₦airaland Forum

MariaGoretti:
pardon depends on her husband

How you take copy this ur response from my mind...

Pope moves to simplify annulment process

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — While a juridical process is necessary for making accurate judgments, the Catholic Church’s marriage annulment process must be quicker, cheaper and much more of a pastoral ministry, Pope Francis said.

Rewriting a section of the Latin-rite Code of Canon Law and of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Pope Francis said he was not “promoting the nullity of marriages, but the quickness of the processes, as well as a correct simplicity” of the procedures so that Catholic couples are not “oppressed by the shadow of doubt” for prolonged periods.

The Vatican released Sept. 8 the texts of two papal documents, “Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus” (“The Lord Jesus, the Gentle Judge”) for the Latin-rite church and “Mitis et misericors Iesus,” (“The Meek and Merciful Jesus”) for the Eastern Catholic churches.

The changes, including the option of a brief process without the obligatory automatic appeal, go into effect Dec. 8, the opening day of the Year of Mercy.

The rules for the Latin and Eastern churches are substantially the same since the differences in texts refer mainly to the different structures of the hierarchy with Latin churches having bishops and Eastern churches having eparchs and patriarchs.

Pope Francis said the changes in the annulment process were motivated by “concern for the salvation of souls,” and particularly “charity and mercy” toward those who feel alienated from the church because of their marriage situations and the perceived complexity of the church’s annulment process.

The reformed processes were drafted by a special committee Pope Francis established a year earlier. Among the criteria he said guided their work, the first he listed was the possibility of there being “only one executive sentence in favor of nullity” when the local bishop or judge delegated by him had the “moral certainty” that the marriage was not valid. Previously an appeal was automatic and a declaration of nullity had to come from two tribunals.

Msgr. Pio Vito Pinto, dean of the Roman Rota, a Vatican court, and president of the commission that drafted the new rules, told reporters Pope Francis asked for updates throughout the year, sought a review by four “great canonists” not involved in the drafting and in the end adopted the changes with “great seriousness, but also great serenity.”

The changes made by Pope Francis, particularly the responsibility and trust placed in local bishops, are the most substantial changes in the church’s marriage law since the pontificate of Pope Benedict XIV in the mid-1700s, Msgr. Pinto said. Even with the 1917 and 1983 new Codes of Canon Law, the process for recognizing the nullity of a marriage remained “substantially unchanged,” he said.

“Putting the poor at the center is what distinguishes the reform of Pope Francis from those made by Pope Pius X and Pope Benedict XIV,” Msgr. Pinto said.

In fact, Pope Francis ordered that the “gratuity of the procedure be assured so that, in a matter so closely tied to the salvation of souls, the church — by demonstrating to the faithful that she is a generous mother — may demonstrate the gratuitous love of Christ, which saves us all.”

Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Commission for Legislative Texts, who also was a member of the commission, insisted the pope’s new rules were not about “annulling marriages,” but about recognizing and declaring the nullity of a marriage, in other words, declaring that it never existed as a valid sacrament.

Although the new rules remove the obligation that a declaration of nullity automatically be appealed, he said, it does not remove the right of one of the parties to appeal the decision. However, he said, “and this is a great innovation,” if the appeals court believes the appeal is “obviously a delaying tactic,” the appeals court can issue a decree confirming the nullity of the marriage without a full process.

Msgr. Alejandro Bunge, secretary of the commission and a member of the Roman Rota, said the new processes are motivated by recognition of the church as a “field hospital,” as Pope Francis has described it. “For those who have special injuries — a marriage null from the beginning — we will have intensive care” in the form of more rapid annulment procedures.

While many marriage cases will continue to require time in order to arrive at the truth, he said, the longer procedure will be reserved to those cases in which it is not obvious that the marriage was null from the beginning and in which the couple does not agree that a real marriage never existed
http://cnstopstories.com/2015/09/08/pope-simplifies-annulment-process-asks-that-it-be-free-of-charge/

What do you think about the pope's move?
Won't this encourage more cases of annulment?

Rich4god:
lol... d pardon here depends on the hubby....

