Discussion:
why would duncan follow the twerps of a ................
(too old to reply)
duke
2017-11-30 21:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.

Old doc T, a fallen away Catholic.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-30 22:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 2:08:31 PM UTC-7, duke wrote:
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.

"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
Post by duke
Old doc T, a fallen away Catholic.
the dukester, American-American
*****
.> The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
.> and a good cigar.
.> G.K. Chesterton

G.K. Chesterton, who presciently compared the Church with
three things that can be seriously harmful.

AA
duke
2017-12-02 12:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-12-02 12:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
.> >"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
.> >to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
.> The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
.> valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.

So, there are no records of these things that He told them, of which there
are no records. Is that what you're saying?

But somehow you magically know what these things are which there are no
records of.

Kind of like there is not one thing at all in the Gospels about "the Original Catholic Church"
being there. Kind of an odd omission, don't you think?

Another thing that "Jesus said and did that is not written down" is dropping
by what is now the United States on his way back to heaven. Just ask your
friendly neighborhood LDS if you don't believe it.

After all, if your Church is free to make up those things which allegedly
"Jesus said and that is not written down", then so is theirs.

AA
duke
2017-12-02 17:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 04:53:31 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
.> >"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
.> >to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
.> The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
.> valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.
So, there are no records of these things that He told them, of which there
are no records. Is that what you're saying?
Nope. Christian dogmatic faith is based on the canonized written word.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
But somehow you magically know what these things are which there are no
records of.
You have to address John 21:25, not me.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Kind of like there is not one thing at all in the Gospels about "the Original Catholic Church"
being there. Kind of an odd omission, don't you think?
It's not a matter of "the original Catholic Church" being there. It's a matter
of there being only one Church that fully offers the characteristics that Jesus
specified. That's the Catholic Church.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Another thing that "Jesus said and did that is not written down" is dropping
by what is now the United States on his way back to heaven. Just ask your
friendly neighborhood LDS if you don't believe it.
They make up their own.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
After all, if your Church is free to make up those things which allegedly
"Jesus said and that is not written down", then so is theirs.
But nothing dogmatic that's not part of the written record.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
AA
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-12-02 21:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 04:53:31 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
.> >"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
.> >to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
.> The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
.> valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.
So, there are no records of these things that He told them, of which there
are no records. Is that what you're saying?
Nope. Christian dogmatic faith is based on the canonized written word.
.> >But somehow you magically know what these things are which there are no
.> >records of.
.> You have to address John 21:25, not me.

Oh, I am addressing it. Pointing out that just because not all of what Jesus
said got written down, that gives you exactly zero license to use that as an
excuse to invent things.
.> >Kind of like there is not one thing at all in the Gospels about "the Original Catholic Church"
.> >being there. Kind of an odd omission, don't you think?
.> It's not a matter of "the original Catholic Church" being there.

You're the one that brought that up.

.> It's a matter
.> of there being only one Church that fully offers the characteristics that Jesus
.> specified. That's the Catholic Church.

What in the world does that have to do with things that, if Jesus specified them,
we know nothing about it?

In any event, still doesn't let your Church make things up.


,> >Another thing that "Jesus said and did that is not written down" is dropping
,> >by what is now the United States on his way back to heaven. Just ask your
,> >friendly neighborhood LDS if you don't believe it.
,> They make up their own.

Yep -- exactly as your flavor of Christianity did.
.> >After all, if your Church is free to make up those things which allegedly
.> >"Jesus said and that is not written down", then so is theirs.
.> But nothing dogmatic that's not part of the written record.

Then what's the point in blabbering about the fact that there are
things that were "not part of the written record"?


AA
duke
2017-12-03 19:39:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 13:36:23 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 04:53:31 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
.> >"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
.> >to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
.> The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
.> valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.
So, there are no records of these things that He told them, of which there
are no records. Is that what you're saying?
Nope. Christian dogmatic faith is based on the canonized written word.
.> >But somehow you magically know what these things are which there are no
.> >records of.
.> You have to address John 21:25, not me.
Oh, I am addressing it. Pointing out that just because not all of what Jesus
said got written down, that gives you exactly zero license to use that as an
excuse to invent things.
Who's inventing? You fail to understand that everything that Jesus said and
did was "100% man-viewed" to either be put in writing, or not, but still known
as truth.

You protest_ants didn't come around for another 1600 years. But thousands, many
of which knew saw him personally and learned from him, did not get their
observations in writing, which is only a select few books - 4 in all.

You protest_ers biggest failure to launch is "scripture only". John 21:25.

We of the RCC are much more fully aware of things that were said and done. They
are not in scripture and thus can't be offered as dogma. But they are still
true.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >Kind of like there is not one thing at all in the Gospels about "the Original Catholic Church"
.> >being there. Kind of an odd omission, don't you think?
.> It's not a matter of "the original Catholic Church" being there.
You're the one that brought that up.
Yep, as seen in the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments, et al.

You SB's totally ignored those, which ARE in scripture.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> It's a matter
.> of there being only one Church that fully offers the characteristics that Jesus
.> specified. That's the Catholic Church.
What in the world does that have to do with things that, if Jesus specified them,
we know nothing about it?
Watch:

MASS:
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).

SACRAMENTS:
1. Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
2. Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
3. Confession - John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18-19, Mat 9:2-8
4. Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
5. Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13-14, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6,
6. Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
7. Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14

PAPACY:
Mat 16:13-19 (Pope), Mat 28:16-20 (Teaching), Eph 2:19-20 (Base)

PURGATORY:
1 Cor 3:10-15

FAITH (without deeds is dead faith):
Mat 25:31-46, James 2:26
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Give drink to the thirsty.
Visit the imprisoned.

Heal the sick.
Cast out demons.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
In any event, still doesn't let your Church make things up.
You protest_ant boys are the ones that ignored Jesus.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
,> >Another thing that "Jesus said and did that is not written down" is dropping
,> >by what is now the United States on his way back to heaven. Just ask your
,> >friendly neighborhood LDS if you don't believe it.
,> They make up their own.
Yep -- exactly as your flavor of Christianity did.
Ours are specifically found in ALL valid bibles.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >After all, if your Church is free to make up those things which allegedly
.> >"Jesus said and that is not written down", then so is theirs.
.> But nothing dogmatic that's not part of the written record.
Then what's the point in blabbering about the fact that there are
things that were "not part of the written record"?
The RCC as far as dogma is concerned is 100% scripture based.

We can dance the night away about how much Jesus loved his mother, but we can't
claim more than what's in the canonized scripture.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-12-03 20:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 13:36:23 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 04:53:31 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
.> >"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
.> >to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
.> The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
.> valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.
So, there are no records of these things that He told them, of which there
are no records. Is that what you're saying?
Nope. Christian dogmatic faith is based on the canonized written word.
.> >But somehow you magically know what these things are which there are no
.> >records of.
.> >.> You have to address John 21:25, not me.
.> >Oh, I am addressing it. Pointing out that just because not all of what Jesus
.> >said got written down, that gives you exactly zero license to use that as an
.> >excuse to invent things.
.> Who's inventing?

Your Church. Do you not know what we're discussing here?

.>You fail to understand that everything that Jesus said and
.> did was "100% man-viewed" to either be put in writing, or not, but still known
.> as truth.

If it's not in writing, then how do you know what was said.

And of course, even if it is in writing that in no way guarantees it was either
said or is true. Doubly so, given that was was set down in writing was
done so over a generation later, by men who neither said it nor heard it
themselves.

.> You protest_ants didn't come around for another 1600 years. But thousands, many
.> of which knew saw him personally and learned from him, did not get their
.> observations in writing, which is only a select few books - 4 in all.

Oh, there were many many many more than four.
Quite a number of which your Church does not at all care for.


.> You protest_ers biggest failure to launch is "scripture only". John 21:25.
.> We of the RCC are much more fully aware of things that were said and done.

How?

.> They
.> are not in scripture and thus can't be offered as dogma. But they are still
.> true.

How do you know?
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >Kind of like there is not one thing at all in the Gospels about "the Original Catholic Church"
.> >being there. Kind of an odd omission, don't you think?
.> It's not a matter of "the original Catholic Church" being there.
You're the one that brought that up.
.> Yep, as seen in the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments, et al.
.> You SB's totally ignored those, which ARE in scripture.

Good point. That's why Baptists don't get married, never have communion,
or get baptized. In fact that latter, the avoidance of baptism, is why they're
called "Baptists".
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> It's a matter
.> of there being only one Church that fully offers the characteristics that Jesus
.> specified. That's the Catholic Church.
What in the world does that have to do with things that, if Jesus specified them,
we know nothing about it?
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
1. Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
2. Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
3. Confession - John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18-19, Mat 9:2-8
4. Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
5. Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13-14, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6,
6. Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
7. Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
Mat 16:13-19 (Pope), Mat 28:16-20 (Teaching), Eph 2:19-20 (Base)
1 Cor 3:10-15
Mat 25:31-46, James 2:26
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Give drink to the thirsty.
Visit the imprisoned.
.> Heal the sick.
.> Cast out demons.

Heal the sick and cast out demons? Whoo, boy, they do those
things most spectacularly. Turn on your TV any Sunday morning.

So, they cast out demons a lot at your church these days?
You should take some video.


