Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 627064 comments on the CBC News story from Jul 10, 2007, titled Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican. In it, CBC News reports that:

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBC News.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#550964 Jul 22, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so....Requirements need to be met to be so guilty....Per your post. A requirement to be guilty is:"pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own". Never did...not guilty..
Copyright office of the US
The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
You ain't got permission
It is so, thief. If you fail to attribute pilfered words from someone else, you are a thief.

And I do have permission for fair use under the US copyright law.

Repeating you dishonesty does not change that.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#550965 Jul 22, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never claimed to be a scholar.
Please provide a permalink.
You claim that religious scholars exist ... so that indicates that you KNOW who is and who is not a trustworthy scholar ... RIGHT???

And to know one means that you believe you are on the same wave-length AS the scholar.

That's haughty stuff indeed.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#550966 Jul 22, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh. And since you are responding to my post, "Every time you post someone's words without attribution you are plagiarizing, thief."
Please identify where I have done that.
A permalink would be great.
If we didn't plagiarize from other people's beliefs ... we would have no ideas to post.

Of course I plagiarize.

Without other humans to sway my thinking ... I would have no human thoughts whatsoever.

If I had been raised by dogs ... my language would be that OF the dogs.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#550967 Jul 22, 2014
Chess wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect.
That is not from my post thief.
My post lists factors in the determination. The courts have added others.
And anyone falling into the fair use provision has permission.
'Tard.
Whatever you want to call them...they have the same function.....they make the determinations...

You posted four:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

The nature of the copyrighted work

The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#550968 Jul 22, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim that religious scholars exist ... so that indicates that you KNOW who is and who is not a trustworthy scholar ... RIGHT???
And to know one means that you believe you are on the same wave-length AS the scholar.
That's haughty stuff indeed.
So, first, according to you, I was claiming to be a scholar.

Now, having been called on that claim, you assert I merely claimed religious scholars exist.

Got any other dishonestly you want to come clean about?

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#550969 Jul 22, 2014
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
.....Billy could preach whatever he wanted he has the gift of power over the people. He has lived the life of the privledge all to the thanks of the followers and on top of that will have the Hollywood suite in heaven. I am sure he believes that.
I suggest that Billy's good looks didn't hurt him any either, as followers like those who are good to look at.

That is why Jesus and Mary are both painted as drop-dead gorgeous characters in those PLAYS.

Who would worship them if their images were that "for instance" of the poor man known as the elephant man?

My guess is ... NOBODY!

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#550970 Jul 22, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever you want to call them...they have the same function.....they make the determinations...
You posted four:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
So now you are changing your claim and admitting they are not exceptions.

Now apply those "factors" -- the code's term -- to my use,

'Tard.
Liam

United States

#550971 Jul 22, 2014
USA Born wrote:
<quoted text>
Papacy: 67 to 76
Pope #2
Pope Linus
Biography:
Linus the son of Claudia. Most early writers, with the exception of Tertullian, claim Linus was a bishop of Rome; however, the dates vary, starting around 55-68 AD to his death around 67-81 AD.
Earliest Records
The earliest record placing Linus as the first Bishop after Peter was from Irenaeus in ~180 AD, more than 100 years later. Irenaeus was an apologist for the church who defended "apostlic succession". Unfortunately, no other records before that time even mention Linus. Tertullian, who lived during the same time as Irenaeus, wrote that the first Bishop was actually Clement I, and doesn't even mention Linus.
Appointment to Bishop
Irenaeus records that the church at Rome was founded by the Apostles Paul and Peter, who assigned Linus as it's first Bishop. In the 4th century Apostolic Constitutions, Paul is credited with appointing Linus as it's first Bishop, and that Peter appointed the second Bishop Clement, after Linus' death.
Linus from Scriptures
Irenaeus wrote (Adversus Haereses III, iii, 3) that this is the same Linus that Paul mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21.
Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.(2 Timothy 4:21)
This cannot be verified however, as all other writings about and written by Linus, have turned out to be fraudulent or unproveable.
Several of the early writers, with the exception of Irenaeus, have claimed that he died a martyr, however most historians today doubt this. His feast day is celebrated on Sept 23rd
There is no scriptual or historical proof that Peter was a pope nor is there any historical evidence to prove Linus was the second pope.
Looks like Irenaeus was really up to no good.
1. The first 50 yrs after the resurrection were a time of organized chaos.. Held together by the Holy Spirit. What with the Apostles, Bishops, Disciples all going to their martyrdom. Communication was difficult. I'm sorry they couldn't post a photo of Linus and Clement on Facebook or fax a bio to the Jerusalem Gazette... Geeze...

