Discussion:
Boob and the TULIP's delima
(too old to reply)
duke
2017-09-06 21:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is
Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will
test the quality of each person’s work.

TULIP is a false foundation.

the dukester, American-American


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

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Syd M.
2017-09-06 21:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is
Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will
test the quality of each person’s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..

PDW
Kevrob
2017-09-06 21:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
TULIP is a false foundation.
Just as your version is, troll.
Post by Syd M.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
It's all bunk.

The trolls should have their "my religion's better"
pissing matches outside this group, if at all.

Kevin R
Bob
2017-09-06 21:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
TULIP is a false foundation.
Just as your version is, troll.
Post by Syd M.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
It's all bunk.
The trolls should have their "my religion's better"
pissing matches outside this group, if at all.
If you can get duke to leave, I'll follow him.

Got it?

Until then, piss off.
--
"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules."
[Matthew 15:8, 9]
Cloud Hobbit
2017-09-07 23:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
So Bob is a follower not a leader. Why do you need someone else to do the right thing first?
Cloud Hobbit
2017-09-07 23:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You could ensure that you are not bothered by us heathens anymore by just going away.

Whatever it you think you might be accomplishing here is not working.

Unless your goal is simply to show what an asshole you are.
hleopold
2017-09-07 09:31:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will
test the quality of each person’s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant”
bible. He bitches and moans about the “protest-ants” yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad. I have known
quite a number of “holier than the Pope” Catholics and they would not be
caught dead using the KJ or any version of that bible. Duke has always tried
to come across as one of the holier than the Pope type, but has always quoted
from the NIV. I think, just like everything else about him, by him, or from
him, he is lying about what he is.

I thought for years that he might have been one of those pre-Vatican II
types, (Mel Gibbson or his father version of Catholics) but have given that
idea up as probably wrong. Personally I would not be surprised to find out
one day that he really is a Southern Baptist doing his best to slander the
RCC. I have asked Duke at lest three times why he used the NIV, no response
ever received.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

"You think atoms like having a half-life?" Incenjucar
hleopold
2017-09-07 10:09:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hleopold
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will
test the quality of each person’s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant”
bible. He bitches and moans about the “protest-ants” yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad. I have known
quite a number of “holier than the Pope” Catholics and they would not be
caught dead using the KJ or any version of that bible. Duke has always tried
to come across as one of the holier than the Pope type, but has always quoted
from the NIV. I think, just like everything else about him, by him, or from
him, he is lying about what he is.
I thought for years that he might have been one of those pre-Vatican II
types, (Mel Gibbson or his father version of Catholics) but have given that
idea up as probably wrong. Personally I would not be surprised to find out
one day that he really is a Southern Baptist doing his best to slander the
RCC. I have asked Duke at lest three times why he used the NIV, no response
ever received.
Above I twice used “holier than the Pope.” Please read that as “more
Catholic than the Pope.” Thank you.

It has been so long since I last heard the term I screwed it up, plus it is
late, I need some coffee, I just woke up, my cat was in front of the monitor,
I was not here, the cat did it.

Pick which ever excuse sounds best to you.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
raven1
2017-09-07 22:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will
test the quality of each person’s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant”
bible. He bitches and moans about the “protest-ants” yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I have known
quite a number of “holier than the Pope” Catholics and they would not be
caught dead using the KJ or any version of that bible. Duke has always tried
to come across as one of the holier than the Pope type, but has always quoted
from the NIV. I think, just like everything else about him, by him, or from
him, he is lying about what he is.
I thought for years that he might have been one of those pre-Vatican II
types, (Mel Gibbson or his father version of Catholics) but have given that
idea up as probably wrong. Personally I would not be surprised to find out
one day that he really is a Southern Baptist doing his best to slander the
RCC. I have asked Duke at lest three times why he used the NIV, no response
ever received.
Ted
2017-09-08 18:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will
test the quality of each person’s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant”
bible. He bitches and moans about the “protest-ants” yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
raven1
2017-09-08 21:35:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Ted
2017-09-08 22:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
duke
2017-09-09 17:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?

the dukester, American-American


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

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Ted
2017-09-09 18:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
raven1
2017-09-09 22:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
I see Duke still hasn't talked to his pastor like I told him to. This
is covered in CCD in the third grade, and he *still* doesn't know it.
Some Catholic he is.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed;
(2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which
we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Ted
2017-09-09 23:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
I see Duke still hasn't talked to his pastor like I told him to. This
is covered in CCD in the third grade, and he *still* doesn't know it.
Some Catholic he is.
Third grade. Oh brother.
Post by raven1
"Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed;
(2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which
we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Incredible. I literally can't imagine what's going on between his ears,
*unless* his sole motivation is just to troll.
duke
2017-09-10 15:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
I see Duke still hasn't talked to his pastor like I told him to. This
is covered in CCD in the third grade, and he *still* doesn't know it.
Some Catholic he is.
I know how to read.
Post by raven1
"Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed;
(2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which
we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
the dukester, American-American


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

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Ted
2017-09-10 15:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
I see Duke still hasn't talked to his pastor like I told him to. This
is covered in CCD in the third grade, and he *still* doesn't know it.
Some Catholic he is.
I know how to read.
Post by raven1
"Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed;
(2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which
we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
the dukester, American-American
Your IQ is just too low to learn much of anything, Duke. Yes, you can
read, but not very well.
duke
2017-09-11 12:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
I see Duke still hasn't talked to his pastor like I told him to. This
is covered in CCD in the third grade, and he *still* doesn't know it.
Some Catholic he is.
I know how to read.
Post by raven1
"Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed;
(2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which
we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
the dukester, American-American
Your IQ is just too low to learn much of anything, Duke. Yes, you can
read, but not very well.
I just love reading the statement: "The rope's tension is not W/2.'"

the dukester, American-American


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

G.K. Chesterton
*****
s***@gmail.com
2017-09-11 16:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
I see Duke still hasn't talked to his pastor like I told him to. This
is covered in CCD in the third grade, and he *still* doesn't know it.
Some Catholic he is.
.> I know how to read.

Excellent! Read this then:

" Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned..."