I was once in a wedding mass, during the vow, the lady, instead of calling the man's name, called him "my prince" (I hv forgotten the actual pet name that she used.) One of the officiating priest had to tell her to repeat the vow using the man's name. To some of us, it might not seem like a big deal. But tomorrow, the man may seek for annulment claiming that the lady's vow wasn't made to him as she didn't use his name. I hope you got my point. Such mistake isn't supposed to be made in preparation for marriage.

Yeah I've heard this before and I strongly support it. The idea of getting wedded to 'pet names' never appealed to me though.

lets wish our Lady a happy birthday.......commenr on this thread
https://www.nairaland.com/2584614/today-nativity-blessed-mother-mary

dmandy:
Sir,

It is you who judged...read your post.



Be that as it may, what do you seek here? Seems to me that you are insecure where you are now. You can still come back....The Holy Church is welcoming.

On the contrary, I'm as secure as I've ever been.

Faith is empty belief, without proof or evidence. Reason, or logical thinking is the exact opposite.

I live in a country where religious bigotry has become the order of the day.
Young people are being convinced that all they need to do in life is 'believe' and all other actions are immaterial.
People in power are constantly using 'dark forces' as seemingly valid excuses for their failure to perform at various levels.
People are being coached to 'pray away' their illnesses, problems and financial issues.
And religious institutions have maintained their ways of turning humans against each other in constant disputes over who is serving the one true God in the right way.

Religion and belief has been embeded into Nigerian society to the extent that you can't ignore it, even if you tried. All for the sake of imaginary Gods and holy books that have no reasonable foundations, born from the ignorance of humanity while trying to explain things that weren't understood thousands of years ago.

I'm here to let everyone who has started having doubts know that there's life outside the walls of religious institutions. And to make people like you understand that organised religion is a scam that is ultimately more harmful than beneficial to humanity.

italo:
Bro, what is this "reason" you found?

Logical thinking. Truth. Instead of empty faith in baseless ideologies.

Chizzled06:
Logical thinking. Truth. Instead of empty faith in baseless ideologies.

Let us test your proposal a little.

You talk about "logical thinking" and "truth."

Can you prove that my faith in God is empty?

Can you prove that Christian ideology is baseless?

Can you prove that God is not real?

Chizzled06:
Logical thinking. Truth. Instead of empty faith in baseless ideologies.

Let us test your proposal a little.

You talk about "logical thinking" and "truth."

Can you prove that my faith in God is empty?

Can you prove that Christian ideology is baseless?

Can you prove that God is not real?

Or do you just have an empty belief in these statements and your baseless ideas? - The same thing you accuse us of.

italo:
Let us test your proposal a little.

You talk about "logical thinking" and "truth."

Can you prove that my faith in God is empty?

Can you prove that Christian ideology is baseless?

Can you prove that God is not real?

'Faith' is empty, because by definition is belief without proof or evidence.
Current Christian ideology is based on the words of the bible, which happens to be a collection of mythical books.

Asking me to prove that God is not real is like a kid asking you to prove that his imaginary friend doesn't exist.
Nevertheless, I'll leave you with this quote from Epicurus;

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Chizzled06:
'Faith' is empty, because by definition is belief without proof or evidence.

Mr 'logical thinking,' By whose definition?

Chizzled06:
Current Christian ideology is based on the words of the bible, which happens to be a collection of mythical books.

1. Prove your claim that the books of the bible are mythical. Or do you want us to have empty belief in what you say?

2. Are you aware that Christianity existed before the New Testament was ever written, Mr 'Logical Thinking?'

Chizzled06:
Asking me to prove that God is not real is like a kid asking you to prove that his imaginary friend doesn't exist.

In other words, you can't prove your claim that God doesn't exist. You just have an empty belief that there is no God, right?

Now, is that "logical thinking?"

Chizzled06:
Nevertheless, I'll leave you with this quote from Epicurus;

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

I can't respond to Epicurus who is not here to defend himself.

I will respond to the above if you claim you have the same thoughts as the author. Do you?

Chizzled06:
On the contrary, I'm as secure as I've ever been.

Faith is empty belief, without proof or evidence. Reason, or logical thinking is the exact opposite.

