new box under Coffee House.Or I could start the thread for you since you are not familiar with the formatting here.What do you say?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've started the new thread with Paul's post and hope comments will be posted there rather than here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Theodoric: Please move this post to the thread created for the purpose, thanks.

The thread is Paul Serup's thread. I only started it because he doesn't understand how things work on this site. People complained that he answered on this thread because it's off topic, so a new thread was created.