Can you read that? "as by one man"? Nary a woman in sight. Assuming you can read, that is.

Let's see if you can read this:

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the
similitude of Adam's transgression".

How's your reading doing on "Adam's transgression"?

Good so far? Great! Let's try this one:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

I'm not seeing "For as in Eve all die". How about you? Need granny glasses?

Too much Scripture? Too Protestanty for your tastes?
Let's try a Pope then. All righty? Here we go:

"...with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed
by an individual Adam and which, through generation,
is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own".

Original sin. Committed by Adam. Not Eve. Adam.

Oh, and by an individual Adam at that. One man. Adam.


Still reading?..... Good. Now go back and actually read
the New Advent cite that Raven linked to.



Oh, and read this too: Adam gets the blame -- that's indisputable --
even though Eve took the first bite. Why?

Because it's a myth made up by men, by men in a patriarchal society,
and women just don't count. Not really fully human. Only men really count.

In other words, it's because they had an attitude towards women exactly like yours.



Selene
Post by duke
Post by raven1
"Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed;
(2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which
we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
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
2017-09-12 18:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
I see Duke still hasn't talked to his pastor like I told him to. This
is covered in CCD in the third grade, and he *still* doesn't know it.
Some Catholic he is.
.> I know how to read.
" Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned..."
Can you read that? "as by one man"? Nary a woman in sight. Assuming you can read, that is.
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

ALL humankind knows that Adam got the ticket because the woman was property.
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the
similitude of Adam's transgression".
How's your reading doing on "Adam's transgression"?
Yep, woe_manhood is the plague of death on manhood. She acts, he pays.
Post by s***@gmail.com
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
I'm not seeing "For as in Eve all die". How about you? Need granny glasses?
Christian baptism for man and woe_man are the norm.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Too much Scripture? Too Protestanty for your tastes?
Nope, right with you.
Post by s***@gmail.com
"...with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed
by an individual Adam and which, through generation,
is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own".
Yep, Christian baptism for man and woe_man.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Original sin. Committed by Adam. Not Eve. Adam.
Eve acted, adam got the ticket.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Oh, and by an individual Adam at that. One man. Adam.
Still reading?..... Good. Now go back and actually read
the New Advent cite that Raven linked to.
Ok, go for it.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Oh, and read this too: Adam gets the blame -- that's indisputable --
even though Eve took the first bite. Why?
Because it's a myth made up by men, by men in a patriarchal society,
and women just don't count. Not really fully human. Only men really count.
A myth???
Post by s***@gmail.com
In other words, it's because they had an attitude towards women exactly like yours.
But I'm a Christian, and as Jesus, son of God, taught those of us, as
Christians, the NEW WAY:

Ephesians 5:25-33New International Version (NIV)
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself
up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water
through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without
stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same
way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his
wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they
feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are
members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother
and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[b] 32 This is a
profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each
one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must
respect her husband.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
the dukester, American-American


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

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Kit
2017-09-13 00:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
I see Duke still hasn't talked to his pastor like I told him to. This
is covered in CCD in the third grade, and he *still* doesn't know it.
Some Catholic he is.
.> I know how to read.
" Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned..."
Can you read that? "as by one man"? Nary a woman in sight. Assuming you can read, that is.
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
ALL humankind knows that Adam got the ticket because the woman was property.
Post by s***@gmail.com
"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the
similitude of Adam's transgression".
How's your reading doing on "Adam's transgression"?
Yep, woe_manhood is the plague of death on manhood. She acts, he pays.
Why are you such a fucking misogynist? You should be surprised why so many people on alt.atheism despise you, duke. You're odious.

-- Kit
Post by duke
Post by s***@gmail.com
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
I'm not seeing "For as in Eve all die". How about you? Need granny glasses?
Christian baptism for man and woe_man are the norm.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Too much Scripture? Too Protestanty for your tastes?
Nope, right with you.
Post by s***@gmail.com
"...with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed
by an individual Adam and which, through generation,
is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own".
Yep, Christian baptism for man and woe_man.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Original sin. Committed by Adam. Not Eve. Adam.
Eve acted, adam got the ticket.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Oh, and by an individual Adam at that. One man. Adam.
Still reading?..... Good. Now go back and actually read
the New Advent cite that Raven linked to.
Ok, go for it.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Oh, and read this too: Adam gets the blame -- that's indisputable --
even though Eve took the first bite. Why?
Because it's a myth made up by men, by men in a patriarchal society,
and women just don't count. Not really fully human. Only men really count.
A myth???
Post by s***@gmail.com
In other words, it's because they had an attitude towards women exactly like yours.
But I'm a Christian, and as Jesus, son of God, taught those of us, as
Ephesians 5:25-33New International Version (NIV)
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself
up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water
through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without
stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same
way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his
wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they
feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are
members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother
and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[b] 32 This is a
profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each
one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must
respect her husband.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Selene
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
2017-09-10 15:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

the dukester, American-American


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

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Ted
2017-09-10 15:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
the dukester, American-American
Didn't you read his cite from the RCC itself, you lying moron?
raven1
2017-09-10 18:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
the dukester, American-American
Didn't you read his cite from the RCC itself, you lying moron?
Duke thinks for some reason that quoting scripture out of context
overrules what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about that scripture
as a whole. That's as Protestant as it's possible to be.
Ted
2017-09-10 18:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 14:30:26 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
the dukester, American-American
Didn't you read his cite from the RCC itself, you lying moron?
Duke thinks for some reason that quoting scripture out of context
overrules what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about that scripture
as a whole. That's as Protestant as it's possible to be.
Exactly. The RCC is up front about their doctrine (and it actually
makes better sense than the Protestant's SS), but Duke has yet to
understand it.
duke
2017-09-11 12:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
the dukester, American-American
Didn't you read his cite from the RCC itself, you lying moron?
Duke thinks for some reason that quoting scripture out of context
How can what's said exactly is out of context? You can access reasons for
shifting blame, but it still says "eve did it".
Post by raven1
overrules what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about that scripture
as a whole. That's as Protestant as it's possible to be.
the dukester, American-American


