Peruvian Judges know the score

So, one more deceitful liar trying to peddle Protestant nonsense has decided that the smart thing to do is try and bullshit his way past the facts I present with the usual outrageous lies, conflation, sophistry and other standard MO of these morons that somehow think will work if *they* are the ones to do it, because the other 9000 morons before them just weren’t as smart you see.

This one is a particularly retarded version of idiot because he calls himself Lord Mountbanks on Social Galactic, assuming he’s too smart for you to realise he is actually telling you he’s an outrageous liar right there in his nickname but you’re just not well-read enough to notice it you see. Isn’t that oh so clever, haw-haw-haw!

Never mind an eyeroll. These idiots deserve the Indiana Jones with the swordsman treatment. 

Without further ado, here is his “review” of my short book Believe! Done, supposedly, with a heavy heart you see, aren’t we oh so pious while we lie outright like a festering pus-filled scab on the tongue of a regular wormtongue.

My words in bold italic, his in skinny normie.

It is with a heavy heart that I type this. Where to begin? I don’t even remember where I first heard of the Kurgan.

I watched a few of his streams, a few of his other videos, and rather liked the guy. He made salient points, was obviously an intelligent man, and there was a good deal of common ground between us.

and then I became aware of his Protestant bashing. At first, I thought it was a schtick, as at times it could be really funny. (Did I mention he can be funny too?)

Alas, it isn’t a schtick.

Having read most of ‘Reclaiming the Catholic Church’, and all of ‘Believe!’, I have to conclude that he considers us protestants to be… Enemies of the Church. Not rivals, or wayward children. Enemies. Of the ‘one true Church’.

Not accurate but fine. Some Protestants are just morons, some are fine humans though totally deceived and some are active enemies of truth. Pretty much the same as the cross section of most humans. That said; anyone who knowingly hides, perverts and lies about the truth is indeed an enemy.

*Sigh*. I doubt many of you will read this, and I know that ‘rivers of ink (and blood) have been spilled’ on this subject, but here we go; a review of the relevant part of ‘Believe!’ i.e. Chapter III, protestants.

For disliking binary thinking, he does it off the start; ‘the Church… must be one of these three denominations’. Why? Why not in all three? (because it dosn’t fit the ‘one true church’ narrative)

For an idiot, you sure do act like an idiot.

Based on your logic, every gnostic heresy, every random Muslim who’s a decent man, and ANY interpretation at all of facts, truth and reality is all one. Why, you’re just like Bergoglio. According to you both, Jesus sang Kumbaya and drank grape juice and interpreth as thou will is the whole of the law.

What a snivelling lying little turd of a half-man you are.

I do like judging by fruits; have not all three of these produced Godly men? Have not the protestant denominations as well? The Catholics had many men of science, so did the protestants. Men of industry, war.  

Individuals do not make the Church. The community does. What are the fruits of Protestantism?

The industrial Revolution and the consequential mechanisation of human beings.

Divorce 

Contraception

Abortion

40,000 denominations and counting and the utter secularisation of Christianity.

Sexual dysphoria misnamed “gender fluidity” and all the other utter nonsense originate from Protestant countries, not Ex-Catholic ones.

Compare that to the CIVILISATIONS that Catholicism created.

The Crusades; A favorite topic. Indeed, Christendom was well served by them. The only shame is that the latin kingdoms were left to wither, and fall one by one. I’ll add a counterpoint; it was protestants who ended the mohammedan european slave trade, and eventually put paid to their caliphate.

Yes. Christianity is central to Western civilization, and Catholicism essentially WAS Christianity in the west for three quarters of Christianities existence. No argument.

‘…it is absolutely not in doubt that the Catholic Church is more responsible for the spread of Christianity on planet Earth…’ ummm… source? way of measuring? a bold claim, though not impossible. We protestants, if we are behind, can’t be too far behind, though, and have had 1500 less years to work on it.

