italo:

Why should I show you where Jesus approved the Rosary?
Did I come to you asking you to pray the Rosary or did
your fellow Protestants come on this public thread,
condemning the Rosary?

Yes, the rosary was being condemned first...and that was the reason I suggested you showing them where Jesus approved it (since they would believe that) rather than you keep claiming that 'Jesus never condemned it'...like you know certainly all what Jesus condemned and approved.

I did not request any proof for my own use...I do not need it, it makes no difference to me.

italo:

Did you ever ask for proof of where Jesus approved the
compilation of the bible before reading it?

No, I don't need one.

I have one already.

italo:

Yet you claim am being hypocritical. Is it not hypocrisy to
ask me to show where Jesus approved the rosary when
you dont do same for the bible and the foundation of
Deeper Life?

Again, I did not request it, it was just my suggestion to you...for those who are against the rosary.

I'm not for or against the use of the rosary, it makes no difference to me.


....and I ask you again, or what relevance is deeperlife to what's being discussed?

italo:


The bold is a dubious claim.


Those are your claims above

Go ahead and explain how Boko Haram and Brocab's senselessness are related to the Rosary...

But when I ask if you sought/provided proof for the Bible compilation and Deeper life...

...And when I ask if it is hypocrisy (after you had falsely accused me of hypocrisy) to ask proof of Jesus' approval for the Rosary when you didn't ask/provide proof of Jesus' approval of the compilation of the bible and deeper life founding...

...it suddenly isn't related to the Rosary.

Of course, you're just dodging the questions because answering honestly will reveal your hypocrisy.

For once, THINK!

Those statements were comparisons to you wild assumptions and words, to show you they're grossly irrelevant.

Brocab's 'senselessness' is YOUR own claim, what have I to do with it?!

You mentioned that 'Brocab was senseless,' I replied by asking why you were still talking with him, you said to expose him further...I simply answered that 'keep exposing him!'

Do you have any problem with that?!


For the other one, you said you have the right to condemn whatever you do not like, I answered you by comparing your belief to what the Boko Haram believe; that they have a right to condemn and destroy whatever they do not like!

Is that too much for you to deal with?

Again, I say; I have no obligation to provide any proof for anything, I did not claim anything which requires any proof.

If anyone is to prove anything, it is who should prove that; God confirmed the rosary to you..because you claimed that.


Where are the questions I dodged?
Do you mean providing proofs for your own assumptions and claims I did not make?


See, if you cannot be honest and straightforward, it is not compulsory to talk, you have a right not to!

italo:


There's only one reason you will avoid my queries under all sorts of guises...even though I answered all your initial issues.

It's the only way your dubious claims can make sense to you.

Because you know they just can't stand up to scrutiny.

You claim not to want to answer questions because they are outside the topic...but you've asked countless questions outside the topic (the Rosary).

Yet you call me liar and hypocrite. Lol

What are you saying?!

What are my dubious claims?!
Where are they?!

What relevant thing/question have you asked me that I avoided?!

All what I've said relates to the topic of the thread.
How does Kumuyi or deeperlife relate to the thread?

Seems your dishonesty is driving you to another level.

italo:



Bros, I know you've always been dishonest and dubious, but haba! Read this post below and claim the above again...and also claim that he wasn't implying that 'if Jesus mentioned/approved it, it would be in the bible.

I'm dubious because I debunked your false claim?
Dishonest because I refuted a lie?

I said the guy did not mention that all Jesus said or did was in the scripture.

From his post, I can also correctly imply that he's saying that anything that has no basis in scriptures is not of God.

You can imply whatever suits you.

italo:


My point isn't debunked.

[s]Jesus never told John to write his other books, or the other apostles to write any books. He never told anyone to compile any book and call it Bible. He never told Kumuyi to start Deeper Life...in the Bible.[/s]

You have been debunked!
You claimed that Jesus never commanded anybody to write anything! Jesus debunked that in Revelation 1:19 without hesitation!