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

G.K. Chesterton
*****
raven1
2017-09-11 21:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
the dukester, American-American
Didn't you read his cite from the RCC itself, you lying moron?
Duke thinks for some reason that quoting scripture out of context
How can what's said exactly is out of context? You can access reasons for
shifting blame, but it still says "eve did it".
Hi Duke. I've let you out of my killfile for now, as I thought you
might be giving interesting responses on this particular topic. I see
I was correct that you're responding, but your response is not
interesting. Everyone agrees that Eve ate the forbidden fruit first.
No one has ever disputed that. It's right there in Genesis, and you
are correct on that point. It's also completely irrelevant. The Roman
Catholic Church teaches clearly and unambiguously that Original Sin
refers to ADAM eating the fruit, and the stain of it that is passed on
to everyone since then through ADAM. You can find that in your own
catechism, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, in multilple other passages
of the Bible, or any other source that deals with RCC doctrine. This
is not open to dispute: you've been wrong from the beginning, and
you're still as wrong as if you had put forth the Arian heresy in one
of your posts. (Look it up, we both know you have no idea what that
is.)

Please, before you respond, speak to one of your parish priests. You
literally have no idea what you're talking about, and it should be
mortifying to you that an atheist has to explain your own church's
doctrine to you.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-11 21:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by raven1
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
the dukester, American-American
Didn't you read his cite from the RCC itself, you lying moron?
Duke thinks for some reason that quoting scripture out of context
How can what's said exactly is out of context? You can access reasons for
shifting blame, but it still says "eve did it".
Hi Duke. I've let you out of my killfile for now, as I thought you
might be giving interesting responses on this particular topic. I see
I was correct that you're responding, but your response is not
interesting. Everyone agrees that Eve ate the forbidden fruit first.
No one has ever disputed that. It's right there in Genesis, and you
are correct on that point. It's also completely irrelevant. The Roman
Catholic Church teaches clearly and unambiguously that Original Sin
refers to ADAM eating the fruit, and the stain of it that is passed on
to everyone since then through ADAM. You can find that in your own
catechism, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, in multilple other passages
of the Bible, or any other source that deals with RCC doctrine. This
is not open to dispute: you've been wrong from the beginning, and
you're still as wrong as if you had put forth the Arian heresy in one
of your posts. (Look it up, we both know you have no idea what that
is.)
Please, before you respond, speak to one of your parish priests. You
literally have no idea what you're talking about, and it should be
mortifying to you that an atheist has to explain your own church's
doctrine to you.
No, he probably shouldn't talk to his priest about this.
He might accidentally let slip how he acts here, and man...can you
imagine how many hundred trips around the rosary that would earn him?

AA
duke
2017-09-12 18:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:58:07 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by raven1
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
the dukester, American-American
Didn't you read his cite from the RCC itself, you lying moron?
Duke thinks for some reason that quoting scripture out of context
How can what's said exactly is out of context? You can access reasons for
shifting blame, but it still says "eve did it".
Hi Duke. I've let you out of my killfile for now, as I thought you
might be giving interesting responses on this particular topic. I see
I was correct that you're responding, but your response is not
interesting. Everyone agrees that Eve ate the forbidden fruit first.
No one has ever disputed that. It's right there in Genesis, and you
are correct on that point. It's also completely irrelevant. The Roman
Catholic Church teaches clearly and unambiguously that Original Sin
refers to ADAM eating the fruit, and the stain of it that is passed on
to everyone since then through ADAM. You can find that in your own
catechism, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, in multilple other passages
of the Bible, or any other source that deals with RCC doctrine. This
is not open to dispute: you've been wrong from the beginning, and
you're still as wrong as if you had put forth the Arian heresy in one
of your posts. (Look it up, we both know you have no idea what that
is.)
Please, before you respond, speak to one of your parish priests. You
literally have no idea what you're talking about, and it should be
mortifying to you that an atheist has to explain your own church's
doctrine to you.
No, he probably shouldn't talk to his priest about this.
There is no problem here. Eve acted, adam took the rap. I've offered my
understand re womanhood thousands of years ago were property, not equals. Jesus
was the first to move to change that.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
He might accidentally let slip how he acts here, and man...can you
imagine how many hundred trips around the rosary that would earn him?
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
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-09-12 03:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by raven1
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
the dukester, American-American
Didn't you read his cite from the RCC itself, you lying moron?
Duke thinks for some reason that quoting scripture out of context
How can what's said exactly is out of context? You can access reasons for
shifting blame, but it still says "eve did it".
Hi Duke. I've let you out of my killfile for now, as I thought you
might be giving interesting responses on this particular topic. I see
I was correct that you're responding, but your response is not
interesting. Everyone agrees that Eve ate the forbidden fruit first.
No one has ever disputed that. It's right there in Genesis, and you
are correct on that point. It's also completely irrelevant. The Roman
Catholic Church teaches clearly and unambiguously that Original Sin
refers to ADAM eating the fruit, and the stain of it that is passed on
to everyone since then through ADAM. You can find that in your own
catechism, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, in multilple other passages
of the Bible, or any other source that deals with RCC doctrine. This
is not open to dispute: you've been wrong from the beginning, and
you're still as wrong as if you had put forth the Arian heresy in one
of your posts. (Look it up, we both know you have no idea what that
is.)
Please, before you respond, speak to one of your parish priests. You
literally have no idea what you're talking about, and it should be
mortifying to you that an atheist has to explain your own church's
doctrine to you.
It does seem that for poor poor dukie that his misogyny is more important and more powerful than his Catholicism.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-12 15:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by raven1
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
the dukester, American-American
Didn't you read his cite from the RCC itself, you lying moron?
Duke thinks for some reason that quoting scripture out of context
How can what's said exactly is out of context? You can access reasons for
shifting blame, but it still says "eve did it".
Hi Duke. I've let you out of my killfile for now, as I thought you
might be giving interesting responses on this particular topic. I see
I was correct that you're responding, but your response is not
interesting. Everyone agrees that Eve ate the forbidden fruit first.
No one has ever disputed that. It's right there in Genesis, and you
are correct on that point. It's also completely irrelevant. The Roman
Catholic Church teaches clearly and unambiguously that Original Sin
refers to ADAM eating the fruit, and the stain of it that is passed on
to everyone since then through ADAM. You can find that in your own
catechism, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, in multilple other passages
of the Bible, or any other source that deals with RCC doctrine. This
is not open to dispute: you've been wrong from the beginning, and
you're still as wrong as if you had put forth the Arian heresy in one
of your posts. (Look it up, we both know you have no idea what that
is.)
Please, before you respond, speak to one of your parish priests. You
literally have no idea what you're talking about, and it should be
mortifying to you that an atheist has to explain your own church's
doctrine to you.
.> It does seem that for poor poor dukie that his misogyny is more important and more powerful than his Catholicism.