AA
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
In any event, still doesn't let your Church make things up.
You protest_ant boys are the ones that ignored Jesus.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
,> >Another thing that "Jesus said and did that is not written down" is dropping
,> >by what is now the United States on his way back to heaven. Just ask your
,> >friendly neighborhood LDS if you don't believe it.
,> They make up their own.
Yep -- exactly as your flavor of Christianity did.
Ours are specifically found in ALL valid bibles.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >After all, if your Church is free to make up those things which allegedly
.> >"Jesus said and that is not written down", then so is theirs.
.> But nothing dogmatic that's not part of the written record.
Then what's the point in blabbering about the fact that there are
things that were "not part of the written record"?
The RCC as far as dogma is concerned is 100% scripture based.
We can dance the night away about how much Jesus loved his mother, but we can't
claim more than what's in the canonized scripture.
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****
Kevrob
2017-12-03 20:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So, they cast out demons a lot at your church these days?
Does laicizing pervert priests count?

Kevin R
duke
2017-12-04 21:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So, they cast out demons a lot at your church these days?
Does laicizing pervert priests count?
A demon is a demon.
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
hypatiab7
2017-12-23 21:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So, they cast out demons a lot at your church these days?
Does laicizing pervert priests count?
A demon is a demon.
Speaking for your god again, Earl? You have a tendency to do that
while you're ignoring the FAQ/Charter about proselytizing.
The only conclusion we can make is either you are too stupid to
understand what proselytizing is or you are deliberately ignoring
the FAQ. Go on, try to lie your way out of this - again.

By the way, no one believes you when you say that you never lie here.
You lie everyday you post. Right now you are proselytizing to Kevrob
and Atlotl in an ever failing attempt to convert them out of fear.
That's the only way you know how to try to try to convert people - fear.
Feel free to go hee, hee, hee! or tee hee! or even a nice seasonal
ho, ho ,ho! You're still a 20 year failure afraid of your own religion.
duke
2017-12-04 19:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 12:33:57 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 13:36:23 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 04:53:31 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
.> >"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
.> >to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
.> The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
.> valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.
So, there are no records of these things that He told them, of which there
are no records. Is that what you're saying?
Nope. Christian dogmatic faith is based on the canonized written word.
.> >But somehow you magically know what these things are which there are no
.> >records of.
.> >.> You have to address John 21:25, not me.
.> >Oh, I am addressing it. Pointing out that just because not all of what Jesus
.> >said got written down, that gives you exactly zero license to use that as an
.> >excuse to invent things.
.> Who's inventing?
Your Church. Do you not know what we're discussing here?
Yes, yes I do. Nothing in Catholic dogmatic statements comes from the
non-written part. It is supportive however.

For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church. The heretics invented
untruths. And then the protest_ers came along and flat said "we're not going to
accept these things from written scripture."
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.>You fail to understand that everything that Jesus said and
.> did was "100% man-viewed" to either be put in writing, or not, but still known
.> as truth.
If it's not in writing, then how do you know what was said.
See above.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
And of course, even if it is in writing that in no way guarantees it was either
said or is true.
Jesus offered it, and men accepted it. You sound like a pagan now.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Doubly so, given that was was set down in writing was
done so over a generation later, by men who neither said it nor heard it
themselves.
A generation is 20 years. The certifications of the teachings and actions of
Jesus were real time. And massive changes to Christianity were greatly taking
place all that time.

Your SB boys could only sit back and turn away form what they didn't like. But
that was 1600 years after the fact.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> You protest_ants didn't come around for another 1600 years. But thousands, many
.> of which knew saw him personally and learned from him, did not get their
.> observations in writing, which is only a select few books - 4 in all.
Oh, there were many many many more than four.
Quite a number of which your Church does not at all care for.
Nope. 4 canonized. All the rest rejected because of errors, fabrications, or
offering no new information not already in hand.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> You protest_ers biggest failure to launch is "scripture only". John 21:25.
.> We of the RCC are much more fully aware of things that were said and done.
How?
We were there as the first part of the new Church of Jesus Christ. You guys
came along 1600 years later.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> They
.> are not in scripture and thus can't be offered as dogma. But they are still
.> true.
How do you know?
Jesus confirmed it.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >Kind of like there is not one thing at all in the Gospels about "the Original Catholic Church"
.> >being there. Kind of an odd omission, don't you think?
.> It's not a matter of "the original Catholic Church" being there.
You're the one that brought that up.
.> Yep, as seen in the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments, et al.
.> You SB's totally ignored those, which ARE in scripture.
Good point. That's why Baptists don't get married, never have communion,
or get baptized. In fact that latter, the avoidance of baptism, is why they're
called "Baptists".
1. Marriage as many times as one desires. Jesus said "let no man put asunder
that which God has joined." By your marriages over and over, God must not have
approved.

2. Your communion is not a consecration of bread and wine into the Body and
Blood of Jesus, but only a remembrance or maybe a fellowship.

3. Baptism, I think, is according to the proper method.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> It's a matter
.> of there being only one Church that fully offers the characteristics that Jesus
.> specified. That's the Catholic Church.
What in the world does that have to do with things that, if Jesus specified them,
we know nothing about it?
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
1. Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
2. Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
3. Confession - John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18-19, Mat 9:2-8
4. Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
5. Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13-14, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6,
6. Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
7. Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
Mat 16:13-19 (Pope), Mat 28:16-20 (Teaching), Eph 2:19-20 (Base)
1 Cor 3:10-15
Mat 25:31-46, James 2:26
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Give drink to the thirsty.
Visit the imprisoned.
.> Heal the sick.
.> Cast out demons.
Heal the sick and cast out demons? Whoo, boy, they do those
things most spectacularly. Turn on your TV any Sunday morning.
I wouldn't think seriously what I see on Sunday tv.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So, they cast out demons a lot at your church these days?
You should take some video.
Jesus did, and he said "follow me".

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Kevrob
2017-12-04 19:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church.
You forgot about the Greek Orthodox, and the daughter churches
of Constantinople.

The dumbth is SO strong in this one.

Kevin R
duke
2017-12-05 19:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church.
You forgot about the Greek Orthodox, and the daughter churches
of Constantinople.
They are Catholic.

Protestantism is popularly considered to have begun in Germany in 1517.
Post by Kevrob
The dumbth is SO strong in this one.
Yes, yes it is.
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Kevrob
2017-12-05 19:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church.
You forgot about the Greek Orthodox, and the daughter churches
of Constantinople.
They are Catholic.
Either the Greek Patriarch is wrong when he says his church is
catholic, or the Latin Rite Patriarch* is wrong when he makes the same
claim. "Catholic" ( katholikos in Greek) means "universal,"
"Including a wide variety of things; all-embracing." - OED.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/catholic
Post by duke
Protestantism is popularly considered to have begun in Germany in 1517.
The Church of England claims to be catholic, also, just not ROMAN
catholic.

There are smaller churches in union with Rome that are Eastern,
but counted with the Catholics, not the Orthodox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches

They, and Rome, do consider themselves "orthodox" with a small "o."
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
The dumbth is SO strong in this one.
Yes, yes it is.
Earl admits his dufossity!

Kevin R

* That'd be the pope, the Bishop of Rome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch#Patriarchs
duke
2017-12-06 23:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church.
You forgot about the Greek Orthodox, and the daughter churches
of Constantinople.
They are Catholic.
Either the Greek Patriarch is wrong when he says his church is
catholic, or the Latin Rite Patriarch* is wrong when he makes the same
claim.
Both profess the EOC is Catholic.
Post by Kevrob
"Catholic" ( katholikos in Greek) means "universal,"
Yep.
Post by Kevrob
"Including a wide variety of things; all-embracing." - OED.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/catholic
Post by duke
Protestantism is popularly considered to have begun in Germany in 1517.
The Church of England claims to be catholic, also, just not ROMAN
catholic.
It is not quite either. It is not Catholic, or the English wouldn’t celebrate
Guy Fawkes Day, which is a not-so-subtly anti-Catholic holiday, nor would
Parliament have passed laws eliminating Catholics, and anyone married to a
Catholic, from the line of royal succession.

So even if the difference between Catholic and Church of England may seem
trivial to an atheist, the difference has been profound historically… even if
the theological differences are small.

But Church of England is not precisely “Reformed,” either, if by that you mean a
distinctly Calvinist belief system. Both Lutherans and Calvinists believe
strongly that no man, not even a clergyman, can be an intermediary between man
and God; all the clergyman can do is point out the “right” way of interpreting
the Bible. There are other differences as well, but I’m won’t go into them here.
The Church of England was an attempt to create a “big tent” religion—definitely
Christian, but a big enough tent to gather English people from different sides
of the Catholic/Protestant divide.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-12-07 01:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church.
You forgot about the Greek Orthodox, and the daughter churches
of Constantinople.
They are Catholic.
Either the Greek Patriarch is wrong when he says his church is
catholic, or the Latin Rite Patriarch* is wrong when he makes the same
claim.
Both profess the EOC is Catholic.
Post by Kevrob
"Catholic" ( katholikos in Greek) means "universal,"
Yep.
Post by Kevrob
"Including a wide variety of things; all-embracing." - OED.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/catholic
Post by duke
Protestantism is popularly considered to have begun in Germany in 1517.
The Church of England claims to be catholic, also, just not ROMAN
catholic.
It is not quite either. It is not Catholic, or the English wouldn’t celebrate
Guy Fawkes Day, which is a not-so-subtly anti-Catholic holiday, nor would
Parliament have passed laws eliminating Catholics, and anyone married to a
Catholic, from the line of royal succession.
So even if the difference between Catholic and Church of England may seem
trivial to an atheist, the difference has been profound historically… even if
the theological differences are small.
But Church of England is not precisely “Reformed,” either, if by that you mean a
distinctly Calvinist belief system. Both Lutherans and Calvinists believe
strongly that no man, not even a clergyman, can be an intermediary between man
and God; all the clergyman can do is point out the “right” way of interpreting
the Bible. There are other differences as well, but I’m won’t go into them here.
The Church of England was an attempt to create a “big tent” religion—definitely
Christian, but a big enough tent to gather English people from different sides
of the Catholic/Protestant divide.
Welcome all, welcome to alt.atheism, where the theft of other people's
essays never stops!