This is so genuinely retarded that it really doesn’t require any answer at all.

Anyone who has ever read even a child’s history book is aware of how stupid the above paragraph is, and anyone who does not is clearly of an IQ that cannot possibly matter in the scheme of things since they have the intellectual equivalent of tree moss.

And now we come to the ‘fun’ bit, where narratives collide.

What was the purpouse of the Reformation, according to Filotto? I’ll let you judge the section yourself… It’s… colorful. It is also pure ad hominem.

He definitely doesn’t think that the theses had any merit, or that the various German princes, or the English monarch who supported Luther did so for any reason other than their own vanity and moral decadence.

Well, let us then count the facts:

Did Luther want to have sex with nuns? Why yes, yes he did.

Did he swear like a sailor, eat and drink like a pig and suggest raping the maid if the wife was unwilling? Yes. Yes he did.

As for the English King (Henry, the blank firing VIII) did he support Luther when he first came out with his nonsense? No. No he did not.

So when did he? Well, when he wanted to murder-divorce his wife/s of course, and the Pope wouldn’t let him.

These are historical facts that anyone with even a shred of honesty can verify for themselves in 30 seconds EVEN on notoriously converged Google. 

And let’s not forget that noted and Protestant historian Rodney Stark has made a very clear, factually supported and undeniable case for the simple fact that the so-called princes who went Protestant did so for one reason and one reason alone: money. Because it allowed them to not pay any to the Catholic Church. As for the “merits” of the Protestant argument, again, Professor Stark proves beyond doubt that literally almost no one, including the princes, even knew what they were or could articulate any of them. 

The reformation had very little to do with dogma or truth and everything to do with land, money and the sexual perversions of the ex-monk and sterile King.

Them’s the facts, read them and weep Protty.

As for the 1500 year strawman… Really Kurgan? Is that something Luther claimed?

Then we come back to the ‘one true Church’ bit. No, Kurgan. The Church doesn’t have to be a single denomination.

Yes. It does. But you’d have to have actually read the New Testament to know that. And I note you have not referenced a single one of the passages I refer to here but only later to try and confuse the issue. I am now going to surmise that in addition to being a deceitful intentional, conscious liar like Bergoglio and his sort, we should probably keep an eye out in case you have their other proclivities towards children. I mean so far you have mirrored their behaviour exactly, as anyone who has read Reclaiming the Catholic Church will know.

Sola Scriptura:

1. This is, honestly, a question I have had, and it is where tradition and scholarship are quite handy.

2. You are, I assume, referring to the Deuterocanonicals, or Apocrypha? The books that at the time of the reformation there were still questions about them being scripture? Yeah, I wonder why he left those out.

   You aren’t changing scripture if it isn’t scripture.

3. I get the feeling you don’t understand what protestants mean by these things. Does ‘sanctification’ mean anything to you? how about the parable of the sower?

Your nonsensical nonsense is noted. 

And the fact that the Bible itself was put together only some 3 centuries AFTER Jesus ascended? You forgot to mention that little tidbit of fact eh? Spoils the whole Sola Scriptura idiocy doesn’t it. If tradition has no place in Christianity then how did the Bible even come about? You have to be a mental retard to be a Protestant.  

Back to fruits. Genocide? Ok. Fallen man, right? still all equal.

I have no idea what he’s referring to here but I assume as a friend of Moloch he would side with the French “enlightenment” types.

This next bit is… interesting. I half agree with him. He posits that the sexual revolution, and the normalization of ‘various sexual practices’ is one of the fruits of protestantism. It is a long explanation, but my answer is short;

Humanism and the line of despair. Look up Francis E. Schaeffer, he wrote several (short!) books explaining it.

No. I don’t need to read some bullshit to know it’s bullshit. Just like you and your kind, one can smell you from afar; I have a finely developed sense of smell. 

All the sexual perversions lie clearly at the foot of the secularisation of Christianity and that is absolutely in the court of the Protestants.