Oh, he keeps it completely compartmentalized. I have no doubt
he believes everything he says about his religion, but he doesn't let
it get in the way of his politics or his behavior toward other
people. Doubly so when those other people are women,
non-whites, or liberals.

Contrast his attitudes and and behaviors with those of
his current Pope. Pretty stark, eh?


AtlAxo
Jeanne Douglas
2017-09-12 20:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> It does seem that for poor poor dukie that his misogyny is more important and more powerful than his Catholicism.
Oh, he keeps it completely compartmentalized. I have no doubt
he believes everything he says about his religion, but he doesn't let
it get in the way of his politics or his behavior toward other
people. Doubly so when those other people are women,
non-whites, or liberals.
Contrast his attitudes and and behaviors with those of
his current Pope. Pretty stark, eh?
Indeed.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-09-12 18:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by raven1
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
the dukester, American-American
Didn't you read his cite from the RCC itself, you lying moron?
Duke thinks for some reason that quoting scripture out of context
How can what's said exactly is out of context? You can access reasons for
shifting blame, but it still says "eve did it".
Hi Duke. I've let you out of my killfile for now, as I thought you
might be giving interesting responses on this particular topic. I see
I was correct that you're responding, but your response is not
interesting. Everyone agrees that Eve ate the forbidden fruit first.
No one has ever disputed that. It's right there in Genesis, and you
are correct on that point. It's also completely irrelevant. The Roman
Catholic Church teaches clearly and unambiguously that Original Sin
refers to ADAM eating the fruit, and the stain of it that is passed on
to everyone since then through ADAM. You can find that in your own
catechism, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, in multilple other passages
of the Bible, or any other source that deals with RCC doctrine. This
is not open to dispute: you've been wrong from the beginning, and
you're still as wrong as if you had put forth the Arian heresy in one
of your posts. (Look it up, we both know you have no idea what that
is.)
Please, before you respond, speak to one of your parish priests. You
literally have no idea what you're talking about, and it should be
mortifying to you that an atheist has to explain your own church's
doctrine to you.
It does seem that for poor poor dukie that his misogyny is more important and more powerful than his Catholicism.
Jdyke, the dingbat, still is lost.

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
2017-09-12 18:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by raven1
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
the dukester, American-American
Didn't you read his cite from the RCC itself, you lying moron?
Duke thinks for some reason that quoting scripture out of context
How can what's said exactly is out of context? You can access reasons for
shifting blame, but it still says "eve did it".
Hi Duke. I've let you out of my killfile for now, as I thought you
might be giving interesting responses on this particular topic. I see
I was correct that you're responding, but your response is not
interesting. Everyone agrees that Eve ate the forbidden fruit first.
No one has ever disputed that. It's right there in Genesis, and you
are correct on that point. It's also completely irrelevant. The Roman
Catholic Church teaches clearly and unambiguously that Original Sin
refers to ADAM eating the fruit, and the stain of it that is passed on
to everyone since then through ADAM. You can find that in your own
catechism, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, in multilple other passages
of the Bible, or any other source that deals with RCC doctrine. This
is not open to dispute: you've been wrong from the beginning, and
you're still as wrong as if you had put forth the Arian heresy in one
of your posts. (Look it up, we both know you have no idea what that
is.)
Please, before you respond, speak to one of your parish priests. You
literally have no idea what you're talking about, and it should be
mortifying to you that an atheist has to explain your own church's
doctrine to you.
It does seem that for poor poor dukie that his misogyny is more important and more powerful than his Catholicism.
Jdyke, the dingbat, still is lost.
And, speaking of the catalog of Duke's lies, here's
a chronic and oft-repeated one.


AA
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-09-12 20:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by raven1
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
the dukester, American-American
Didn't you read his cite from the RCC itself, you lying moron?
Duke thinks for some reason that quoting scripture out of context
How can what's said exactly is out of context? You can access reasons for
shifting blame, but it still says "eve did it".
Hi Duke. I've let you out of my killfile for now, as I thought you
might be giving interesting responses on this particular topic. I see
I was correct that you're responding, but your response is not
interesting. Everyone agrees that Eve ate the forbidden fruit first.
No one has ever disputed that. It's right there in Genesis, and you
are correct on that point. It's also completely irrelevant. The Roman
Catholic Church teaches clearly and unambiguously that Original Sin
refers to ADAM eating the fruit, and the stain of it that is passed on
to everyone since then through ADAM. You can find that in your own
catechism, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, in multilple other passages
of the Bible, or any other source that deals with RCC doctrine. This
is not open to dispute: you've been wrong from the beginning, and
you're still as wrong as if you had put forth the Arian heresy in one
of your posts. (Look it up, we both know you have no idea what that
is.)
Please, before you respond, speak to one of your parish priests. You
literally have no idea what you're talking about, and it should be
mortifying to you that an atheist has to explain your own church's
doctrine to you.
It does seem that for poor poor dukie that his misogyny is more important and more powerful than his Catholicism.
Jdyke, the dingbat, still is lost.
And, speaking of the catalog of Duke's lies, here's
a chronic and oft-repeated one.
Poor poor dukie just doesn't seem to understand how his attempts at retort just prove the statement he's rejecting.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-09-12 18:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by raven1
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
the dukester, American-American
Didn't you read his cite from the RCC itself, you lying moron?
Duke thinks for some reason that quoting scripture out of context
How can what's said exactly is out of context? You can access reasons for
shifting blame, but it still says "eve did it".
Hi Duke. I've let you out of my killfile for now, as I thought you
might be giving interesting responses on this particular topic. I see
I was correct that you're responding, but your response is not
interesting.
well, you know me. Truth is the way.
Post by raven1
Everyone agrees that Eve ate the forbidden fruit first.
No one has ever disputed that. It's right there in Genesis, and you
are correct on that point. It's also completely irrelevant. The Roman
Catholic Church teaches clearly and unambiguously that Original Sin
refers to ADAM eating the fruit, and the stain of it that is passed on
to everyone since then through ADAM.
Nobody is disputing that. But why adam and not eve?
Post by raven1
You can find that in your own
catechism, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, in multilple other passages
of the Bible, or any other source that deals with RCC doctrine. This
is not open to dispute: you've been wrong from the beginning, and
you're still as wrong as if you had put forth the Arian heresy in one
of your posts. (Look it up, we both know you have no idea what that
is.)
Ever since my first Catechism Class, I knew Adam took the rap.
Post by raven1
Please, before you respond, speak to one of your parish priests. You
literally have no idea what you're talking about, and it should be
mortifying to you that an atheist has to explain your own church's
doctrine to you.
Well, when you can offer a counter to what I said the reason was, come on back.