Well, except when Earl is asleep.

Earl wouldn't know "A penny for the guy" from the ineluctable modality.


AA
duke
2017-12-07 22:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:48:07 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church.
You forgot about the Greek Orthodox, and the daughter churches
of Constantinople.
They are Catholic.
Either the Greek Patriarch is wrong when he says his church is
catholic, or the Latin Rite Patriarch* is wrong when he makes the same
claim.
Both profess the EOC is Catholic.
Post by Kevrob
"Catholic" ( katholikos in Greek) means "universal,"
Yep.
Post by Kevrob
"Including a wide variety of things; all-embracing." - OED.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/catholic
Post by duke
Protestantism is popularly considered to have begun in Germany in 1517.
The Church of England claims to be catholic, also, just not ROMAN
catholic.
It is not quite either. It is not Catholic, or the English wouldn’t celebrate
Guy Fawkes Day, which is a not-so-subtly anti-Catholic holiday, nor would
Parliament have passed laws eliminating Catholics, and anyone married to a
Catholic, from the line of royal succession.
So even if the difference between Catholic and Church of England may seem
trivial to an atheist, the difference has been profound historically… even if
the theological differences are small.
But Church of England is not precisely “Reformed,” either, if by that you mean a
distinctly Calvinist belief system. Both Lutherans and Calvinists believe
strongly that no man, not even a clergyman, can be an intermediary between man
and God; all the clergyman can do is point out the “right” way of interpreting
the Bible. There are other differences as well, but I’m won’t go into them here.
The Church of England was an attempt to create a “big tent” religion—definitely
Christian, but a big enough tent to gather English people from different sides
of the Catholic/Protestant divide.
Welcome all, welcome to alt.atheism, where the theft of other people's
essays never stops!
Well, except when Earl is asleep.
Earl wouldn't know "A penny for the guy" from the ineluctable modality.
Yeah, but I know how to drive a car.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Kevrob
2017-12-07 23:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
The Church of England claims to be catholic, also, just not ROMAN
catholic.
It is not quite either. <snipped plagiarism>
Earl, you aren't Brian Overland, and this isn't Quora.com

Post a link and attribute your source, you little thief.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Church-of-England-Catholic-or-Protestant-Reformed

Here's what is wrong about cutting and pasting without attribution:

1.) You ignore copyright, which is to say, you trample on private property.
This from someone who is supposed to follow "Thou Shalt Not Steal."
I quote copyrighted articles all the time, but only in part. That is
legal, and is called "Fair Use."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Quoting too much makes you equivalent to a music pirate.

2.) You represent someone else's work as your own. That is
"bearing false witness." If you are grabbing public domain
information, why wouldn't you attribute it? You could paraphrase,
and, in an academic paper, even on a grammar school level, that
might still be plagiarism, but if you really put it in your own
words and don't just rearrange the clauses, that's "research."
It is still good form to name your sources. On a high school or
college level more rigor is required. USENET isn't a college
course, but it started as an interconnection of computers on
college campuses, and in academically oriented newsgroups your
behavior would be considered very sketchy. Some academic
papers even reference USENET articles nowadays. Have some pride,
man!

3.) You can't be trusted to convey the original authors' intent
accurately, even if you mean to. I make enough typing errors, but
you, Earl, are a champion keyboard-mangler. If you posted a link,
anybody could jump there and read the original, which brings us to

4.) You can't be trusted not to quote-mine. Quoting out of context
is an old debater's trick. [I know. I'm an old debater!]
I've won many a debate point by presenting the opposition with the
entire quote, in context. Sometimes the introductory material, or
the following paragraph, explicitly contradicts what has been
sliced out of a work.

5.) It sticks out like a sore thumb. When I read Mr Overland's
words, unadorned as they were by quotation marks or any other
kind of set-aside, my immediate reaction was, "This is an orderly,
well-thought-out, historically accurate comment.

It CAN"T be Earl's!"

A quick workout of one of the verbal strings on a search engine,
et voila! The essay in question was easily found.

If you want people to believe you wrote it, don't post it without
even trying to "take the price tags off."

Earl Campbell, semi-educated doofus, strikes again!

Kevin R
duke
2017-12-08 20:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Kevrob
The Church of England claims to be catholic, also, just not ROMAN
catholic.
It is not quite either. <snipped plagiarism>
Earl, you aren't Brian Overland, and this isn't Quora.com
Post a link and attribute your source, you little thief.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Church-of-England-Catholic-or-Protestant-Reformed
1.) You ignore copyright, which is to say, you trample on private property.
This from someone who is supposed to follow "Thou Shalt Not Steal."
I quote copyrighted articles all the time, but only in part. That is
legal, and is called "Fair Use."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Public knowledge.
Post by Kevrob
Quoting too much makes you equivalent to a music pirate.
2.) You represent someone else's work as your own.
No, I do not.
Post by Kevrob
3.) You can't be trusted to convey the original authors' intent
accurately, even if you mean to. I make enough typing errors, but
you, Earl, are a champion keyboard-mangler. If you posted a link,
anybody could jump there and read the original, which brings us to
It's just all various opinions.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Kevrob
2017-12-21 18:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Kevrob
The Church of England claims to be catholic, also, just not ROMAN
catholic.
It is not quite either. <snipped plagiarism>
Earl, you aren't Brian Overland, and this isn't Quora.com
Post a link and attribute your source, you little thief.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Church-of-England-Catholic-or-Protestant-Reformed
1.) You ignore copyright, which is to say, you trample on private property.
This from someone who is supposed to follow "Thou Shalt Not Steal."
I quote copyrighted articles all the time, but only in part. That is
legal, and is called "Fair Use."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Public knowledge.
But you don't follow Fair Use. You don't give credit for
what you are quoting.
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Quoting too much makes you equivalent to a music pirate.
2.) You represent someone else's work as your own.
No, I do not.
If you think you do, but you don't, that's you being incompetent.
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
3.) You can't be trusted to convey the original authors' intent
accurately, even if you mean to. I make enough typing errors, but
you, Earl, are a champion keyboard-mangler. If you posted a link,
anybody could jump there and read the original, which brings us to
It's just all various opinions.
And opinions are like assholes. You still should not post other
people's work, available on the net, without a link. Doing it
that way is the mark of an honest person. Sketchy people don't
make it easy to check up on them.

Kevin R
duke
2017-12-22 13:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Kevrob
The Church of England claims to be catholic, also, just not ROMAN
catholic.
It is not quite either. <snipped plagiarism>
Earl, you aren't Brian Overland, and this isn't Quora.com
Post a link and attribute your source, you little thief.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Church-of-England-Catholic-or-Protestant-Reformed
1.) You ignore copyright, which is to say, you trample on private property.
This from someone who is supposed to follow "Thou Shalt Not Steal."
I quote copyrighted articles all the time, but only in part. That is
legal, and is called "Fair Use."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Public knowledge.
But you don't follow Fair Use. You don't give credit for
what you are quoting.
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Quoting too much makes you equivalent to a music pirate.
2.) You represent someone else's work as your own.
No, I do not.
If you think you do, but you don't, that's you being incompetent.
Public knowledge.
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
3.) You can't be trusted to convey the original authors' intent
accurately, even if you mean to. I make enough typing errors, but
you, Earl, are a champion keyboard-mangler. If you posted a link,
anybody could jump there and read the original, which brings us to
It's just all various opinions.
And opinions are like assholes.
Yep, everybody has one.
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Teresita
2017-12-07 22:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Either the Greek Patriarch is wrong when he says his church is
catholic, or the Latin Rite Patriarch* is wrong when he makes the same
claim. "Catholic" ( katholikos in Greek) means "universal,"
"Including a wide variety of things; all-embracing."
Both of them are bound for hell, since only the 70 members of Five
Corners Good Book Freewill Baptist Church of Jerkwater, USA are saved.
They said so.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-12-04 20:07:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 12:33:57 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 13:36:23 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 04:53:31 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
.> >"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
.> >to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
.> The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
.> valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.
So, there are no records of these things that He told them, of which there
are no records. Is that what you're saying?
Nope. Christian dogmatic faith is based on the canonized written word.
.> >But somehow you magically know what these things are which there are no
.> >records of.
.> >.> You have to address John 21:25, not me.
.> >Oh, I am addressing it. Pointing out that just because not all of what Jesus
.> >said got written down, that gives you exactly zero license to use that as an
.> >excuse to invent things.
.> Who's inventing?
Your Church. Do you not know what we're discussing here?
Yes, yes I do. Nothing in Catholic dogmatic statements comes from the
non-written part. It is supportive however.
,> For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church. The heretics invented
,> untruths. And then the protest_ers came along and flat said "we're not going to
,> accept these things from written scripture."