Simple! No need for irrelevant stories!

Jesus calls you a liar! Go and fight him!

italo:

Here's my point: You Protestants believe that the fact that the Bible doesn't record something explicitly doesn't mean that Jesus doesn't approve it. So to claim that 'the Rosary isn't approved because it wasn't mentioned in the bible' is hypocritical. Do you agree?

I disagree.

I believe that a teaching does not have to be explicitly recorded in the to be true or to be of God but it must have a basis in the scripture. If it doesn't, it is not of God.

italo:



Anyone, including I, have the right to condemn anything I like. I have never claimed that "God didn't command it," so I don't have to prove what I didn't claim.

I really think it's fine if you stubbornly believe that God commanded your pastor to feed you petrol. I won't pester you to prove it unless you start to condemn my own practices...under the guise of having a logical discussion. I'd rather leave you to relish your obstinate stupidity in peace.

Likewise Bokoharam, they believe they have the right to condemn and destroy whatever they do not like.

italo:



Why should I show you where Jesus approved the Rosary? Did I come to you asking you to pray the Rosary or did your fellow Protestants come on this public thread, condemning the Rosary?

Did you ever ask for proof of where Jesus approved the compilation of the bible before reading it?

Yet you claim am being hypocritical. Is it not hypocrisy to ask me to show where Jesus approved the rosary when you dont do same for the bible and the foundation of Deeper Life?

*begging for answer.

It would be unwise for me to prove what's not concerned with the subject of the discourse.

italo:


I asked if it passes for a lie. You skipped.

Yes, I skipped...because I know anyone can lie and claim that "it did not occur to them."

If you're honest that it did not occur to you, it is not a lie, it was a careless and ignorant speech, devoid of proof...but if it did, then it is simply a lie.

However, since I can't tell if you're honest or not...besides, I have known you to be dishonest on so many issues, so I can take it to be a lie, or an ignorant speech if it pleases me.

italo:

Only, you suddenly go blind when the untrue things are said about Catholicism. E.g when Emilo2stay said on this same thread that the Catholic Church admitted that the Rosary was adopted from paganism...and made no attempt to prove it. That's your idea of being "Christian." I think it's hatred and envy.

1. I did not observe the post that said so.

2. What's the proof that he's lying?

3. What's the truth about what he said and what's the proof?

italo:

To further expose his senselessness.


I see you're no longer claiming to be correcting my 'lies and hypocrisy.'

It is clear that you're the one being hypocritical...asking me to provide proof of Jesus approval when you never asked/provided proof of Jesus' approval of bible or founding of Deeper Life.

Keep exposing him.
As I've said before, I am under no obligation to prove anything, it is outside what's being discussed.

italo:



This is what happens when you just jump into a discussion mid-way without knowing the context of what is being said.

I was replying to someone who by his statements had been implying that everything Jesus said or did must be in the Bible.

My question tacitly assumes that the reader understands that I meant that Jesus never mentioned "bible" in the bible...

Before posting, I have read the op and observed your discourse with the guy (Brocab).

He did not mention or state that all Jesus said or did was in the bible, you implied that.

His argument against the rosary is simply that it has no seeming reference or recommendation from or in the scriptures/bible, rather, it seems to be against it.

italo:

OK. Jesus told John to write in Revelations. But he never told John to write his other books, or the other apostles to write any books. He never told anyone to compile any book and call it Bible. He never told Kumuyi to start Deeper Life...in the Bible.

With the bold, you have already proven my point, your claim is debunked.

You falsely claimed that Jesus "never told anyone to write anything"

That's settled, you lied and it was exposed spoke in ignorance...and it was debunked. No need for lame stories.

italo:


I don't care if you believe me. I offer you no proof. You too have no proof that the Rosary is not good or that God didn't confirm to me that it is good.

Just like you have no proof that 'drinking petrol' was not commanded by God, yet you condemn it repeatedly.

italo:

Why should I show you where Jesus approved the Rosary? Did I come to you asking you to pray the Rosary or did your fellow Protestants come on this public thread, condemning the Rosary?