the dukester, American-American


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

G.K. Chesterton
*****
raven1
2017-09-12 22:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
the dukester, American-American
Didn't you read his cite from the RCC itself, you lying moron?
Duke thinks for some reason that quoting scripture out of context
How can what's said exactly is out of context? You can access reasons for
shifting blame, but it still says "eve did it".
Hi Duke. I've let you out of my killfile for now, as I thought you
might be giving interesting responses on this particular topic. I see
I was correct that you're responding, but your response is not
interesting.
well, you know me. Truth is the way.
Yes, I know you, and your relationship to the truth, which is
nonexistent. You lie constantly and blatantly. What's more, you
generally lie about things that were said earlier in the conversation,
with the conversation still there for all to see. That takes what our
Jewish friends call chutzpah.
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Everyone agrees that Eve ate the forbidden fruit first.
No one has ever disputed that. It's right there in Genesis, and you
are correct on that point. It's also completely irrelevant. The Roman
Catholic Church teaches clearly and unambiguously that Original Sin
refers to ADAM eating the fruit, and the stain of it that is passed on
to everyone since then through ADAM.
Nobody is disputing that.
You did, for months. And you tried to dispute it here again in this
thread before I addressed you directly.
Post by duke
But why adam and not eve?
Because Adam sinned knowingly, whereas Eve was deceived by the
serpent. This is third grade CCD material. Why don't you know this???
Post by duke
Post by raven1
You can find that in your own
catechism, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, in multilple other passages
of the Bible, or any other source that deals with RCC doctrine. This
is not open to dispute: you've been wrong from the beginning, and
you're still as wrong as if you had put forth the Arian heresy in one
of your posts. (Look it up, we both know you have no idea what that
is.)
Ever since my first Catechism Class,
"Catechism Class"? That's a class that adult converts to the Church
take, if I'm not mistaken. People who grow up Catholic go to Catholic
School, or to CCD. But do go on.
Post by duke
I knew Adam took the rap.
Then why did you argue otherwise for months, and why did you try to
suggest Eve was responsible for Original Sin yet again when I brought
the subject up as an example of your dishonesty a few days ago? That
conversation is still here for all to see, as usual, by the way. You
never learn, do you?
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Please, before you respond, speak to one of your parish priests. You
literally have no idea what you're talking about, and it should be
mortifying to you that an atheist has to explain your own church's
doctrine to you.
Well, when you can offer a counter to what I said the reason was
The reason for what? Why an atheist has to explain your own church's
doctrine to you? Please, share.
duke
2017-09-11 12:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
I'm willing to bet money that Raven is right. Are you interested?
Genesis 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing
to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
the dukester, American-American
Didn't you read his cite from the RCC itself, you lying moron?
Never anything contrary to Gen 3:6. I even offered possible reasons for the
blame being put on Adam's shoulders, but Eve was still the first to sin. If you
have a correction to Gen 3:6, let's see it.

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
2017-09-12 22:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
Aside from the fact that the whole Garden of Eden story is a myth, as far as
the myth goes, I wouldn't blame either Adam or Eve. They were like ignorant children not knowing right from wrong until they ate the 'forbidden fruit'.
They wouldn't have understood what forbidden meant until the chomp on a fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Right and Wrong. They were set up by their
god when he created the entire Garden bit. The god was supposed to know all
that happens in the past, present and future. That's how it set things up from
the start of the myth. So, he had planned for them to fail and for the snake
to try to warn them (another setup).

Your god is quite a stinker. First he creates Adam and Eve to fall, then he thinks it's funny to force Pharaoh to change his mind about letting the Hebrews
go leading to many deaths of innocent people and wiping out his entire army,
then there's to story of Job where a good man loses his entire family and
all his possessions and suffers all kinds of ailments just for a stupid bet.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-09-12 23:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Raven knows that Eve committed original sin in eating the apple. But he wants
to blame Adam. I wonder why. Could raven be a woman?
Aside from the fact that the whole Garden of Eden story is a myth, as far as
the myth goes, I wouldn't blame either Adam or Eve. They were like ignorant children not knowing right from wrong until they ate the 'forbidden fruit'.
They wouldn't have understood what forbidden meant until the chomp on a fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Right and Wrong. They were set up by their
god when he created the entire Garden bit. The god was supposed to know all
that happens in the past, present and future. That's how it set things up from
the start of the myth. So, he had planned for them to fail and for the snake
to try to warn them (another setup).
Your god is quite a stinker. First he creates Adam and Eve to fall, then he thinks it's funny to force Pharaoh to change his mind about letting the Hebrews
go leading to many deaths of innocent people and wiping out his entire army,
then there's to story of Job where a good man loses his entire family and
all his possessions and suffers all kinds of ailments just for a stupid bet.
Robert Frost wrote a little known and very funny short play, "A Masque of Reason "
in which Mrs. Job shames God into admitting he did it all just trying to impress Satan.

Which of course is the way the Bible presents it too; clear to anyone
not blinded by a filter of holy reverence toward it.