Exactly backwards. Did you forget a "not" in there?
.> >.>You fail to understand that everything that Jesus said and
.> >.> did was "100% man-viewed" to either be put in writing, or not, but still known
.> >.> as truth.
.> >If it's not in writing, then how do you know what was said.
.> See above.

I don't see a thing above that answers it. Try again: if it's not in writing, then
how do you know?
.> >And of course, even if it is in writing that in no way guarantees it was either
.> >said or is true.
.> Jesus offered it, and men accepted it. You sound like a pagan now.

My goodness, it's taking you a really really long time to get the idea, isn't it?
.> > Doubly so, given that was was set down in writing was
.> >done so over a generation later, by men who neither said it nor heard it
.> >themselves.
.> A generation is 20 years.

OK, then make that three to four generations.


..> The certifications of the teachings and actions of Jesus were real time.

I have absolutely no idea what that sentence was supposed to mean.
Post by duke
And massive changes to Christianity were greatly taking
place all that time.
.> Your SB boys could only sit back and turn away form what they didn't like. But
.> that was 1600 years after the fact.

<sigh> 1500...
.> >.> You protest_ants didn't come around for another 1600 years.

Protestants did not "come around", they were Catholics who took
a long look at what the Church had become and decided it had
strayed badly from what Jesus taught.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
But thousands, many
.> of which knew saw him personally and learned from him, did not get their
.> observations in writing, which is only a select few books - 4 in all.
.> >Oh, there were many many many more than four.
.> >Quite a number of which your Church does not at all care for.
.> Nope. 4 canonized. All the rest rejected because of errors, fabrications, or
.> offering no new information not already in hand.

That right? I'm guessing you don't know a single thing about, say,
The Gospel of Thomas, just to pick the most celebrated one.
.> >.> You protest_ers biggest failure to launch is "scripture only". John 21:25.
.> >.> We of the RCC are much more fully aware of things that were said and done.
.> >How?
.> We were there as the first part of the new Church of Jesus Christ. You guys
.> came along 1600 years later.

If it's not written down, how do you know what took place in early church in the
years following Christ's death?
.> >.> They
.> >.> are not in scripture and thus can't be offered as dogma. But they are still
.> >.> true.
.> >How do you know?
.> Jesus confirmed it.

And yet you can give no evidence for that claim.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >Kind of like there is not one thing at all in the Gospels about "the Original Catholic Church"
.> >being there. Kind of an odd omission, don't you think?
.> It's not a matter of "the original Catholic Church" being there.
You're the one that brought that up.
.> Yep, as seen in the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments, et al.
.> You SB's totally ignored those, which ARE in scripture.
Good point. That's why Baptists don't get married, never have communion,
or get baptized. In fact that latter, the avoidance of baptism, is why they're
called "Baptists".
.> 1. Marriage as many times as one desires. Jesus said "let no man put asunder
.> that which God has joined." By your marriages over and over, God must not have
.> approved.

Many Protestants do believe that. Certainly not all.

And a ton of Catholics ignore it:

"A quarter of U.S. Catholic adults say they have
experienced a divorce, according to our survey.
That's somewhat fewer than among U.S. adults
overall (30%). Among U.S. Catholics who have ever
been divorced, roughly a quarter (26%) say they or
their former spouse have sought an annulment from
the Catholic Church."

-- https://tinyurl.com/p5wzmml
.> 2. Your communion is not a consecration of bread and wine into the Body and
.> Blood of Jesus, but only a remembrance or maybe a fellowship.

The exact words Jesus spoke are repeated. If it's <POOF!> magically
transmuted, then that must happen when Protestants do it too.
Of course it actually doesn't, and there is no way you can prove that it is.

.> 3. Baptism, I think, is according to the proper method.

There is no "proper method". But if you want to get all Biblical,
we can go down to the river. Some evangelicals do exactly that.
.> >> >.> It's a matter
.> >> >.> of there being only one Church that fully offers the characteristics that Jesus
.> >> >.> specified. That's the Catholic Church.

Actually, it's a matter of making that claim, with no way of backing it up.
I repeat: the earliest Protestants were Catholics. Catholics who took
a look around and decided their Church had too much of man in it
and too little of Jesus.

AA
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
What in the world does that have to do with things that, if Jesus specified them,
we know nothing about it?
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
1. Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
2. Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
3. Confession - John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18-19, Mat 9:2-8
4. Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
5. Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13-14, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6,
6. Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
7. Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
Mat 16:13-19 (Pope), Mat 28:16-20 (Teaching), Eph 2:19-20 (Base)
1 Cor 3:10-15
Mat 25:31-46, James 2:26
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Give drink to the thirsty.
Visit the imprisoned.
.> Heal the sick.
.> Cast out demons.
Heal the sick and cast out demons? Whoo, boy, they do those
things most spectacularly. Turn on your TV any Sunday morning.
I wouldn't think seriously what I see on Sunday tv.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So, they cast out demons a lot at your church these days?
You should take some video.
Jesus did, and he said "follow me".
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****
duke
2017-12-05 19:03:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 12:07:58 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 12:33:57 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 13:36:23 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 04:53:31 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
.> >"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
.> >to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
.> The Original Catholic Church was there with Jesus. What he told them is just as
.> valid as partial written records that were canonized by the same people.
So, there are no records of these things that He told them, of which there
are no records. Is that what you're saying?
Nope. Christian dogmatic faith is based on the canonized written word.
.> >But somehow you magically know what these things are which there are no
.> >records of.
.> >.> You have to address John 21:25, not me.
.> >Oh, I am addressing it. Pointing out that just because not all of what Jesus
.> >said got written down, that gives you exactly zero license to use that as an
.> >excuse to invent things.
.> Who's inventing?
Your Church. Do you not know what we're discussing here?
Yes, yes I do. Nothing in Catholic dogmatic statements comes from the
non-written part. It is supportive however.
,> For 1600 years, there was one Christian/Catholic Church. The heretics invented
,> untruths. And then the protest_ers came along and flat said "we're not going to
,> accept these things from written scripture."
Exactly backwards. Did you forget a "not" in there?
No. The protest_ant churches reject the Holy Mass and essentially 5 of 7
sacraments.

MASS:
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).

SACRAMENTS:
1. Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
2. Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
3. Confession - John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18-19, Mat 9:2-8
4. Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
5. Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13-14, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6,
6. Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
7. Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14

PAPACY:
Mat 16:13-19 (Pope), Mat 28:16-20 (Teaching), Eph 2:19-20 (Base)

PURGATORY:
1 Cor 3:10-15

FAITH (without deeds is dead faith):
Mat 25:31-46, James 2:26
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Give drink to the thirsty.
Visit the imprisoned.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >.>You fail to understand that everything that Jesus said and
.> >.> did was "100% man-viewed" to either be put in writing, or not, but still known
.> >.> as truth.
.> >If it's not in writing, then how do you know what was said.
.> See above.
I don't see a thing above that answers it. Try again: if it's not in writing, then
how do you know?
Now you do.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >And of course, even if it is in writing that in no way guarantees it was either
.> >said or is true.
.> Jesus offered it, and men accepted it. You sound like a pagan now.
My goodness, it's taking you a really really long time to get the idea, isn't it?
.> > Doubly so, given that was was set down in writing was
.> >done so over a generation later, by men who neither said it nor heard it
.> >themselves.
.> A generation is 20 years.
OK, then make that three to four generations.
..> The certifications of the teachings and actions of Jesus were real time.
I have absolutely no idea what that sentence was supposed to mean.
Post by duke
And massive changes to Christianity were greatly taking
place all that time.
.> Your SB boys could only sit back and turn away form what they didn't like. But
.> that was 1600 years after the fact.
<sigh> 1500...
.> >.> You protest_ants didn't come around for another 1600 years.
Protestants did not "come around", they were Catholics who took
a long look at what the Church had become and decided it had
strayed badly from what Jesus taught.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
But thousands, many
.> of which knew saw him personally and learned from him, did not get their
.> observations in writing, which is only a select few books - 4 in all.
.> >Oh, there were many many many more than four.
.> >Quite a number of which your Church does not at all care for.
.> Nope. 4 canonized. All the rest rejected because of errors, fabrications, or
.> offering no new information not already in hand.
That right? I'm guessing you don't know a single thing about, say,
The Gospel of Thomas, just to pick the most celebrated one.
.> >.> You protest_ers biggest failure to launch is "scripture only". John 21:25.
.> >.> We of the RCC are much more fully aware of things that were said and done.
.> >How?
.> We were there as the first part of the new Church of Jesus Christ. You guys
.> came along 1600 years later.
If it's not written down, how do you know what took place in early church in the
years following Christ's death?
.> >.> They
.> >.> are not in scripture and thus can't be offered as dogma. But they are still
.> >.> true.
.> >How do you know?
.> Jesus confirmed it.
And yet you can give no evidence for that claim.
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >Kind of like there is not one thing at all in the Gospels about "the Original Catholic Church"
.> >being there. Kind of an odd omission, don't you think?
.> It's not a matter of "the original Catholic Church" being there.
You're the one that brought that up.
.> Yep, as seen in the Holy Mass and 7 sacraments, et al.
.> You SB's totally ignored those, which ARE in scripture.
Good point. That's why Baptists don't get married, never have communion,
or get baptized. In fact that latter, the avoidance of baptism, is why they're
called "Baptists".
.> 1. Marriage as many times as one desires. Jesus said "let no man put asunder
.> that which God has joined." By your marriages over and over, God must not have
.> approved.
Many Protestants do believe that. Certainly not all.
"A quarter of U.S. Catholic adults say they have
experienced a divorce, according to our survey.
That's somewhat fewer than among U.S. adults
overall (30%). Among U.S. Catholics who have ever
been divorced, roughly a quarter (26%) say they or
their former spouse have sought an annulment from
the Catholic Church."
-- https://tinyurl.com/p5wzmml
.> 2. Your communion is not a consecration of bread and wine into the Body and
.> Blood of Jesus, but only a remembrance or maybe a fellowship.
The exact words Jesus spoke are repeated. If it's <POOF!> magically
transmuted, then that must happen when Protestants do it too.
Of course it actually doesn't, and there is no way you can prove that it is.
.> 3. Baptism, I think, is according to the proper method.
There is no "proper method". But if you want to get all Biblical,
we can go down to the river. Some evangelicals do exactly that.
.> >> >.> It's a matter
.> >> >.> of there being only one Church that fully offers the characteristics that Jesus
.> >> >.> specified. That's the Catholic Church.
Actually, it's a matter of making that claim, with no way of backing it up.
I repeat: the earliest Protestants were Catholics. Catholics who took
a look around and decided their Church had too much of man in it
and too little of Jesus.
AA
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
What in the world does that have to do with things that, if Jesus specified them,
we know nothing about it?
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
1. Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
2. Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
3. Confession - John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18-19, Mat 9:2-8
4. Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
5. Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13-14, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6,
6. Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
7. Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
Mat 16:13-19 (Pope), Mat 28:16-20 (Teaching), Eph 2:19-20 (Base)
1 Cor 3:10-15
Mat 25:31-46, James 2:26
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Give drink to the thirsty.
Visit the imprisoned.
.> Heal the sick.
.> Cast out demons.
Heal the sick and cast out demons? Whoo, boy, they do those
things most spectacularly. Turn on your TV any Sunday morning.
I wouldn't think seriously what I see on Sunday tv.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So, they cast out demons a lot at your church these days?
You should take some video.
Jesus did, and he said "follow me".
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Teresita
2017-12-21 11:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
We can dance the night away about how much Jesus loved his mother, but we can't
claim more than what's in the canonized scripture.
That didn't stop your church from claiming she was without sin, when the
canonized scripture said all have sinned.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.
duke
2017-12-21 14:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
We can dance the night away about how much Jesus loved his mother, but we can't
claim more than what's in the canonized scripture.
That didn't stop your church from claiming she was without sin, when the
canonized scripture said all have sinned.
Question: Does the Church say so, or does canonized scripture fully support it?
Answer: Scripture fully supports it.
Authority: Ex-cathedra statement by the Pope as authorized by Jesus.
Requirements: Can't be contrary to the Word of God.
Post by Teresita
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.
Romans 3:9 "We Jews are no better than the gentiles".