Just like you said "Jesus never condemned 'drinking petrol'" below.
Do you have proof of that?

My statement is a comparison with your statement...when you said; "Jesus never condemned the Rosary, why do you condemn it?"

...and I suggested that rather than that, you should show where Jesus approved it.

There's no issue with that.

italo:


It didn't occur to me that Jesus told John to write in Rev1:19. Does that pass for a lie?

Oh, you were speaking in ignorance?

Then, what's the certainty that more of what you've said have not been in ignorance...and could be untrue?

italo:

Don't let your envy and hatred for me drive you to stupidity.

Don't let disdain for my name drag you so low to the level of Brocab's senselessness.

You're 'not against the Rosary' but you couldn't resist the urge to attack once you saw my name.

I do not hate you, neither do I envy you.
It will not just be okay for me, claiming to be a Christian, yet watch another who claims the same say untrue things to others...eg "Jesus never commanded anyone to write anything."

Besides, if you believe Brocab is senseless as you said, why can't you simply ignore? Or is the urge to talk to him just to much to resist?


NB: I'm not condemning your rosary or the use of your rosary.

italo:


Jesus never mentioned "bible."

Proof?
Evidence?

Do you know everything Jesus ever mentioned to know the ones He didn't mention?

Or is this another wild/weird imagination/assumption from your head?

italo:

He never told anyone to write anything.

Lie!

Revelation 1:19


"Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;"

Maybe Italo was the one speaking there.

italo:
The NT/Bible came after Jesus.

The OT was before Jesus.

The NT was written after Jesus. So?

italo:

God confirmed to me that the Rosary is from him.

Why should anyone believe you?

Do you have any proof?

italo:

Jesus never condemned the Rosary, so why are you condemning it?

Jesus never condemned 'drinking petrol,' why do you condemn it?

Rather, you should show them where Jesus approved the Rosary.



NB: I'm not against your use of Rosary, this post is just to show your lies and hypocrisy.

olapluto:

You're an ignorant person, who cant think beyond current situation. Can you tell me how many instances of terrorism occurred before 9/11?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Now, who's ignorant?

Islam

aim5:


I think Wladimir and Povetkin have fought already.. Wladimir beat him a decision.

Yeah, they've had one bout whigh Klitschko won via a unanimous decision.

That has been Povetkin's only loss till date.

Raymondenyi:


Hope u know David hay has been beaten twice by this guy (The furious man)...

That guy is not an easy mat to chew... 25/0 ;18 KO's. is worthy of reckon...

Another guy that would have dealth with kiltscko like this was Alexander Povetkin; that guy is a Fantastic boxer; I just didn't know what happenEd... during their match...

No, they've never fought.

Haye only pulled out of two scheduled fights against him due to injuries.

Klitschko is far better than Povetkin, besides, Klitschko has all the advantage...height, weight and reach.

An epic rematch is coming, if it doesn't come, Dr Ironfist will someday, return to boxing to avenge.



By the way....Haye is gonna have a relatively 'easier' opponent when he returns...

Ubenedictus:

sorry, i do not have d energy to search nl to find ur friends who have put a stamp of anathema on everything they think is catholic. I have met them before and gladly invite u to search for dem if u wish.

u may also like to present instances?

Your case is an instance of such allegation.

You claim pentecostals condemn canonization without showing the examples I requested.

Show me two or three examples of people who condemned canonization and where these people supported it when Pastor Adeboye 'canonized' mama H.I.D Awolowo .

Ubenedictus:

tell me an interesting story. Does oyedepo's church have a creed? Or a belief statement where on can easily check their beliefs or is it each pastor 4 himself?

I don't know if there's a creed or belief statement anywhere.

What I know is that they teach the Trinity as evidenced in many of their recorded sermons.