‘And when there are no rules, you are left with only one rule.

“Do as thou will”‘

That is literally what Protestants do.

It’s all interpreth as thou will. And it’s that ALL the way DOWN. Real deep down, where it’s hot.

The fact that I know he isn’t jesting makes me wonder what sort of protestants he has encountered who would actually act or even think in the manner he describes. Suffice to say; that isn’t how biblical interpretation works,

because stupid. Really, really stupid.

Well, we agree on one thing I suppose. Protestants are really stupid or brainwashed or both. I agree.

So lets play that game. 

He now lists references from the Bible I gave to show the One Church concept and pretends to “debunk” them. Let’s see how he fares.

1 Cor 1:10-13 : Why are you arguing about who you follow? we all follow Christ! Eph. 4:4-6 : United! in… Christ! John 17:21 : ‘May they be one in me’ in who? Christ! Matt 16:18 : oh… I love this one. Catholics will claim it as divine authority. I adhere to a place based interpretation. Christ is referring to the place he is, where there was a shrine considered to be a gate to Hades. 

Let’s take them in turn but let’s start with the last one. That view is the view that was popularised by Mike Heiser. Which I discovered and read and listened to long before you had a Protestant  outrage in your tiny brain.

The physical location theory in other words did not EXIST until the present day yet you invoke it as if it were always the case for Protestants. Which is, of course, an outrageous lie.

And now the rest:

1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 

Here is the passage for some context:

10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment. 11For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Does that sound to you like Paul would approve of 40,000 denominations? For that matter does it sound to you at ALL honest for this snivelling wormtongue to say that we all follow the same Christ when very clearly Protestants cannot and do not believe, ascribe, have loyalty to the same concept and ideas even between themselves, hence the 40,000 denominations. In fact, they can’t even bother to define their beliefs in writing. They say its all in the Bible and it can all be interpreted in 7 billion different ways but every human being individually.

Does that sound like they follow Christ or their own ego to you?

Ephesians 4:4-6; 

3Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism. 6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.

One body and one spirit. Somehow 40,000 different official bodies with different and irreconcilable differences are one body and one spirit in this guy’s diseased mind. I mean, it IS diseased. Only an unhealthy mind could pervert a simple truth so perniciously. But in addition, his peculiar obsession with me clearly affects his mind. Now why would that be if in his mind I’m just another Christ follower?

I spend literally zero time thinking about this cretin and his beliefs or ideas. I will of course, respond to his wormtonguing until it is clear to all he is a liar and an idiot, because that’s simply what needs to happen to people who lie outrageously about things I care about, but short of responding to his lies with a view to entertain and educate, I assure you that one minute after I posted this I will spend zero time thinking about this fool or his nonsense.

His dis-ease at my writings and concepts is because he feels the natural truth and it burns him.  

John 17:21; 

Lets get a little more here for context too because really all of John 17 is pretty much relevant.

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Notice how he skips that troublesome “that all of them may be one” part as well as blatantly misrepresents the “that they may be one as we are one” and “so that they may be brought to complete unity”. Truly you see the intentional lying and deception of this moron who calls himself Lord Mountbanks thinking he’s oh so very witty at calling himself a deceiver right under your nose thinking you won’t notice because he’s so clever using such a name you see.

Matthew 16:18; 

We have already dealt with this, but here it is for context again, and since Jesus is clearly talking to and answering back to Simon who he renames Peter (rock), Heiser’s contention that Jesus is referring to a physical place is clearly wrong and reaching. Besides which if that were the case, Jesus’s Church would be somewhere in war torn Iraq with literally no one even thinking it’s a revered spot. In other words, it’s just more of the usual Protestant absurd nonsense.

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Acts 9:2 : Followers of The Way. Those who follow Christ.