I live in a country where religious bigotry has become the order of the day.
Young people are being convinced that all they need to do in life is 'believe' and all other actions are immaterial.
People in power are constantly using 'dark forces' as seemingly valid excuses for their failure to perform at various levels.
People are being coached to 'pray away' their illnesses, problems and financial issues.
And religious institutions have maintained their ways of turning humans against each other in constant disputes over who is serving the one true God in the right way.

Religion and belief has been embeded into Nigerian society to the extent that you can't ignore it, even if you tried. All for the sake of imaginary Gods and holy books that have no reasonable foundations, born from the ignorance of humanity while trying to explain things that weren't understood thousands of years ago.

I'm here to let everyone who has started having doubts know that there's life outside the walls of religious institutions. And to make people like you understand that organised religion is a scam that is ultimately more harmful than beneficial to humanity.

I have a little problem with people who attack other peoples beliefs. I see it as a mark of insecurity or a stunt to feel relevant. I don't have anything against you or your new found 'reason'. Good, just don't offend people.

My anger with you is that you saw clearly the topic of the thread, and you rushed in to make a fool of everyone here. If you have a problem with faith or religion or Nigerian youth, why don't you open a thread?

@Bold, That is what Catholic church preaches against everyday and every night. Your faith or 'your reason as you call it' should be expressed in your actions.

@italics, the growth of disorganized religion is proportional to the spread of evil.

Thanks, but I suggest you leave the thread. Be a gentle man or gentle woman.

italo:
Mr 'logical thinking,' By whose definition?


1. Prove your claim that the books of the bible are mythical. Or do you want us to have empty belief in what you say?

2. Are you aware that Christianity existed before the New Testament was ever written, Mr 'Logical Thinking?'


In other words, you can't prove your claim that God doesn't exist. You just have an empty belief that there is no God, right?


Now, is that "logical thinking?"

I can't respond to Epicurus who is not here to defend himself.

I will respond to the above if you claim you have the same thoughts as the author. Do you?

Thoughts similar to Epicurus' initially sprung up at about the age of 6, the foundations of my eventual disbelief.
The conception of an all powerful, 'good' God doesn't quite add up when you access the daily happenings in our world.

I'm aware of the history of Christianity; the varying 'gospel accounts' circulating amongst early Christians, the lost scrolls, synoptic gospels, the cannonization involving the selection of books you currently know as the biblical testaments.

If a God really wanted to pass a sacred text unto his creatures, then did quite a hatchet job of it. The old testament, or Jewish Toral as I prefer to call it, is a collection of Jewish folklore. An awful patched up work of various authors typically exemplified in Genesis 1&2; two varying accounts of the creation story. Why so many discrepancies? and quite frankly, untrue messages about our world, that only reflect the perception and understanding of the universe by prehistoric herdsmen.

Asking me to prove the non existence of Your God is quite a humbling request, considering there are also 100,000 other Gods that need disproving, if we start heading down that road. You can't 'prove' the non existence of something imaginary.

dmandy:
I have a little problem with people who attack other peoples beliefs. I see it as a mark of insecurity or a stunt to feel relevant. I don't have anything against you or your new found 'reason'. Good, just don't offend people.

My anger with you is that you saw clearly the topic of the thread, and you rushed in to make a fool of everyone here. If you have a problem with faith or religion or Nigerian youth, why don't you open a thread?

@Bold, That is what Catholic church preaches against everyday and every night. Your faith or 'your reason as you call it' should be expressed in your actions.

@italics, the growth of disorganized religion is proportional to the spread of evil.

Thanks, but I suggest you leave the thread. Be a gentle man or gentle woman.

That you take 'offence' in someone questioning your belief highlights your insecurity.

The fact that you think belief in Your God & your way of 'serving' him and Morality in Society are mutually inclusive is a typical example of ignorance about the way of life of 'unbelievers' or rational thinkers.

Yes, I clearly saw the topic of the trend and proceeded to highlight my views that your belief is, quite frankly, rubbish. You have a right to believe whatever you choose to, but I'm also entitled to question it, especially when you make it public business.