Ubenedictus:


they claim the pope cannot declear that a dead xtian is in heaven, but pastor adeboye can. They will come here and attempt to defend him.

Show examples, maybe 2 or 3, of these people who claim the pope cannot do that, likewise, show where the these same people claim Adeboye can do that...all with sufficient
evidences/references.

I have known Roman Catholics to allude claims to innocent people. Show what I requested or I count this as another of these catholic allegations.

Ubenedictus:

I once had a friend he was a member of oyedepo's 'church', we happened to discuss many issues regarding doctrines, he would demonise catholics for calling their priest 'rev fr' but he didnt see d hypocrisy of calling oyedepo 'papa'. The issue that interested me d most was dat this guy didnt blieve in d trinity (he picked his opinion from a tele evangelist), we spent close to a year discussing trinity, I wasted my time taking him through passage by passage and showing how in d fullness of time God revealed himself as a mutual indwelling of 3 persons, he told me that my explanation were fine but that an unbeliever wit a bible won't be able to read trinity there so he concluded it was a theory of man, d issue bcame too hot, i had to let it be. 6months later dis guy claim he now believed in d trinity, how come? And influential pastor/writter taught it in his book so he accepted it as true.

Congratulations! Your effort was not wasted in the long term.
Your friend is an example of 'Thomas' who wouldn't believe until he's convinced, He wouldn't just accept what he isn't convinced about. The Church your friend attends teaches Trinity and believes firmly in it.

Just like there are some Catholics that don't miss mass but are still unsure if the Trinity is true or not or whether images of, and rituals to saints should be made even when the church teaches and practices these things.

Ubenedictus:

After several such case, i came to d conclusion that most protestants don't care what d truth is, if their pastor or writter is against d catholic d average protestant will do d same and he will maintain d catholic practice is wrong not minding d fact his church has a similar one. It is hypocrisy but d protestant doesn't care, ro far he has sumtin to protest about.

Exactly the same applies to Roman Catholics.

italo:


So you said. Can you pretend that your grand pa is not venerated?

How and where was he buried? How was his will treated? Was it religiously adhered to...or was it discarded?

in what condition is his grave site? Neglected or well taken care of?





Yes. You've done what is done at Canonization: declaring that, without a doubt, your grand pa was right with God at his passing, and is now in heaven.

Okay.

italo:


Yes. That's what Canonization of Saints is: declaring that, without a doubt, someone was right with God at their passing...and is now in heaven with God.

The same thing that Pentecostals like you demonize, you're now practising.

And it isn't only Adeboye, there are other 'pastors' of yours who are going as far as charging a fee to tell you if your name is in the book of life or not.

Perhaps, he also declared that Christians should now venerate and pray through her.

...and if tomorrow, I say 'I have no doubt that my late grandpa is in Heaven,' I have canonized him...wrong?

italo:


We all know that. No need to re-inform us.

This thread is about the hypocrisy in the pentecostal 'churches.'

A Pentecostal leader has done the same thing that Pentecostals demonize the Catholics for...and there is no outrage from pentecostals.

And this hypocrisy is not limited to Canonization. It cuts across Catholic doctrines and practices...as we have shown so far.

That is a fact you're unwilling to engage.

Okay.

So, according to you, Pastor Adeboye has canonized H.I.D Awolowo by giving his opinion about her afterlife, right?

He has made her venerable?

Continue.

italo:




If you haven't done it, the ones who do it are pentecostals like you.

I sure expect the few pentecostals who are bold enough to come to this thread to deny ever demonizing Canonization of Saints...now that Adeboye has 'Canonized' 'St. HID Awolowo.'

Maybe you will condone and practise it when Kumuyi 'canonizes' his own 'saint,' if you don't already do so...since you're a Deeper Life member (that's if you haven't ported to another 'church')

Okay...maybe.

I know every 'Christian' is a Saint when alive and if he dies as such, he remains a saint and will live with God and like God after his transition...even without being 'Canonized' by any religious body.

italo:


The issue I have is written in my OP.