Acts 9 starts with the story of Saul (Paul) who was persecuting Christians before his conversion. And the words “the way” are used in the same way that the Japanese use the same words “do” as in karate-do (empty hand way) or ju-do (gentle way) or bu-do (war-way). The West still also uses these words in the same style. So the “way” mentioned is Christianity: aka Catholicism.

And Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest,

2 And asked of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues: that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

He then proceeds to again assume that Christ, and therefore the Church, belongs to only one of these denominations. To my knowledge, no protestant denomination does that.

Well of course you don’t. You’re heretics and you’ll hardly be bringing sunlight to the fact. You certainly can’t accuse anyone else of being a heretic without accusing yourself of the very same thing.

And again, let’s not let you sneak in the very idea that there ever were “denominations”. There were not. There was ONE Church for over a 1000 years. Popes and all. Recognised by ALL as the only, one, true, apostolic and Catholic Church, with the Pope at its head.

Then the Byzantine schismatics split off and even then there remained in essence only two denominations. Then the German pervert and the English pervert came along 500 years later and THEN we reach today with OVER 40,000 denominations of your heretic nonsense.

Each of which is blasphemy and rubbish.

Let’s have a look at that archive of Martin Luther’s heresies and inconsistencies; archive.is/9LbeJ

So; first point. Authority.

Next: I assume it has to do with the church holding the ‘seat of moses’, and so falls under the category of authority.

Wow. That is long. I am going to stick with authority, and call it quits for tonight, as the rest of the chapter is conjecture, and a misunderstanding of how protestants think. (we elect our captains. imagine an army following the orders of people they like and respect)

No. Imagine a “military” that has self-elected “leaders” who literally make the rules up as they go along and are fully invested in doing so as their only means of income. Oh and none of them co-ordinate or even know of each other except perhaps in some of the various “armies” of which there are over 40,000. That’s a closer analogy.

And compare that hot mess of dog-vomit, against an actual military with rules, a chain of command and where everyone speaks the same language and everyone recognises the various leaders regardless of location on the globe (Latin mass).

So, Authority. When is it right, and proper, to rebel against authority, even when that authority is legitimate? My answer is, when that authority attempts to take from you what is not theirs to take. When authority oversteps its bounds.

And here we have it: each man as the ultimate and supreme authority deciding, judging and choosing for himself his own right to heaven. Not demonic, prideful and nonsensical at all, right?

Can the Papal See even do that? 

Do what?

Do try to stick to the generic rules of grammar and syntax, even if you very much want to make up your own.

Well, I would say yes. 

In the English language, you know, according to the rules of grammar, syntax and tradition, all things we know you despise, you have just answered your own question by stating that that Holy See can rebel against authority (presumably its own). You really need to stop sending me these long, rambling, drunk texts.

Mostly because the See only has as much authority as you give it. It is not established by God, and does not have divine authority.

Well, except for that pesky passage in the New Testament where Jesus changes Simon’s name to Rock then says on this rock he will build His Church. And that other passage giving the Apostles divine rights from which comes Apostolic succession. And the fact that literally every single person calling themselves a Christian accepted this as true and factual for over a millennia and a half. But hey, what’s all THAT when compared to the shouty, swear-word-filled rantings of a German sex pervert, right? 

That is where the real conflict between protestants and Catholics arises. More on that next time.

Not even close. If the only issue was the Papacy then Protestants would be Eastern Orthodox. As it happens, of course, the EO consider Protestants abysmal heretics without exception though, now why would that be if the only difference was pretty much the same one the EO have with Catholicism? Notice the pervasive deception and lies that this creature exhales in practically every sentence; using the very common modus operandi of these deceivers: namely the pervasive use of conflation of completely disparate and unrelated points to try and create a brand new, shining lie they want you to swallow whole; ideally without any analysis of their terms, their intentional confusions, their abysmal grammar and their perennial misrepresentation of facts.

No doubt, he will continue to quintuple down, but I trust I have now conclusively demonstrated why whatever he says or may come up with has less relevance than a flea’s fart in a cyclone.