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Teresita
2017-12-22 03:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
We can dance the night away about how much Jesus loved his mother, but we can't
claim more than what's in the canonized scripture.
That didn't stop your church from claiming she was without sin, when the
canonized scripture said all have sinned.
Question: Does the Church say so, or does canonized scripture fully support it?
Answer: Scripture fully supports it.
Catholic Church: "Mary did not sin."

Sacred Scripture: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
duke
2017-12-22 13:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
We can dance the night away about how much Jesus loved his mother, but we can't
claim more than what's in the canonized scripture.
That didn't stop your church from claiming she was without sin, when the
canonized scripture said all have sinned.
Question: Does the Church say so, or does canonized scripture fully support it?
Answer: Scripture fully supports it.
Catholic Church: "Mary did not sin."
Luke 1:28New International Version (NIV)
28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The
Lord is with you.”

Luke 1:47New International Version (NIV)
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

Sin free at conception.
Post by Teresita
Sacred Scripture: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Teresita
2017-12-23 02:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Sin free at conception.
Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our
righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and
our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

All means all. Even Jesus' momma.
Andrew
2017-12-23 07:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Sin free at conception.
Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our
righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a
leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
All means all. Even Jesus' momma.
If His momma was basically sinless,
then He did not come in the flesh as
that we have.

We have been warned that this would
be one of the marks of the .........

----> antichrist power.

"Every spirit that confesses that Jesus
Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
and every spirit that does not confess
that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh
is not of God. And this is the spirit of
the Antichrist, which you have heard
was coming, and is now already in the
world." ~ 1 John 4
Ted
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Sin free at conception.
Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our >
righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a
leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Post by duke
All means all. Even Jesus' momma.
If His momma was basically sinless, then He did not come in the flesh as
that we have.
We have been warned that this would
be one of the marks of the .........
----> antichrist power.
"Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is
of God, and every spirit that does not confess
that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of
the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in
the world." ~ 1 John 4
That's interesting, Andrew, thanks for sharing.
duke
2017-12-23 18:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Sin free at conception.
Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our
righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and
our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
All means all. Even Jesus' momma.
Nope, the only way anyone can be "most blessed of God" is to be sin-free.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Teresita
2017-12-23 19:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Sin free at conception.
Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our
righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and
our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
All means all. Even Jesus' momma.
Nope, the only way anyone can be "most blessed of God" is to be sin-free.
Did the Bible say that? No, the Bible said everyone sinned, even Mary
affirmed it when she called God her savior. A sin-free woman doesn't
have a savior. But it's just God's word, Duke, so don't let any of that
stop you.
duke
2017-12-24 15:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Sin free at conception.
Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our
righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and
our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
All means all. Even Jesus' momma.
Nope, the only way anyone can be "most blessed of God" is to be sin-free.
Did the Bible say that? No, the Bible said everyone sinned, even Mary
affirmed it when she called God her savior.
Yes, the bible says that but not necessarily is so many words. Mary couldn't
know differently as part of a Jewish family. The bible is the word of God but
written in the hand and culture of man.

The Church issued an ex-cathedra statement declaring the Immaculate Conception
of Mary - the ARK of the new covenant - a sinless vessel. To do so mandated
that it be in accordance with the teachings of the Lord Jesus. We accept that
Jesus cleansed Mary of original sin and all actual sin (if she had any) when he
selected Mary to be his birth mother.
Post by Teresita
A sin-free woman doesn't
have a savior. But it's just God's word, Duke, so don't let any of that
stop you.
Well, we're discussing two issues. You mandate only one. I accept both with
the help of the Church.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Teresita
2018-01-01 16:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
We accept that
Jesus cleansed Mary of original sin and all actual sin (if she had any) when he
selected Mary to be his birth mother.
Selected his mother. And Christians wonder why atheists think they're
insane.
Don Martin
2018-01-01 21:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
We accept that
Jesus cleansed Mary of original sin and all actual sin (if she had any) when he
selected Mary to be his birth mother.
Selected his mother. And Christians wonder why atheists think they're
insane.
There once lived a man named Oedipus Rex,
You may have heard about his quaint complex:
His name appears in Freud's index
'Cause he looooved his mother!

(Tom Lehrer
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/tom+lehrer/oedipus+rex_20138385.html)
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
duke
2018-01-02 23:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
We accept that
Jesus cleansed Mary of original sin and all actual sin (if she had any) when he
selected Mary to be his birth mother.
Selected his mother. And Christians wonder why atheists think they're
insane.
As the 2nd person of the triune God, Jesus existed from the beginning of time.
After playing a round of golf one day, Jesus said back and gave his future
mother a thorough spiritual cleaning that when he would be born, he would be sin
free.

Dumb non-apologist.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Cloud Hobbit
2017-12-23 19:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Nope, the only way anyone can be "most blessed of God" is to be sin-free.
- hide quoted text -

the dukester, American-Satanist


Well Duke, that means you are hellbound for certain.

You are far from sin free.
You lie, you steal other people's words and you stay where you are not wanted.
duke
2017-12-24 15:15:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 11:48:58 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Nope, the only way anyone can be "most blessed of God" is to be sin-free.
- hide quoted text -
the dukester, American-Satanist
Well Duke, that means you are hellbound for certain.
You are far from sin free.
That's why Jesus gave us the Sacrament of Confession, John 20:22-23. When we
sin, we have a savior who gives us a way back. We all live in venial sin daily,
but mortal sin against God mandates confession.
Post by duke
You lie, you steal other people's words and you stay where you are not wanted.
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
duke
2017-12-02 17:40:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
That's right. There are 4 books called Gospels which are certified fully
correct with what Jesus said and did according to those that knew him..

The 3 primary reasons for rejection of other "gospel books" include:
1. Mistakes
2. Fabrications.
3. No new information.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Old doc T, a fallen away Catholic.
the dukester, American-American
*****
.> The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
.> and a good cigar.
.> G.K. Chesterton
G.K. Chesterton, who presciently compared the Church with
three things that can be seriously harmful.
AA
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
duke
2017-12-21 13:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:07:30 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> ...........youth wearing his cap on backwards as his authority. Like poor old
.> doc T always wearing his green shirt as seen in his movies and demanding that
.> scripture ALONE is the Word of God when scripture ITSELF states that not
.> everything said and did is not written down. John 21:25.
"Not everything Jesus said and did is not written down" is not equivalent
to "Hey, so make up anything you want to and put God's stamp on it!"
Exactly, but the early Church Fathers were clearly "eye witness". As opposed to
the first protest_ing churches showing up 1600 years later with "new ways".