When pentecostals like you demonize the Catholic Church for its opinions (like Canonization of Saints), then condone (and even practise) the same opinions when your "pastors" start to copy it.

Show me where I 'demonized' Canonization of Saints and show me where I have condoned or practised it.

ministeriallist:

Adeboye should keep his opinion to himself. He is not God who decides ones fate. whether personal opinion or whatever, he has goofed.

Okay.

bettercreature:
Another fake prediction,if she is truely AWOLOWO'S WIFE,i dont think she can make Heaven ,She did not confess all the crime commited by her husband before she died.Most people believe Awolowo is a saint but he committed so many crimes underground

Unfortunately, you cannot be certain it is a 'fake prediction unless;
1. You are God or
2. You are on the other side with H.I.D Awolowo

"I have no doubt that Mama is resting with the Lord."
- E.A deboye.
That's obviously a personal opinion. He, Adeboye knows that saints on earth go to heaven.

Do you have any issue with his opinion/knowledge?

Even if it isn't 'for security reasons,'

The DG has the legal right to ban dresses or items he deems inappropriate via a 'mere' (oral) command.

Corps members should understand that they are in a military service and all commands MUST be obeyed. That's why they're called CORPS in the first place.

You don't protest in the military, you could get severely punished for that.

krattoss:
what happens when chicken and, goats die?

last time I checked, we re all animals but higher ones.

we kill snakes, lions and many others if we catch them. they in turn kill us if they catch and outsmart us.

so if u saying we got afterlife. that means they v got afterlife also.

They have an afterlife if they can think of one and you can prove it.

You have several abilities they do not have...and can never have, why do you rule out the possibility of you having an afterlife and they not having?


Think..

Squig:

I'm in my mid 20s and I'm getting married next month, we've been together for almost 5years. He is the love of my life and I've never doubted my love for him or the fact that I wanted a family with him. He's got everything I want in a man.

The problem is we started having issues about 6 months ago, we stopped talking like before and we are completely disconnected now especially on my end but we're still going ahead with the marriage plan and I still want to marry him.

I met another guy I am really attracted to and we've been talking about a lot. He knows I am having issues with my man and I can't tell him we are planning to get married.

I'm having doubts about my man now, I'm confused, I feel I'll be happier with this new guy, I'm thinking it's lust but it's getting more complicated. Should I go on with the wedding?

Feel free to talk sense into my head, I need to hear hard truths.

You need to understand that 'issues' in relationships are part of the relationship, your reaction(s) to them determines how far and how well you both go. If you leave your man, you WILL still have issues with the new man.

This new man you speak of is most likely the cause of your doubts in your man to the extent that you cannot even tell the new man you are getting married to your man, besides, you have said you are disconnected with your man especially on your own end.

I'm quite sure that if you see this new man with another lady who he is also attracted to (more than you), all your 'attraction' and 'feelings' for him will fade.

Think, sort out your issues with your man and stay with him, you have already said your man is the love of your life and he's got everything you want in a man...so, what else are you looking for?

StealthIdeals:
You have said you don't know me. That's why I won't hurl insults at me. Do you know the nature of the gang-up against me in that place? If I'm not spiritual, do you think I'll be alive today? Your childish reasoning stinks to the high heavens.

The 'gang up against you,' is most likely something you made up in your mind.

If you aren't satisfied with your job or your boss, make a complaint to the appropriate person(s). If you're still not, then resign your appointment.

You really need to work on the way you think and relate with others.

diplomat51:
........ It's a lie with the estimated amount. So, you are telling us that his odds was 73681.9 on 500 naira stake and 73681.9 odds for 300 stake respectively. It's not only fallacious in nature but also a way of misleading innocent Nigerians to patronize their company. I am telling you from experience that the 360bet is just promoting her betting site, and coming from this perspective of public deceit is very sardonic. Gracia!!!

It is very possible.