Also, I'm surprised you believe in the Bible at all, given your ridicule of our historic records. Do you think the good Book fell from the sky with the title "Holy Bible" on the cover?

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#550972 Jul 22, 2014
Wacky theology

When the god created Adam and Eve ... did he give them an earthly language that would match their sinful natures???

Talk about pornography!!!

:)

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#550973 Jul 22, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
It is so, thief. If you fail to attribute pilfered words from someone else, you are a thief.
And I do have permission for fair use under the US copyright law.
Repeating you dishonesty does not change that.
Now you know why I call you lying snake...

Not so....Requirements need to be met to be so guilty....Per your post. A requirement to be guilty is:"pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own". Never did...not guilty..

You have no permission.....here is your requirement:

All rights reserved. No part of the work embodied in Merriam-Webster's pages on the World Wide Web and covered by the copyrights hereon may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems—without the written permission of the publisher.

Requests for permission to use or reproduce should be mailed to: Permissions Editor, Merriam-Webster Inc., P.O. Box 281, Springfield, MA

You have not applied...you ain't got it...

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#550974 Jul 22, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you are changing your claim and admitting they are not exceptions.
Now apply those "factors" -- the code's term -- to my use,
'Tard.
"they make the determinations..." In your case...you ain't got permission...
Just Sayin

United States

#550975 Jul 22, 2014
bacon hater wrote:
<quoted text>
Lies. Not surprising though. Lying is a requirement of any religion.
No, they are the only ones hiding 8,000 child predators with money taken in the name of Christ.
Pigs.
And those "reparations" (over TWO BILLION in the US alone) aren't reparations. It's hush money, and nothing else. The only way those families could get that money is if they signed gag orders.
Stop funding EVIL. It's just too bad that hell was made up by the same delusional freaks that belong there.
How can it be hush money when the Church has been admitting to these abuses?
And is there really EVIL if there is no GOOD?

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#550976 Jul 22, 2014
Chess wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are not four exceptions, dummy.
Buy that sections on wording, that is a list of four "factors to be considered " in determining whether the section is applicable to a particular use. Courts have added other considerations.
And none of those factors is whether the copyright holder likes any of those factors.
And in the M-W case, since they accept the copyright law in writing, they are agreeing to the fair use section and have already given written permission for fair use, though whether they gave it or not would not change the applicability of section 107.
'Tard.
Correctly said...per the copyright office:

U.S. Code › Title 17 › Chapter 1 ›§ 107
17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

In the body of this law it refers to these limitations as factors..I refereed to them as exceptions....whatever you call them....they all have the same function...they make the determination on fair use..

Called them cornballs or whatever...it changes not their function...

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#550977 Jul 22, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you know why I call you lying snake...
Not so....Requirements need to be met to be so guilty....Per your post. A requirement to be guilty is:"pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own". Never did...not guilty..
You have no permission.....here is your requirement:
All rights reserved. No part of the work embodied in Merriam-Webster's pages on the World Wide Web and covered by the copyrights hereon may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems—without the written permission of the publisher.
Requests for permission to use or reproduce should be mailed to: Permissions Editor, Merriam-Webster Inc., P.O. Box 281, Springfield, MA
You have not applied...you ain't got it...
Yes. If you post another persons words under your moniker with no indication that that person rather than you is responsible for those words, you are a plagiarist, and you are passing off that person's words as your own. And that makes you a thief.
And you have often done exactly that.