Getting angry might seem like the last resort when you have nothing constructive to say, but I advice you to calm down, try to understand my views and enlighten me if there's something you think I don't already know.

I hope one day you eventually start to think for yourself and see religion for what it truly is.

Chizzled06:
That you take 'offence' in someone questioning your belief highlights your insecurity.

The fact that you think belief in Your God & your way of 'serving' him and Morality in Society are mutually inclusive is a typical example of ignorance about the way of life of 'unbelievers' or rational thinkers.

Yes, I clearly saw the topic of the trend and proceeded to highlight my views that your belief is, quite frankly, rubbish. You have a right to believe whatever you choose to, but I'm also entitled to question it, especially when you make it public business.

Getting angry might seem like the last resort when you have nothing constructive to say, but I advice you to calm down, try to understand my views and enlighten me if there's something you think I don't already know.

I hope one day you eventually start to think for yourself and see religion for what it truly is.

Okay, keep your hope alive.

Obviously, you don't understand my stand. If you want me to understand your views why not create a thread stating your views and not derail this onem This is entirely a different topic.

Anyways I am done with you on this issue. We can talk about you and your belief outside here.

Chizel06, everybody is entitled to believe in whatever they like. I can question yours not to castigate you but to understand you.

We have embraced ours just as you've embraced yours...and we love it that way just as you are loving yours.

So I don't see the need for the back and forth questions and answers.

Nna or Nne, we don hear you..now can this thread have sone peace or prolly a beneficial teaching??

Chizzled06:
Thoughts similar to Epicurus' initially sprung up at about the age of 6, the foundations of my eventual disbelief.
The conception of an all powerful, 'good' God doesn't quite add up when you access the daily happenings in our world.

I'm aware of the history of Christianity; the varying 'gospel accounts' circulating amongst early Christians, the lost scrolls, synoptic gospels, the cannonization involving the selection of books you currently know as the biblical testaments.

If a God really wanted to pass a sacred text unto his creatures, then did quite a hatchet job of it. The old testament, or Jewish Toral as I prefer to call it, is a collection of Jewish folklore. An awful patched up work of various authors typically exemplified in Genesis 1&2; two varying accounts of the creation story. Why so many discrepancies? and quite frankly, untrue messages about our world, that only reflect the perception and understanding of the universe by prehistoric herdsmen.

Asking me to prove the non existence of Your God is quite a humbling request, considering there are also 100,000 other Gods that need disproving, if we start heading down that road. You can't 'prove' the non existence of something imaginary.

I thought you knew your onions but you failed at the first hurdle.

You claimed to have found logical thinking but you're not thinking logically.

That is why you avoided my questions.

1. You claimed faith is empty by definition but failed to tell us 'whose definition.'

2. You claim the bible is mythical...without proof.

3. You claimed that Christian ideology is based on the bible. Then you refused to answer whether you're aware that Christianity existed before the NT or not.

4. You claimed that God doesn't exist. You failed to prove your claim.

It seems like you're a baby wannabe Atheist who is looking for christians to practise your shooting skills on. You think it makes you smart...but your failure to even answer those simple questions expose how dumb and uninformed you are.

I advise you to run off before you expose your mental deficiency a lot more.

italo:
I thought you knew your onions but you failed at the first hurdle.

You claimed to have found logical thinking but you're not thinking logically.

That is why you avoided my questions.

1. You claimed faith is empty by definition but failed to tell us 'whose definition.'

2. You claim the bible is mythical...without proof.

3. You claimed that Christian ideology is based on the bible. Then you refused to answer whether you're aware that Christianity existed before the NT or not.

4. You claimed that God doesn't exist. You failed to prove your claim.

It seems like you're a baby wannabe Atheist who is looking for christians to practise your shooting skills on. You think it makes you smart...but your failure to even answer those simple questions expose how dumb and uninformed you are.

I advise you to run off before you expose your mental deficiency a lot more.

If you couldn't find the answers to your questions in my post then you're way too thick to be worth trying to reason with.
You're so far deep into indoctrination that you can't have a rational conversation and use your brain the process.

Your God is dead.
And that is a metaphor, the only real aspect of that statement is death.