Most likely, same combination of games...and definitely, different stakes.

richardjemedafe1:
if i send back that money make i shit rice and beans

modified: to all those critisizin me,bad belle is allow...i rather speak my mind than to remain a hpcrte...i wil not return a chicken change 50k to a man who av make it in life..a man whom i knw have over 50million in hIs acc!!

If that guy return the money even God go vex for hIm

yoruba people and stingyness self!! I carry nyashh up 4 una

When the supposed 'future leaders' begin to speak this way, then you know Nigeria has a whole lot of work to do.

Don't forget he is just 22.

italo:



Now, one question for you and your like which I expect you to dodge: cc adsonstone


The Catholic Church has said that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ and has said it has observed many eucharistic occurrences affirming this.

Does that declaration make it a scientific fact?

Jesus explicitly mentioned/taught that the Eucharist is his body and blood (whatever that means), I believe it just as he said it...it is his body and blood.

It does not make it a 'scientific fact' so to speak. Jesus's declaration only means it is the truth that doesn't change.

'Scientific facts' are known to change repeatedly.

*I removed other monikers to avoid them getting too many mentions, just like I was getting.*

italo:

No. That is not hypocrisy. I'm perfectly free to choose to list only the good things to you...just like you're free to refuse to list any deeper life deed to me, even after implying they do good. You need to check the dictionary. It's free on google.

What do you call it when someone knows he has good and evil deeds, mentions the good deeds (when not asked) and refuses to mention the evil ones (even when asked) just to seem all entirely good to the world?

italo:

No, it's not a lie. You said those things were done by all denominations (correct me if I'm wrong). How can protestants establish universities that existed before Protestantism? How could protestants have established Easter and Christmas and the Gregorian Calendar that was named after Pope Gregory? How could protestants have preserved literacy by studying in monasteries that they didn't have in an era that they didn't exist?

That's wrong.
I never said it was done by all denominations.

Here's my post again;

.]
All of what you mentioned above is true and
good, including the body that participated... It's
Christianity, not necessarily Roman Catholicism.
[/quote]

I went further to say some deeds that other Christian bodies also did (and in saying that, I did not oppose the fact that the RCC also did that)...I pointed those other bodies contributed and what exactly they contributed.

.:

Prebysterians, Anglicans e.t.c are well known to
have ended sacrificial killings, slavery and many
other vices in so many regions. Many other good related to the ones you mentioned were brought about by non-Christian bodies.

Eg, related good by non-christian bodies such as Islamic Universities.

[quote author=italo:

No, it isnt. Because Science, in the modern sense of the word refers to the Scientific method in use today, not the ancient 'science' with with Aristotle discovered that the earth was the center of the universe?
In that sense, the Catholic Church practically invented science though Roger Bacon who put together the Scientific method at the Behest of the Pope.

"Several scientific methods thus emerged from
the medieval Muslim world by the early 11th
century, all of which emphasized experimentation
as well as quantification to varying degrees."
- Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/
History_of_scientific_method

Till date, science is still being developed upon.

italo:

You're deliberately lying when you say I said Bacon invented "scientific methods" when we both know I said he invented "the scientific method" and qualified it by saying it is the method currently in use today.

In today's science, quantification and experimentation are not enough. The same page you quoted give great detail of what Bacon invented that your ancients didn't practise. Read below:

Roger Bacon was inspired by the writings of Grosseteste. In his account of a method, Bacon described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and the need for independent verification. He recorded the way he had conducted his experiments in precise detail, perhaps with the idea that others could reproduce and independently test his results.

Infact, modern scientific method suggest that those mentioned above aren't still enough, more recently inductions and deductions and even falsifibility etc are necessary for valid conclusions...some of which are not part of what Bacon developed.

It largely proves that Bacon only developed on what was already existing and the whole scientific process is still being developed upon.