And as you well know, my use of Webster's dictionary with proper citations falls under section 107 of the copyright act. It is fair use and Webster's written reliance on that act provides that permission -- in writing, though that is not required.

Thief.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#550978 Jul 22, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
"they make the determinations..." In your case...you ain't got permission...
Who do you keep quoting, dimwit?

It appears to be yourself.

But, of course, you are a proven thief, so it could be anyone.

But the reality is, if there is a dispute, the courts decide.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#550979 Jul 22, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
If we didn't plagiarize from other people's beliefs ... we would have no ideas to post.
Of course I plagiarize.
Without other humans to sway my thinking ... I would have no human thoughts whatsoever.
If I had been raised by dogs ... my language would be that OF the dogs.
Use of common knowledge is not considered plagiarism. And while what experts consider common is not uniform, that's not an issue when someone is using another person's words verbatim.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#550980 Jul 22, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. If you post another persons words under your moniker with no indication that that person rather than you is responsible for those words, you are a plagiarist, and you are passing off that person's words as your own. And that makes you a thief.
And you have often done exactly that.
And as you well know, my use of Webster's dictionary with proper citations falls under section 107 of the copyright act. It is fair use and Webster's written reliance on that act provides that permission -- in writing, though that is not required.
Thief.
You cannot refute truth...but...keep on keeping on..

Now you know why I call you lying snake...

Not so....Requirements need to be met to be so guilty....Per your post. A requirement to be guilty is:"pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own". Never did...not guilty..

If I said "Here are my words" and then posted info from an article on the net...I would be guilty as charged...and it would be easy to prove...by you simply using your search engine...

That never happened and never will..

theft: 1.(Law) criminal law the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession..

Not guilty....

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#550981 Jul 22, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Correctly said...per the copyright office:
U.S. Code › Title 17 › Chapter 1 ›§ 107
17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
In the body of this law it refers to these limitations as factors..I refereed to them as exceptions....whatever you call them....they all have the same function...they make the determination on fair use..
Called them cornballs or whatever...it changes not their function...
Incorrect.

First, it is not "their" law. It is *our* law.

And those factors are not exception to fair use, they are factors in determining fair use.

Now apply those factors to my use -- with citation -- of M-W's dictionary.

'Tard.
Michael

Hamilton, Canada

#550982 Jul 22, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
I suggest that Billy's good looks didn't hurt him any either, as followers like those who are good to look at.
That is why Jesus and Mary are both painted as drop-dead gorgeous characters in those PLAYS.
Who would worship them if their images were that "for instance" of the poor man known as the elephant man?
My guess is ... NOBODY!
...About 15 years ago a new image of Jesus was created. It was shown in a popular magazine. The man was about 5 feet 6", black short curly hair, big nose, and features of most men that we see on the news from Afghanastan or the middle east.

....Catholics were outraged!!!!!! They wanted the sacred heart of Jesus image back and denounced the magazine and the new image of Jesus.

......As we know there is no known description of a man named Jesus, but catholics have engrained in their minds that Jesus appears as a tall slim man with flowing chestnut colored hair.

Unbelievable!

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#550983 Jul 22, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Who do you keep quoting, dimwit?
It appears to be yourself.
But, of course, you are a proven thief, so it could be anyone.
But the reality is, if there is a dispute, the courts decide.
Correctly said...per the copyright office:

U.S. Code › Title 17 › Chapter 1 ›§ 107
17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

In the body of this law it refers to these limitations as factors..I refereed to them as exceptions....whatever you call them....they all have the same function...they make the determination on fair use..

Called them cornballs or whatever...it changes not their function...

theft: 1.(Law) criminal law the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession..

Not guilty....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Insults Are Easier 950,223
Sex 4 min Pedro 1
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 11 min lisw 179,982
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 17 min ChristineM 14,148
"Bad News: 71% of Women do NOT Reach An Orgasm... 34 min Pedro 1
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 1 hr Halle Berry Sister 3,354
Muslims go home 2 hr reality check 8
More from around the web