Chizzled06:
If you couldn't find the answers to your questions in my post then you're way too thick to be worth trying to reason with.
You're so far deep into indoctrination that you can't have a rational conversation and use your brain the process.

Your God is dead.
And that is a metaphor, the only real aspect of that statement is death.

I've not even claimed that God exists or that I'm a Christian and you're telling me 'my God is dead' and that I'm indoctrinated. That is irrational thinking.

What if I'm just an Agnostic seeking good answers from you to make up my mind on whether God exists or not?

My friend, you seem even more indoctrinated than Christians.

You've been indoctrinated that God doesn't exist...the Bible is mythical...faith is empty...christian ideology is based on the bible...

...and you can't prove these things.

You've even been so indoctrinated that you expect everyone to believe you without evidence.

You also falsely believe that anyone who asks you to prove your claim is an indoctrinated Christian.

Go and ask Epicurus and others who indoctrinated you for answers...then come back.

You're still a baby...we've consistently humbled your fathers on this platform.

Greetings all.

btoks:
Greetings all.

Greetings, bro.

italo:
I've not even claimed that God exists or that I'm a Christian and you're telling me 'my God is dead' and that I'm indoctrinated. That is irrational thinking.

What if I'm just an Agnostic seeking good answers from you to make up my mind on whether God exists or not?

My friend, you seem even more indoctrinated than Christians.

You've been indoctrinated that God doesn't exist...the Bible is mythical...faith is empty...christian ideology is based on the bible...

...and you can't prove these things.

You've even been so indoctrinated that you expect everyone to believe you without evidence.

You also falsely believe that anyone who asks you to prove your claim is an indoctrinated Christian.

Go and ask Epicurus and others who indoctrinated you for answers...then come back.

You're still a baby...we've consistently humbled your fathers on this platform.

Now you're confused and disillusioned. Refusing to admit to what you believe in, just to argue out your ignorant point.

My "claims" have been proven by 500 years of science and free thinking. Physicists, Biologists, Archeologists, Paleontologists and Cosmologists all arriving at tested and proven conclusions about the origin of the universe and the history of mankind. A long way off the accounts of prehistoric herdsmen who typically thought the moon was a source of light and the earth was at the centre of the universe.

The bitter truth is that this is not up for argument as facts will always remain facts, and fiction, for example Christianity, will always remain fiction.

You can choose to ignore the truth and cling onto the false dreams the white men sold your fathers, or learn to think for yourself and see things as they really are.

Chizzled06:
Now you're confused and disillusioned. Refusing to admit to what you believe in, just to argue out your ignorant point.

Forget about my belief. I never made any claims or professed anything to you. Now, I'm 'Agnostic.'

Prove to me that your claims are true.
[quote author=Chizzled06 post=37878635]My "claims" have been proven by 500 years of science and free thinking. Physicists, Biologists, Archeologists, Paleontologists and Cosmologists all arriving at tested and proven conclusions about the origin of the universe and the history of mankind.

1. Were you there when the Archeologists, Cosmological, Paleontologists, Physicist, Biologists were arriving at these conclusions or do you just believe what the websites, journalists and publishers told you that the scientists said they did...just like Christians believe the Church?

2. Can you provide a scientific document that proves that God doesn't exist...and that the Bible is mythical?

3. Even scientists can't have a consensus as to the origin of the world and mankind. No?

4. What scientific version of the origin of the world do you hold as truth?

Chizzled06:
l

A long way off the accounts of prehistoric herdsmen who typically thought the moon was a source of light and the earth was at the centre of the universe.

Aristotle was a scientist...and he and most scientists of his day said the earth was the centre of the universe. Galileo was a scientist and he said the Sun was the fixed centre of the universe and solar system and it was immobile.

These are wrong. Scientists can be just as erroneous as the most ancient herdsmen. Was their work also mythical? To this day, there are errors/possibility of errors in science. Is science also mythical?

So the ancient herdsmen thinking the earth was the centre in no way means that God doesn't exist and the bible was mythical.

Chizzled06:
The bitter truth is that this is not up for argument as facts will always remain facts, and fiction, for example Christianity, will always remain fiction.