Look, scientific method, the scientific methods, scientific methodology refer to essentially the same thing that has been around for a long time and being continually developed upon by many people. So, I am not 'deliberately lying' as accused

italo:

Priests who are scientists...Who are inspired by the support of the Catholic Church for the sciences...many of who learnt and worked in Catholic science institutions designed to pursue science aggressively...some of whose works and research were directly sponsored by the Church...many of whom dedicated their greatest works to the Church, Pope etc...

Yes...I must give the Church credit for these works.

If you show me a priest who was inspired and encouraged by the Church to do bad and I will call his evil an evil of the Church.

You haven't mentioned such a priest so there is no hypocrisy.

"The Church teaches no wrong"

Many of who they've inspired have taught "science" wrongly, so why ascribe it to the Church?

You may say the Church teaches no wrong in "faith and morals" but it doesn't change the fact that it has inspired people who taught wrongly.

italo:

I don't understand this one. Please explain or rephrase.

It is hypocrisy and self deceit when you
refuse to claim that catholicism is christianity yet fail to prove that Kepler and Boyle were roman catholics...after mentioning them.

Corrected.


Can we agree that you're trying to take credit for someone's work if you can't prove that they're Roman Catholics?

italo:

No, it is not. I repeat: strictly speaking, Catholicism is Christianity and Christianity is Catholicism.

The piece above was not my write-up. It was part of a wiki article to show how Christianity influenced civilization. The authors mixed non-Catholics because they were looking at Christianity in a very liberal sense. However, the vast majority of the entire page referred to specifically Catholic deeds...as I have proved by analyzing the article in detail...but you did not like to see it.

So I don't have to prove that all the people in the page are Catholics. They don't have to be.

In that case, do you acknowledge that you mentioned the good deeds of non catholics when you were mentioning the good deeds of Catholicism? I just need a Yes or a No, no long epistles.

italo:


I'm talking about Science in the modern sense of the word, which mainly refers mainly to the Scientific method that Roger Bacon developed...with full observation, experimentation, verification, peer review etc

Not the science that Aristotle and others used to discover that the earth was flat...without proof.

See this shameless liar ooo;
You no dey ever tire?


"Aristotle accepted the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds around 330 BC, and knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on."

"Around 330 BC, Aristotle maintained on the basis of physical theory and observational evidence that the Earth was spherical, and reported on an estimate on the circumference."

- Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

...and you're somewhere there
, posting ignorantly and lying on Aristotle that he discovered that the earth was flat--without proof when history clearly says he accepted and maintained the idea of a spherical earth---based on observational evidence.

italo:


What lie or hypocrisy?

That the Catholic Church invented the modern university system...

That it is the biggest Charity in the world?

That it practically invented Science when Friar Roger Bacon advanced the Scientific method at the behest of the Pope...which is the way Science is practised today?

It is hypocrisy when you say the roman catholic church does/has done good and evil...and you list the good and refuse to list some of the numerous evil....and even claiming to be tired to list them only for you to return in less than 12 hours with other epistles of good.

It is a lie when you allege that I'm trying to take the glory for another person's work.

It is a lie when you say that the catholic church 'invented' science.

It is a lie when you say Bacon 'invented' scientific methods when history has it that;
"Several scientific methods thus emerged from
the medieval Muslim world by the early 11th
century, all of which emphasized experimentation
as well as quantification to varying degrees."

- Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/
History_of_scientific_method

Infact, scientific methods/science has been around for over 1500years BC.

It is hypocrisy when you describe the work of priests who are scientists as 'the work of the roman Catholic church.' I wonder when a good individual work becomes the work of catholicism while evil works of priests remain their individual work.

It is hypocrisy and self deceit when you refuse to claim that catholicism is christianity yet fail to prove that Kepler and Boyle were roman catholics.

It is hypocrisy and self deceit to claim that catholicism is christianity and post that;

"According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005), a
review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prizes).[84] Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace,[85] 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics,[85] 62% in Medicine,[85] 54% in Economics[85] and 49.5% of all Literature awards.[85]"

Yet, you fail to prove that those 'Christians' were roman catholics.