(God shows up with a throne -- a folding plywood throne. it
keeps collapsing on him)


AA
hypatiab7
2017-09-12 22:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Wow! That's quite impressive. So it isn't limited to physics; he's just as
stubbornly ignorant about his own religion. Thanks for sharing that, Raven.
Duke is a known liar. Maybe he lies about what he does actually believe.
It's not like that would surprise anyone. He's been trolling here for 20 years.
duke
2017-09-09 13:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Scripture well says she ate of the fruit and then gave some to adam. I presume
"some" means apple. And I explained to you why poor adam is accused of being
the bad one. You certainly didn't give any valid discussion as to why it
shouldn't be eve.

Oh, and by the way, I never lie on the ng.

the dukester, American-American


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

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Mitchell Holman
2017-09-09 14:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 17:35:24 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by hleopold
(in
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already
laid, which is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold,
silver, costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what
it is, because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire,
and the fire will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a
"protest-ant? bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants?
yet here, again, he is quoting from their bible. My opinion is
that he is not Catholic, certainly not RCC, and is just doing his
best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine
for someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's
ignorance of his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just
revealed, I'd be beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except
for the fact that his IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Scripture well says she ate of the fruit and then gave some to adam.
I presume "some" means apple. And I explained to you why poor adam is
accused of being the bad one. You certainly didn't give any valid
discussion as to why it shouldn't be eve.
Genesis never even mentions an apple.
Oh, and by the way, I never lie on the ng.
Of course you do.

But we have gotten used to it...........




"God is very clear about abortion being murder."
"Duke", 1/23/17. The Bible never mentions abortion.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-09-09 15:14:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 17:35:24 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by hleopold
(in
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already
laid, which is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold,
silver, costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what
it is, because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire,
and the fire will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a
"protest-ant? bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants?
yet here, again, he is quoting from their bible. My opinion is
that he is not Catholic, certainly not RCC, and is just doing his
best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine
for someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's
ignorance of his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just
revealed, I'd be beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except
for the fact that his IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Scripture well says she ate of the fruit and then gave some to adam.
I presume "some" means apple. And I explained to you why poor adam is
accused of being the bad one. You certainly didn't give any valid
discussion as to why it shouldn't be eve.
Genesis never even mentions an apple.
Oh, and by the way, I never lie on the ng.
Of course you do.
But we have gotten used to it...........
"God is very clear about abortion being murder."
"Duke", 1/23/17. The Bible never mentions abortion.
Oh, but it does. And in that passage, which has been posted here hundreds of times, is an order from god to force a woman to have an abortion by drinking an herbal abortificent if she is suspected of adultery.

So the Abrahamic god seems entirely fine with abortion.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Mitchell Holman
2017-09-09 17:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 17:35:24 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by hleopold
(in
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one
already laid, which is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using
gold, silver, costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for
what it is, because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with
fire, and the fire will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true
foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a
"protest-ant? bible. He bitches and moans about the
?protest-ants? yet here, again, he is quoting from their bible.
My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly not RCC, and
is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic
doctrine for someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's
ignorance of his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just
revealed, I'd be beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic,
except for the fact that his IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised
as one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke
for his constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I
spent over a month explaining to him that his position that Eve
(rather than Adam) was responsible for Original Sin was not only
heretical, but contrary to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming
he follows. He refused to listen, even when presented with quotes
from it that contradicted him. He's in a state of what his own
church refers to as "Invincible Ignorance".
Scripture well says she ate of the fruit and then gave some to
adam. I presume "some" means apple. And I explained to you why
poor adam is accused of being the bad one. You certainly didn't
give any valid discussion as to why it shouldn't be eve.
Genesis never even mentions an apple.
Oh, and by the way, I never lie on the ng.
Of course you do.
But we have gotten used to it...........
"God is very clear about abortion being murder."
"Duke", 1/23/17. The Bible never mentions abortion.
Oh, but it does. And in that passage, which has been posted here
hundreds of times, is an order from god to force a woman to have an
abortion by drinking an herbal abortificent if she is suspected of
adultery.
So the Abrahamic god seems entirely fine with abortion.
And there is god DEMANDING the abortions of women
captured in battle.


The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones
will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant
women ripped open."
Hosea 13:16


Menahem ripped open all the women who were pregnant.
2 Kings 15:16
Ted
2017-09-09 18:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 17:35:24 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by hleopold
(in
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already
laid, which is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold,
silver, costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what
it is, because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire,
and the fire will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a
"protest-ant? bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants?
yet here, again, he is quoting from their bible. My opinion is
that he is not Catholic, certainly not RCC, and is just doing his
best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine
for someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's
ignorance of his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just
revealed, I'd be beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except
for the fact that his IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Scripture well says she ate of the fruit and then gave some to adam.
I presume "some" means apple. And I explained to you why poor adam is
accused of being the bad one. You certainly didn't give any valid
discussion as to why it shouldn't be eve.
Genesis never even mentions an apple.
Oh, and by the way, I never lie on the ng.
Of course you do.
But we have gotten used to it...........
"God is very clear about abortion being murder."
"Duke", 1/23/17. The Bible never mentions abortion.
Oh, but it does. And in that passage, which has been posted here hundreds
of times, is an order from god to force a woman to have an abortion by
drinking an herbal abortificent if she is suspected of adultery.
So the Abrahamic god seems entirely fine with abortion.
Christians couldn't care less what the Bible says. And they're all like
that, both Catholic and Protestant.
Bob
2017-09-09 18:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Christians couldn't care less what the Bible says. And they're all like
that, both Catholic and Protestant.
Really? Is that what you believe?
Ted
2017-09-09 20:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Christians couldn't care less what the Bible says. And they're all like
that, both Catholic and Protestant.
Really? Is that what you believe?
Yes, I'm no longer a Christian. I thought I already told you that.
b***@gmail.com
2017-09-09 21:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Christians couldn't care less what the Bible says. And they're all like
that, both Catholic and Protestant.
Really? Is that what you believe?
Yes, I'm no longer a Christian. I thought I already told you that.
I wasn't questioning that.