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Cloud Hobbit
2017-12-22 22:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bob's bullshit is only slightly more delusional than yours Duke.

Both are based on the fiction of the Bible and the belief in a God for which no reliable evidence exists.

Welcome to the legion of stupidity.
Bob
2017-12-22 22:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Bob's bullshit is only slightly more delusional than yours Duke.
Both are based on the fiction of the Bible and the belief in a God for which no reliable evidence exists.
Welcome to the legion of stupidity.
Should everyone stop believing in God just because you don't?

You're not able to detect any evidence for God because he doesn't want
you to believe he exists.

See Mark 4:11, 12. And then get over it.
default
2017-12-23 00:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Bob's bullshit is only slightly more delusional than yours Duke.
Both are based on the fiction of the Bible and the belief in a God for which no reliable evidence exists.
Welcome to the legion of stupidity.
Should everyone stop believing in God just because you don't?
You're not able to detect any evidence for God because he doesn't want
you to believe he exists.
Or we can't find any evidence of god because he doesn't exist. That
statement is far more likely than "he's hiding from us."
Christopher A. Lee
2017-12-23 00:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Bob's bullshit is only slightly more delusional than yours Duke.
Both are based on the fiction of the Bible and the belief in a God
for which no reliable evidence exists.
Welcome to the legion of stupidity.
Should everyone stop believing in God just because you don't?
Where did anybody say that?
Post by default
Post by Bob
You're not able to detect any evidence for God because he doesn't want
you to believe he exists.
Does the moron seriously imagine personal lies achieve anything?
Post by default
Or we can't find any evidence of god because he doesn't exist. That
statement is far more likely than "he's hiding from us."
And it's falsifiable. But lying about us instead of providing the
missing evidence, simply reinforces the conclusion.

It's yet another data point against.

So far, it's gajillions against, and none for.
Bob
2017-12-23 05:13:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Bob's bullshit is only slightly more delusional than yours Duke.
Both are based on the fiction of the Bible and the belief in a God for which no reliable evidence exists.
Welcome to the legion of stupidity.
Should everyone stop believing in God just because you don't?
You're not able to detect any evidence for God because he doesn't want
you to believe he exists.
Or we can't find any evidence of god because he doesn't exist. That
statement is far more likely than "he's hiding from us."
No. That's what you want to believe. And that's because God has rejected
you.
And that's because he has predestined not to give you eternal life. And
that's
why you spend every waking moment of your life thinking about how much
you hate him. And that's why you're here in alt.atheism now, seeking for
companionship with others who have been rejected by God and hate him.

You may not want to believe he exists, but God's going to make sure that you
never stop thinking about him, either in this life, or in the next one.

You're welcome.

<smirk>
default
2017-12-23 11:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by default
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Bob's bullshit is only slightly more delusional than yours Duke.
Both are based on the fiction of the Bible and the belief in a God for which no reliable evidence exists.
Welcome to the legion of stupidity.
Should everyone stop believing in God just because you don't?
You're not able to detect any evidence for God because he doesn't want
you to believe he exists.
Or we can't find any evidence of god because he doesn't exist. That
statement is far more likely than "he's hiding from us."
No. That's what you want to believe. And that's because God has rejected
you.
If you believe that, there's no point in believing because it isn't up
to you...
Post by Bob
And that's because he has predestined not to give you eternal life. And
that's
why you spend every waking moment of your life thinking about how much
you hate him. And that's why you're here in alt.atheism now, seeking for
companionship with others who have been rejected by God and hate him.
I don't "hate" god, I only hate what religion does to people. Hate
something that doesn't exist? That's just stupid. Do you throw a
temper-tantrum when your PC fails or does something unexpected? (not
if your rational; because you know it is only a machine and it isn't
personal)

Same thing with hating god. It is not rational to hate someone else's
imaginary boogeyman.

But hating sanctimonious self-righteous bigots? YES!
Post by Bob
You may not want to believe he exists, but God's going to make sure that you
never stop thinking about him, either in this life, or in the next one.
I pity those fools who go through life thinking things get better with
death. If your life is that bad, why do you continue living?
Post by Bob
You're welcome.
<smirk>
I'm sure you've figured out, by now, that you aren't preaching to the
choir.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-12-23 01:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Nobody here asks that people stop believing in God. We simply explain why what theists claim as evidence is not.

We also ask that theists stop trolling here and discuss their beliefs elsewhere. Just as we do not troll theist NG.
default
2017-12-23 11:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 17:38:05 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Nobody here asks that people stop believing in God. We simply explain why what theists claim as evidence is not.
We also ask that theists stop trolling here and discuss their beliefs elsewhere. Just as we do not troll theist NG.
Speak for yourself kemosabi, I delight in posting to the RCC
newsgroup. Fair retribution for the 18 years of Catholic brainwashing
I received....
Christopher A. Lee
2017-12-23 11:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 17:38:05 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Nobody here asks that people stop believing in God. We simply
explain why what theists claim as evidence is not.
We also ask that theists stop trolling here and discuss their beliefs
elsewhere. Just as we do not troll theist NG.
Speak for yourself kemosabi, I delight in posting to the RCC
newsgroup. Fair retribution for the 18 years of Catholic brainwashing
I received....
Then you lower yourself to the level of Puke, 'Drool, Mad Joe etc,
and encourage more trolls to come here.

Don't be such a jerk.
default
2017-12-23 14:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 05:54:39 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 17:38:05 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Nobody here asks that people stop believing in God. We simply
explain why what theists claim as evidence is not.
We also ask that theists stop trolling here and discuss their beliefs
elsewhere. Just as we do not troll theist NG.
Speak for yourself kemosabi, I delight in posting to the RCC
newsgroup. Fair retribution for the 18 years of Catholic brainwashing
I received....
Then you lower yourself to the level of Puke, 'Drool, Mad Joe etc,
and encourage more trolls to come here.
Don't be such a jerk.
That's not going to change.

The atheist group wouldn't exist except for the theists that force
their beliefs on the rest of us. Even if you take the approach that
atheists should discuss amongst themselves, you might just as well be
a theist because that self-reinforcing behavior is exactly what they
do with religion.

Unless you get exposed to different ideas, you can't expect to grow.

Or to use an anecdote. I frequented the same barber shop for many
years, it was next door to where I worked. The owner was something of
a character and he'd have cronies in even when they weren't actually
waiting for a haircut. They talked about baseball, prize fighters,
the middle east conflict, women, etc.. I went in the navy for 6 years
and about a year after I left the navy I stopped in to the shop just
to say hello. Damn if the conversation hadn't changed one iota. The
same people, voicing the same opinions for 7 years? That's what
happens when you stay within an insular sub-culture.

Jews? Same thing. I highly insular and intolerant sub-culture.
Catholics? Ditto.

You may not like the religious ninnies who post to alt.atheism, but I
figure they do us a service, if only to demonstrate how thoroughly
brainwashed they are.

But personally, I do it because I enjoy rubbing their noses in their
own lunacy.

Perhaps you'd tell me why you post to alt.atheism? What do you get
out of it? or where do you find the satisfaction or reward in posting
Christopher A. Lee
2017-12-23 16:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 05:54:39 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 17:38:05 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Nobody here asks that people stop believing in God. We simply
explain why what theists claim as evidence is not.
We also ask that theists stop trolling here and discuss their beliefs
elsewhere. Just as we do not troll theist NG.
Speak for yourself kemosabi, I delight in posting to the RCC
newsgroup. Fair retribution for the 18 years of Catholic brainwashing
I received....
Then you lower yourself to the level of Puke, 'Drool, Mad Joe etc,
and encourage more trolls to come here.
Don't be such a jerk.
That's not going to change.
The atheist group wouldn't exist except for the theists that force
their beliefs on the rest of us. Even if you take the approach that
atheists should discuss amongst themselves, you might just as well be
a theist because that self-reinforcing behavior is exactly what they
do with religion.
Bollocks. The group was set up by atheists to discuss our own
business, like the issues we face living in a predominantly theistic
society.

How the fuck is that "self-reinforcing"?

Do you imagine that not believing in UFO abductions is
"self-reinforcing"?

And the putative existence of the god of somebody else's religion, is
hardly an issue for anybody except members of that religion.
Post by default
Unless you get exposed to different ideas, you can't expect to grow.
We're exposed to theist bullshit masquerading as "ideas" all day and
every day. This was supposed to be a place to get away from that.

If one of them had something new, that they were prepared to discuss
honestly and intelligently, that might be different.

But none of them ever have.

They keep bringing up the same old lies about things that are nothing
to do with atheism, eg abiogenesis, evolution, the laws of
thermodynamics, etc. And in the twenty-six years I have been here, I
have never once seen any honest discussion from them about these.
Post by default
Or to use an anecdote. I frequented the same barber shop for many
years, it was next door to where I worked. The owner was something of
a character and he'd have cronies in even when they weren't actually
waiting for a haircut. They talked about baseball, prize fighters,
the middle east conflict, women, etc.. I went in the navy for 6 years
and about a year after I left the navy I stopped in to the shop just
to say hello. Damn if the conversation hadn't changed one iota. The
same people, voicing the same opinions for 7 years? That's what
happens when you stay within an insular sub-culture.
Bad analogy noted.

When I lived in the Bay Area, I would not use one particular model
train etc store, because everybody who went in was treated to a tirade
about Slick Willy. Which was a pity, because they had the best range
of airbrush accessories.

This is a place for us to discuss our own business.