You don't prove something logically...by repeating it. Prove that Christianity is fiction.

Chizzled06:
You can choose to ignore the truth and cling onto the false dreams the white men sold your fathers, or learn to think for yourself and see things as they really are.

I'm not holding to any dreams...thats why I'm asking you for proof of your claims. It seems like you are the one holding on to dreams that white Atheist scientists sold you. You have no proof for what you believe, yet you castigate Christians for not showing you proof because your white Atheist masters told you to harass them.

You are still dodging my questions:

1. By whose definition of faith did you claim "faith is empty by definition?"

2. Do you admit that Christianity existed before the Bible?

*dont be afraid to answer all my quesyions. Your ignorance will only be exposed, you won't be flogged.

[quote author=italo post=37885481][/quote]Faith: (noun) Strong believe in God or religous doctrine based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
It's truly difficult to try to reason with someone clearly bound by the mental shackles of this brand of ignorance.

So in a nutshell, you've admitted the bible isn't 100% truth. There's a start.

Juxtaposing testable, constantly scrutinized scientific theories based on facts/ evidence with the 'Take my word for it' efforts of the church? Seriously?

If you 'understood' science, you wouldn't compare the convictions and accuracy of modern science with the works of Aristotle & the 16th century breakthrough efforts of Galileo.


As I mentioned earlier, you seem to enjoy arguing blindly. Sadly, more so than reasoning rationally.

Pardon me if you're upset that I prefer to believe the findings of the people who made communication via this medium possible, as opposed to a bunch of books selected from Jewish and Roman folklore.

Chizzled06:
bunch of books selected from Jewish and Roman folklore.

Didn't read much of the previous posts but seems to me that you pride yourself in being one who holds strongly to reason, logic and the scientific process.

Could you, as the reasonable person I presume you are, explain in very clear terms how you arrived at the quoted conclusion?

Good luck with that

Still avoiding my questions:


1. Were you there when the Archeologists, Cosmological, Paleontologists, Physicist, Biologists were arriving at these conclusions or do you just believe what the websites, journalists and publishers told you that the scientists said they did...just like Christians believe the Church?

2. Can you provide a scientific document that proves that God doesn't exist...and that the Bible is mythical?

3. Even scientists can't have a consensus as to the origin of the world and mankind. No?

4. What scientific version of the origin of the world do you hold as truth?

5. Do you admit that Christianity existed before the Bible?

Chizzled06:
Faith: (noun) Strong believe in God or religous doctrine based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
It's truly difficult to try to reason with someone clearly bound by the mental shackles of this brand of ignorance.

6. Whose definition is the above? The Catholic definition or yours?

Chizzled06:
So in a nutshell, you've admitted the bible isn't 100% truth. There's a start.

Never said or admitted that.

Chizzled06:
Juxtaposing testable, constantly scrutinized scientific theories based on facts/ evidence with the 'Take my word for it' efforts of the church? Seriously?

Then show us the 'scientific theories' you have scrutinized. Or do you just take the websites'/journalists'/scientists' word for it?

Chizzled06:
If you 'understood' science, you wouldn't compare the convictions and accuracy of modern science with the works of Aristotle & the 16th century breakthrough efforts of Galileo.

Obviously, your blind faith in scientists stems from you ignorance of the happenings in the science community. Please read the links below and be educated about the widespread fraud and misdeeds perpetrated by your modern scientists to deliberately spread lies and errors as "facts."
http://www.wired.com/2013/01/worst-science-misdeeds-2012/
http://kalw.org/post/misdeeds-not-mistakes-behind-most-scientific-retractions
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/a-scientific-look-at-bad-science/399371/

Chizzled06:
As I mentioned earlier, you seem to enjoy arguing blindly. Sadly, more so than reasoning rationally.

Because I ask for proof of your claims and show you how science is riddled with errors?

Chizzled06:
Pardon me if you're upset that I prefer to believe the findings of the people who made communication via this medium possible, as opposed to a bunch of books selected from Jewish and Roman folklore.

Let me use this medium to cure your ignorance a little more.