What makes you think that *all* Christians "couldn't care less what the Bible says"?
Ted
2017-09-09 21:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Christians couldn't care less what the Bible says. And they're all like
that, both Catholic and Protestant.
Really? Is that what you believe?
Yes, I'm no longer a Christian. I thought I already told you that.
I wasn't questioning that.
What makes you think that *all* Christians "couldn't care less what the Bible says"?
Oh, sorry I didn't understand at first. Well, a lot of what you say rings a
familiar chord with me. Partly for that reason, I'd rather not argue with
you.
b***@gmail.com
2017-09-09 22:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Christians couldn't care less what the Bible says. And they're all like
that, both Catholic and Protestant.
Really? Is that what you believe?
Yes, I'm no longer a Christian. I thought I already told you that.
I wasn't questioning that.
What makes you think that *all* Christians "couldn't care less what the Bible says"?
Oh, sorry I didn't understand at first. Well, a lot of what you say rings a
familiar chord with me. Partly for that reason, I'd rather not argue with
you.
We're not arguing. We're just clarifying an issue.

So then you admit that *all* "Christians couldn't care less what the Bible says" is not exactly a true statement?
Ted
2017-09-09 23:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Christians couldn't care less what the Bible says. And they're all like
that, both Catholic and Protestant.
Really? Is that what you believe?
Yes, I'm no longer a Christian. I thought I already told you that.
I wasn't questioning that.
What makes you think that *all* Christians "couldn't care less what the Bible says"?
Oh, sorry I didn't understand at first. Well, a lot of what you say rings a
familiar chord with me. Partly for that reason, I'd rather not argue with
you.
We're not arguing. We're just clarifying an issue.
So then you admit that *all* "Christians couldn't care less what the Bible says" is not exactly a true statement?
Oh yeah, I see what you mean. No, I certainly cared what the Bible
said when I was a Christian and it's undeniable that a lot of
Christians feel the same as I did.

Perhaps I should have said, instead of "all Christians", was "a large
fraction of members of all Christian sects". But in fact, that large
fraction is *much* greater than 50% for all the denominations with
which I'm familiar and so the "all Christians" is a reasonable
approximation to use just for the purpose of casual discussion.

And it's very evident, particularly when you engage them in
discussion. You can quote the Bible to them, but they'll never admit
that their preconceptions are perhaps mistaken, even if they don't
have a clue what might be a reasonable refutation for your Bible
quote. It's because they don't really give a fuck about what they say
they believe is the Word of God.
Bob
2017-09-10 01:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Christians couldn't care less what the Bible says. And they're all like
that, both Catholic and Protestant.
Really? Is that what you believe?
Yes, I'm no longer a Christian. I thought I already told you that.
I wasn't questioning that.
What makes you think that *all* Christians "couldn't care less what the Bible says"?
Oh, sorry I didn't understand at first. Well, a lot of what you say rings a
familiar chord with me. Partly for that reason, I'd rather not argue with
you.
We're not arguing. We're just clarifying an issue.
So then you admit that *all* "Christians couldn't care less what the Bible says" is not exactly a true statement?
Oh yeah, I see what you mean. No, I certainly cared what the Bible
said when I was a Christian and it's undeniable that a lot of
Christians feel the same as I did.
Perhaps I should have said, instead of "all Christians", was "a large
fraction of members of all Christian sects". But in fact, that large
fraction is *much* greater than 50% for all the denominations with
which I'm familiar and so the "all Christians" is a reasonable
approximation to use just for the purpose of casual discussion.
And it's very evident, particularly when you engage them in
discussion. You can quote the Bible to them, but they'll never admit
that their preconceptions are perhaps mistaken, even if they don't
have a clue what might be a reasonable refutation for your Bible
quote. It's because they don't really give a fuck about what they say
they believe is the Word of God.
But you've never really met and talked to *all* Christians, or even
much greater than 50% of all Christians have you?

So your statement above would not be exactly true either, would it?

And the ones that you in your last paragraph above are probably not
regenerated, born again Christians in the first place. So they don't
really count in this survey.
--
"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules."
[Matthew 15:8, 9]
Ted
2017-09-10 03:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Christians couldn't care less what the Bible says. And they're all like
that, both Catholic and Protestant.
Really? Is that what you believe?
Yes, I'm no longer a Christian. I thought I already told you that.
I wasn't questioning that.
What makes you think that *all* Christians "couldn't care less what the Bible says"?
Oh, sorry I didn't understand at first. Well, a lot of what you say rings a
familiar chord with me. Partly for that reason, I'd rather not argue with
you.
We're not arguing. We're just clarifying an issue.
So then you admit that *all* "Christians couldn't care less what the
Bible says" is not exactly a true statement?
Oh yeah, I see what you mean. No, I certainly cared what the Bible
said when I was a Christian and it's undeniable that a lot of
Christians feel the same as I did.
Perhaps I should have said, instead of "all Christians", was "a large
fraction of members of all Christian sects". But in fact, that large
fraction is *much* greater than 50% for all the denominations with
which I'm familiar and so the "all Christians" is a reasonable
approximation to use just for the purpose of casual discussion.
And it's very evident, particularly when you engage them in
discussion. You can quote the Bible to them, but they'll never admit
that their preconceptions are perhaps mistaken, even if they don't
have a clue what might be a reasonable refutation for your Bible
quote. It's because they don't really give a fuck about what they say
they believe is the Word of God.
But you've never really met and talked to *all* Christians, or even
much greater than 50% of all Christians have you?
In fact, much less than 1%. But you're ignoring the concept of statistical
sampling, probably because you're unfamiliar with it, and so you're not
understanding that your objection is invalid.
Post by Bob
So your statement above would not be exactly true either, would it?
Yes it would be true, as in quite probable.
Post by Bob
And the ones that you in your last paragraph above are probably not
regenerated, born again Christians in the first place. So they don't
really count in this survey.
Do they play bagpipes? I seem to be hearing them.
b***@gmail.com
2017-09-10 04:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
But you've never really met and talked to *all* Christians, or even
much greater than 50% of all Christians have you?
In fact, much less than 1%. But you're ignoring the concept of statistical
sampling, probably because you're unfamiliar with it, and so you're not
understanding that your objection is invalid.
No, you're wrong. I'm actually not unfamiliar with it.