There is a difference between that, and chewing the breeze while
waiting for a haircut.

The behaviour of most of the theists who crash the group, would get
the fists flying if they did it in the meat world.
Post by default
Jews? Same thing. I highly insular and intolerant sub-culture.
Catholics? Ditto.
I see. It's intolerant to tell stupid theists to fuck off, when they
keep repeating the same old unsolicited nonsense and outright lies,
expecting them to be taken seriously.
Post by default
You may not like the religious ninnies who post to alt.atheism, but I
figure they do us a service, if only to demonstrate how thoroughly
brainwashed they are.
We already know. And they piss off even mainstream theists.
Post by default
But personally, I do it because I enjoy rubbing their noses in their
own lunacy.
Sounds sociopathic to me.

If you can't allow them to live and let live, they have an excuse for
doing the same to us.

Where I came from, there were three subjects that weren't brought up
in conversation unless you knew how the other person would react -
religion, politics and sport except in the most general way, because
these are polarising.
Post by default
Perhaps you'd tell me why you post to alt.atheism? What do you get
out of it? or where do you find the satisfaction or reward in posting
Originally to discuss the issues and problems atheists face living in
a predominantly theist culture, a bit like a mutual support group.
Little things like relationships with theists, how (and whether) to
come out as atheists to family, friends and co-workers, what to do
about coerced prayer, oaths, bigotry and discrimination against
atheists all the way up to the Bush1 White House, etc. Simple,
everyday things like weddings and funerals, etc.

But try talking about these without the religious loonies jumping in
and attacking us over them, threatening us with hellfire for refusing
to participate, etc.

Or what to do about creationism without the loonies lying about both
it, evolution and big bang cosmology.

Since then, I have met interesting and knowledgeable people here, who
have become friends - and we hold the kind of conversation friends do
about mutual interests. Eg many of us are layman science nerds,
railroad nerds, like the same music, have cats and dogs, swap recipes
etc.

People like the late and much missed Les Hellawell, Smiler, Mickey,
Jeanne, Seth and others.

Some time back, I was close to proposing to my Catholic Lady Friend
and wanted to talk with regulars who were in a similar relationship,
but I had to take this to private email because of the loonies who
infest the group.
default
2017-12-23 18:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:40:48 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 05:54:39 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 17:38:05 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Nobody here asks that people stop believing in God. We simply
explain why what theists claim as evidence is not.
We also ask that theists stop trolling here and discuss their beliefs
elsewhere. Just as we do not troll theist NG.
Speak for yourself kemosabi, I delight in posting to the RCC
newsgroup. Fair retribution for the 18 years of Catholic brainwashing
I received....
Then you lower yourself to the level of Puke, 'Drool, Mad Joe etc,
and encourage more trolls to come here.
Don't be such a jerk.
That's not going to change.
The atheist group wouldn't exist except for the theists that force
their beliefs on the rest of us. Even if you take the approach that
atheists should discuss amongst themselves, you might just as well be
a theist because that self-reinforcing behavior is exactly what they
do with religion.
Bollocks. The group was set up by atheists to discuss our own
business, like the issues we face living in a predominantly theistic
society.
Set up by atheists etc., sounds remarkably like there's some atheist
doctrine that we can all agree on.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
How the fuck is that "self-reinforcing"?
no new blood in the group
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Do you imagine that not believing in UFO abductions is
"self-reinforcing"?
The subject of a belief is not germane, the idea is that the same
people will not venture outside their secure attitudes and beliefs if
allowed to stagnate.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And the putative existence of the god of somebody else's religion, is
hardly an issue for anybody except members of that religion.
Post by default
Unless you get exposed to different ideas, you can't expect to grow.
We're exposed to theist bullshit masquerading as "ideas" all day and
every day. This was supposed to be a place to get away from that.
Or in other words, religion by design (in this case) hasn't found a
need to challenge those beliefs and have stagnated. I am a beacon of
light in the RCC group...

And getting people to think about the ridiculousness of their
unfounded beliefs can't be all bad, and would seem to be in our
interest.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If one of them had something new, that they were prepared to discuss
honestly and intelligently, that might be different.
But none of them ever have.
Well yeah, that does get tiresome, but doesn't it make you feel
superior to ridicule them? Boost your ego? etc.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They keep bringing up the same old lies about things that are nothing
to do with atheism, eg abiogenesis, evolution, the laws of
thermodynamics, etc. And in the twenty-six years I have been here, I
have never once seen any honest discussion from them about these.
And you may never have an "honest" discussion with the brainwashed,
they are dinosaurs and have to go extinct; but by railing against them
you just may influence some kid or newbie to question what the theists
are trying to tell him. When two sides are juxtaposed it allows one
to choose the more likely.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
Or to use an anecdote. I frequented the same barber shop for many
years, it was next door to where I worked. The owner was something of
a character and he'd have cronies in even when they weren't actually
waiting for a haircut. They talked about baseball, prize fighters,
the middle east conflict, women, etc.. I went in the navy for 6 years
and about a year after I left the navy I stopped in to the shop just
to say hello. Damn if the conversation hadn't changed one iota. The
same people, voicing the same opinions for 7 years? That's what
happens when you stay within an insular sub-culture.
Bad analogy noted.
When I lived in the Bay Area, I would not use one particular model
train etc store, because everybody who went in was treated to a tirade
about Slick Willy. Which was a pity, because they had the best range
of airbrush accessories.
non-sequitur
Post by Christopher A. Lee
This is a place for us to discuss our own business.
You can always drop my name, and the troll's names, in the bozo bin.
That is the ultimate in isolation, listen to only what you want to
hear...
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is a difference between that, and chewing the breeze while
waiting for a haircut.
The behaviour of most of the theists who crash the group, would get
the fists flying if they did it in the meat world.
Ya think? Only on the side of the brainwashed maybe; doing god's work
and all... Rational people don't resort to violence when someone
disagrees with them. (one thing that makes Trump scary, IMO)
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
Jews? Same thing. I highly insular and intolerant sub-culture.
Catholics? Ditto.
I see. It's intolerant to tell stupid theists to fuck off, when they
keep repeating the same old unsolicited nonsense and outright lies,
expecting them to be taken seriously.
'True. The same people tend to think you are capitulating when you
don't challenge the same old nonsense.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
You may not like the religious ninnies who post to alt.atheism, but I
figure they do us a service, if only to demonstrate how thoroughly
brainwashed they are.
We already know. And they piss off even mainstream theists.
Mainstream theists? Not sure what you mean. You mean those that keep
their mouths shut and don't pry you out of your comfort zone? Or
those nice guys that keep their mouths shut and just vote for stupid
religious ideologies?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
But personally, I do it because I enjoy rubbing their noses in their
own lunacy.
Sounds sociopathic to me.
I didn't say it was noble. If I'm honest, I'm just stroking my ego
and feeling superior. It is a cheap "high." I can find lots of
things wrong with it from a logical viewpoint but I do it because it
makes me feel good, not because it makes sense.

Know yourself, to do that means you have to examine your motivations
and emotions.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you can't allow them to live and let live, they have an excuse for
doing the same to us.
Hmm, that is logical, but history tells it differently. These aren't
logical people, they are believing stuff based on their emotions. And
when their con men tell them to go out and makes converts, or war,
(for the greater glory of their god) they are only too happy to
oblige.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Where I came from, there were three subjects that weren't brought up
in conversation unless you knew how the other person would react -
religion, politics and sport except in the most general way, because
these are polarising.
Yeah I got that too. Back in the days, before SSB and Packet, I grew
up listening to radio amateurs discussing things. But it gets boring
listening to them talk about their "rigs" or the merits of one antenna
over another. Sex, Politics, and Religion were never to be discussed.

But it was SPR that was interesting and that's where I learned that my
indoctrination was, in fact, indoctrination.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
Perhaps you'd tell me why you post to alt.atheism? What do you get
out of it? or where do you find the satisfaction or reward in posting
Originally to discuss the issues and problems atheists face living in
a predominantly theist culture, a bit like a mutual support group.
Little things like relationships with theists, how (and whether) to
come out as atheists to family, friends and co-workers, what to do
about coerced prayer, oaths, bigotry and discrimination against
atheists all the way up to the Bush1 White House, etc. Simple,
everyday things like weddings and funerals, etc.
But try talking about these without the religious loonies jumping in
and attacking us over them, threatening us with hellfire for refusing
to participate, etc.
Or what to do about creationism without the loonies lying about both
it, evolution and big bang cosmology.
Since then, I have met interesting and knowledgeable people here, who
have become friends - and we hold the kind of conversation friends do
about mutual interests. Eg many of us are layman science nerds,
railroad nerds, like the same music, have cats and dogs, swap recipes
etc.
People like the late and much missed Les Hellawell, Smiler, Mickey,
Jeanne, Seth and others.
Some time back, I was close to proposing to my Catholic Lady Friend
and wanted to talk with regulars who were in a similar relationship,
but I had to take this to private email because of the loonies who
infest the group.
I won't say they aren't irksome or tiresome, but I don't want to dwell
on that, because it is a negative feeling and hurts me more than it
does them.

So you're saying, in effect, that your sole motivations are based on
logical righteous academic reasons? But I'm still asking the question
from an emotional point of view - what is the payoff for you? What do
you feel, not how you justify it.

To me, that represents a better understanding of oneself.