The man who invented Wireless Telegraphy which paved the way for the communication system we are using now is: Catholic Priest, Fr Jozef Murgas and his most important "findings" were that God, the Church and the Bible are true.

Will you still believe his findings or will you now jump ship like a typical scatter-brained Atheist?

italo:
Let me use this medium to cure your ignorance a little more.

The man who invented Wireless Telegraphy which paved the way for the communication system we are using now is: Catholic Priest, Fr Jozef Murgas and his most important "findings" were that God, the Church and the Bible are true.

Will you still believe his findings or will you now jump ship like a typical scatter-brained Atheist?

Finally, you make actual statements, shedding the light on your unquestionable ignorance.

Firstly, The priest you mention had no contribution WHATSOEVER to "wireless telegraphy". We have Hertz & Marconi as the principal innovators to thank for that. The dishonest extent you're going to strengthen your propaganda is baffling.

Next, a fundamental component of current internet communication is the contribution of satellites in orbit. Developed based on principles conceived by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and other physicists who have no regard whatsoever for your vain God.

I reiterate, the day you choose to begin to think for yourself will be the day you start to truly live.
My work here is done.

Abeg all these people speaking bigi big grammars and dropping text book like comments... Abeg mk no find another thread...

SalC:
How was your exams?

wao, fine thanks

Chizzled06:
Finally, you make actual statements, shedding the light on your unquestionable ignorance.

Firstly, The priest you mention had no contribution WHATSOEVER to "wireless telegraphy". We have Hertz & Marconi as the principal innovators to thank for that. The dishonest extent you're going to strengthen your propaganda is baffling.

Next, a fundamental component of current internet communication is the contribution of satellites in orbit. Developed based on principles conceived by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and other physicists who have no regard whatsoever for your vain God.

I reiterate, the day you choose to begin to think for yourself will be the day you start to truly live.
My work here is done.

Since you only replied the Fr. Murgas issue, I take it that you have no answer to the others.

1. You just believe what scientists say without scrutinizing their work...even when they have been proven to teach lies as "fact."

2. You can't provide a scientific document that proves God doesn't exist.

3. Scientists can't agree...and you can't say the version of the origin of the world you believe. You're confused.

3. You're afraid to admit that Christianity existed before bible because you lied that Christianity is based on bible.

4. You can't say whose definition of faith because it is not that of the Church. You're challenging Christians based on your own fallacy.

6. "The Rev. Jozef Murgas is a pioneer of the first wireless telegraph."
http://wnep.com/2015/06/08/fr-jozef-murgas-room-open-to-public/

And let me educate you further on Catholicism and science. Read wiki:

"Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of scientific fields: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarckism; Friar Gregor Mendel (1822–84) pioneered genetics and Fr Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model. The Jesuits have been particularly active, notably in astronomy. Church patronage of sciences continues through elite institutions like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Vatican Observatory."

"Scientific fields with important foundational contributions from Catholic scientists included: physics (Galileo), acoustics (Mersenne), mineralogy (Agricola), modern chemistry (Lavoisier), modern anatomy (Vesalius), stratigraphy (Steno), bacteriology (Kircher and Pasteur), genetics (Mendel), analytical geometry (Descartes), heliocentric cosmology (Copernicus) atomic theory (Boscovich) and the Big Bang Theory on the origins of the universe (Lemaître). Jesuits devised modern lunar nomenclature and stellar classification and some 35 craters of the moon are named after Jesuits, among whose great scientific polymaths were Francesco Grimaldi and Giambattista Riccioli. The Jesuits also introduced Western science to India and China and translated local texts to be sent to Europe for study. Missionaries contributed significantly to the fields of anthropology, zoology and botany during Europe's Age of Discovery."

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

When are you going to thank me for educating you?

Rich4god:
Abeg all these people speaking bigi big grammars and dropping text book like comments... Abeg mk no find another thread...

No vex. Good morning. God bless you.

Sal C, I see you.

italo:
No vex. Good morning. God bless you.

Sal C, I see you.

Aww brother me, you saw well joor. Hope you are good?

Gud morning e-fam it been long ooo where is everyone, miss you all