You might say I do the right things for the wrong reasons. I think of
myself as honest, logical, intelligent, and "good," if a little too
narcist and egotistical. In order to feed my ego, I have to be
honest, logical etc..

Emotion isn't bad, without it life would be empty indeed, but it can
color and affect objectivity, so you have to allow for it and try to
understand it.

I wonder about RL Measures too, he's gone silent, but I can't find any
reasons by searching on line. His business web site is still up and
running.
Malte Runz
2017-12-23 18:47:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 17:38:05 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Nobody here asks that people stop believing in God. We simply explain why what theists claim as evidence is not.
We also ask that theists stop trolling here and discuss their beliefs elsewhere. Just as we do not troll theist NG.
Speak for yourself kemosabi, I delight in posting to the RCC
newsgroup. Fair retribution for the 18 years of Catholic brainwashing
I received....
You have my blessings.
--
Malte Runz
Cloud Hobbit
2018-01-07 02:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Should everyone stop believing in God just because you don't?

You're not able to detect any evidence for God because he doesn't want
you to believe he exists.

See Mark 4:11, 12. And then get over it.

Thanks for confirming your God is an asshole who would rather torture people than educate them.
duke
2017-12-24 15:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 14:01:56 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Bob's bullshit is only slightly more delusional than yours Duke.
Both are based on the fiction of the Bible and the belief in a God for which no reliable evidence exists.
Well, when you stand before God in judgment at the moment you die, you can
always tell God you didn't believe him. Who knows. You might be the only
person in eternity to fool him.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Welcome to the legion of stupidity.
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Teresita
2018-01-01 16:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Well, when you stand before God in judgment at the moment you die, you can
always tell God you didn't believe him.
I'll tell God I didn't believe him because he said he made birds before
Adam in chapter 1 of Genesis, and then he said he made Adam before birds
in chapter 2 of Genesis.
duke
2018-01-02 23:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Well, when you stand before God in judgment at the moment you die, you can
always tell God you didn't believe him.
I'll tell God I didn't believe him because he said he made birds before
Adam in chapter 1 of Genesis, and then he said he made Adam before birds
in chapter 2 of Genesis.
How would a navfac know what a person a million years ago think about the
difference between hot and cold blooded creatures.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Teresita
2018-01-03 01:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Well, when you stand before God in judgment at the moment you die, you can
always tell God you didn't believe him.
I'll tell God I didn't believe him because he said he made birds before
Adam in chapter 1 of Genesis, and then he said he made Adam before birds
in chapter 2 of Genesis.
How would a navfac know what a person a million years ago think about the
difference between hot and cold blooded creatures.
Do you know what NAVFAC is Duke? Navy Facilities. They enforce crane
regulations. How you thought I was a "navfac" is beyond me. As for how
I know things, I dunno. I went to school maybe.
duke
2018-01-03 17:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Well, when you stand before God in judgment at the moment you die, you can
always tell God you didn't believe him.
I'll tell God I didn't believe him because he said he made birds before
Adam in chapter 1 of Genesis, and then he said he made Adam before birds
in chapter 2 of Genesis.
How would a navfac know what a person a million years ago think about the
difference between hot and cold blooded creatures.
Do you know what NAVFAC is Duke? Navy Facilities.
Yeah, I know.
Post by Teresita
They enforce crane
regulations. How you thought I was a "navfac" is beyond me. As for how
I know things, I dunno. I went to school maybe.
Strange you and I both know, and *I* never worked for them. Are you getting the
picture yet?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
aaa
2018-01-03 12:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Well, when you stand before God in judgment at the moment you die, you can
always tell God you didn't believe him.
I'll tell God I didn't believe him because he said he made birds before
Adam in chapter 1 of Genesis, and then he said he made Adam before birds
in chapter 2 of Genesis.
God has had many creations. Genesis 1 is the creation of the planet
Earth. Genesis 2 is the creation of our current human world. They are
not the same thing. The world of dinosaurs is also a Creation of God.
Since it has nothing to do with us, there is no need to mention it in
the Bible.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Teresita
2018-01-04 03:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
God has had many creations. Genesis 1 is the creation of the planet
Earth. Genesis 2 is the creation of our current human world.
Genesis 1 has man AND woman created on day six.

Genesis 2 has all the animals created AFTER the man, but BEFORE the
woman. Therefore it must be a recapituation of the events of day six.
Yet there are some animals created on day five in Genesis 1.
aaa
2018-01-04 05:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by aaa
God has had many creations. Genesis 1 is the creation of the planet
Earth. Genesis 2 is the creation of our current human world.
Genesis 1 has man AND woman created on day six.
Genesis 1 reflects the scientific discovery of the history of earth.
What God calls day is simply another way to describe the different
stages of earth development.
Post by Teresita
Genesis 2 has all the animals created AFTER the man, but BEFORE the
woman. Therefore it must be a recapituation of the events of day six.
Yet there are some animals created on day five in Genesis 1.
Genesis 2 is more related to us. It's a description of how our human
civilization started. It has little to do with Genesis 1. There are
important spiritual meanings in Genesis 2 because it explains how we
sinned against God. We can understand it in a general way, but it's more
useful to understand it in a personal way. Spiritually speaking, we are
all Adams. Eve is our intellectual mind. When we were born, from our
point of view, there were only us. Everything else in the world appeared
to us later. So Adam was created first. As we were growing up and
understanding more about world, we began to develop our mental ability,
so Eve was created later. When we were old enough to understand the
intellectual knowledge of good and evil, we were deceived by such
knowledge and sinned against God.

This is my personal understanding of the Genesis 2.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Gronk
2018-01-05 04:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by aaa
God has had many creations. Genesis 1 is the creation of the planet
Earth. Genesis 2 is the creation of our current human world.
Genesis 1 has man AND woman created on day six.
Genesis 1 reflects the scientific discovery of the history of earth. What
God calls day is simply another way to describe the different stages of
earth development.
Post by Teresita
Genesis 2 has all the animals created AFTER the man, but BEFORE the
woman. Therefore it must be a recapituation of the events of day six.
Yet there are some animals created on day five in Genesis 1.
Genesis 2 is more related to us. It's a description of how our human
civilization started. It has little to do with Genesis 1. There are
important spiritual meanings in Genesis 2 because it explains how we
sinned against God. We can understand it in a general way, but it's more
useful to understand it in a personal way. Spiritually speaking, we are
all Adams. Eve is our intellectual mind. When we were born, from our point
of view, there were only us. Everything else in the world appeared to us
later. So Adam was created first. As we were growing up and understanding
more about world, we began to develop our mental ability, so Eve was
created later. When we were old enough to understand the intellectual
knowledge of good and evil, we were deceived by such knowledge and sinned
against God.
This is my personal understanding of the Genesis 2.
So it's all allegiorical, there was no breathing on dirt to make a male
human etc?
aaa
2018-01-05 10:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Post by Teresita
Post by aaa
God has had many creations. Genesis 1 is the creation of the planet
Earth. Genesis 2 is the creation of our current human world.
Genesis 1 has man AND woman created on day six.
Genesis 1 reflects the scientific discovery of the history of earth. What
God calls day is simply another way to describe the different stages of
earth development.
Post by Teresita
Genesis 2 has all the animals created AFTER the man, but BEFORE the
woman. Therefore it must be a recapituation of the events of day six.
Yet there are some animals created on day five in Genesis 1.
Genesis 2 is more related to us. It's a description of how our human
civilization started. It has little to do with Genesis 1. There are
important spiritual meanings in Genesis 2 because it explains how we
sinned against God. We can understand it in a general way, but it's more
useful to understand it in a personal way. Spiritually speaking, we are
all Adams. Eve is our intellectual mind. When we were born, from our point
of view, there were only us. Everything else in the world appeared to us
later. So Adam was created first. As we were growing up and understanding
more about world, we began to develop our mental ability, so Eve was
created later. When we were old enough to understand the intellectual
knowledge of good and evil, we were deceived by such knowledge and sinned
against God.
This is my personal understanding of the Genesis 2.
So it's all allegiorical, there was no breathing on dirt to make a male
human etc?
I'm not a Bible scholar. I'm only talking about my personal
understanding related to my personal practice.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-05 12:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
Post by Teresita
Post by aaa
God has had many creations. Genesis 1 is the creation of the planet
Earth. Genesis 2 is the creation of our current human world.
Genesis 1 has man AND woman created on day six.
Genesis 1 reflects the scientific discovery of the history of earth. What
God calls day is simply another way to describe the different stages of
earth development.
Post by Teresita
Genesis 2 has all the animals created AFTER the man, but BEFORE the
woman. Therefore it must be a recapituation of the events of day six.
Yet there are some animals created on day five in Genesis 1.
Genesis 2 is more related to us. It's a description of how our human
civilization started. It has little to do with Genesis 1. There are
important spiritual meanings in Genesis 2 because it explains how we
sinned against God. We can understand it in a general way, but it's more
useful to understand it in a personal way. Spiritually speaking, we are
all Adams. Eve is our intellectual mind. When we were born, from our point
of view, there were only us. Everything else in the world appeared to us
later. So Adam was created first. As we were growing up and understanding
more about world, we began to develop our mental ability, so Eve was
created later. When we were old enough to understand the intellectual
knowledge of good and evil, we were deceived by such knowledge and sinned
against God.
This is my personal understanding of the Genesis 2.
So it's all allegiorical, there was no breathing on dirt to make a male
human etc?
He's a fucking moron.
Loading...