In how many different locations have you taken samples from, around the world, and for how long, on the average, did you speak with them?
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
So your statement above would not be exactly true either, would it?
Yes it would be true, as in quite probable.
Here again, that would just be your opinion, wouldn't it?
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
And the ones that you mentioned in your last paragraph above are probably
not regenerated, born again Christians in the first place. So they don't
really count in this survey.
Do they play bagpipes? I seem to be hearing them.
I'm speaking from experience, and from the way you yourself described them.

By the way, for a long time, that fallacy has been proven to be a fallacy.
You should do a little more research.
Ted
2017-09-10 12:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
But you've never really met and talked to *all* Christians, or even
much greater than 50% of all Christians have you?
In fact, much less than 1%. But you're ignoring the concept of statistical
sampling, probably because you're unfamiliar with it, and so you're not
understanding that your objection is invalid.
No, you're wrong. I'm actually not unfamiliar with it.
In how many different locations have you taken samples from, around the world, and for how long, on the average, did you speak with them?
Sampling can be done with higher degrees of sophistication, as you
allude, but it's an ability that humans use frequently on a crude
level with a large fraction of success, that success being the reason
we evolved the ability. And in this case, such an ordinary sampling is
sufficient to validate my conclusion.

Perhaps there are different geographical regions where my conclusion
doesn't apply, but that's probably not the case, given that basic
human nature is universal. However, even if it were the case, my "all
christians" would still be valid, as I was clearly referring to those
Christians with whom I've had familiarity.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
So your statement above would not be exactly true either, would it?
Yes it would be true, as in quite probable.
Here again, that would just be your opinion, wouldn't it?
Nope. It's a true statement, as I again explained above.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
And the ones that you mentioned in your last paragraph above are probably
not regenerated, born again Christians in the first place. So they don't
really count in this survey.
Do they play bagpipes? I seem to be hearing them.
I'm speaking from experience, and from the way you yourself described them.
By the way, for a long time, that fallacy has been proven to be a fallacy.
You should do a little more research.
I'm not sufficiently interested in doing such research, but I do find
it intenerating (and relevant) that the "fallacy" has itself been
proven fallacious. Thanks for the info, Bob.
Bob
2017-09-10 13:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
But you've never really met and talked to *all* Christians, or even
much greater than 50% of all Christians have you?
In fact, much less than 1%. But you're ignoring the concept of statistical
sampling, probably because you're unfamiliar with it, and so you're not
understanding that your objection is invalid.
No, you're wrong. I'm actually not unfamiliar with it.
In how many different locations have you taken samples from, around the world, and for how long, on the average, did you speak with them?
Sampling can be done with higher degrees of sophistication, as you
allude, but it's an ability that humans use frequently on a crude
level with a large fraction of success, that success being the reason
we evolved the ability. And in this case, such an ordinary sampling is
sufficient to validate my conclusion.
Perhaps there are different geographical regions where my conclusion
doesn't apply, but that's probably not the case, given that basic
human nature is universal. However, even if it were the case, my "all
christians" would still be valid, as I was clearly referring to those
Christians with whom I've had familiarity.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
So your statement above would not be exactly true either, would it?
Yes it would be true, as in quite probable.
Here again, that would just be your opinion, wouldn't it?
Nope. It's a true statement, as I again explained above.
After re-reading your posts, it came to my attention that your "conclusions"
are actually invalid. Allow me to elucidate. In a post that you wrote
yesterday
at 7:31 PM (EDT), your last sentence was, "It's because they don't
really give
a fuck about what they say they believe is the Word of God." Now, unless you
can show verifiable proof that statement is true, and not just the way you
happened to "see" it at the time, i.e. just your biased opinion, then
your entire
argument collapses. That is what leads me to believe that they were not
regenerated born again believers. (Perhaps they were Roman Catholics. ;) )
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
And the ones that you mentioned in your last paragraph above are probably
not regenerated, born again Christians in the first place. So they don't
really count in this survey.
Do they play bagpipes? I seem to be hearing them.
I'm speaking from experience, and from the way you yourself described them.
By the way, for a long time, that fallacy has been proven to be a fallacy.
You should do a little more research.
I'm not sufficiently interested in doing such research, but I do find
it intenerating (and relevant) that the "fallacy" has itself been
proven fallacious. Thanks for the info, Bob.
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/scotty.htm

You're welcome.
--
"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules."
[Matthew 15:8, 9]
Ted
2017-09-10 15:42:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
But you've never really met and talked to *all* Christians, or even
much greater than 50% of all Christians have you?
In fact, much less than 1%. But you're ignoring the concept of statistical
sampling, probably because you're unfamiliar with it, and so you're not
understanding that your objection is invalid.
No, you're wrong. I'm actually not unfamiliar with it.
In how many different locations have you taken samples from, around the world, and for how long, on the average, did you speak with them?
Sampling can be done with higher degrees of sophistication, as you
allude, but it's an ability that humans use frequently on a crude
level with a large fraction of success, that success being the reason
we evolved the ability. And in this case, such an ordinary sampling is
sufficient to validate my conclusion.
Perhaps there are different geographical regions where my conclusion
doesn't apply, but that's probably not the case, given that basic
human nature is universal. However, even if it were the case, my "all
christians" would still be valid, as I was clearly referring to those
Christians with whom I've had familiarity.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
So your statement above would not be exactly true either, would it?
Yes it would be true, as in quite probable.
Here again, that would just be your opinion, wouldn't it?
Nope. It's a true statement, as I again explained above.
After re-reading your posts, it came to my attention that your "conclusions"
yesterday
at 7:31 PM (EDT), your last sentence was, "It's because they don't
really give
a fuck about what they say they believe is the Word of God." Now, unless you
can show verifiable proof that statement is true, and not just the way you
happened to "see" it at the time, i.e. just your biased opinion, then
your entire
argument collapses.
So you've explained.
Post by Bob
That is what leads me to believe that they were not
regenerated born again believers. (Perhaps they were Roman Catholics. ;) )
I'd assume most Catholics don't really care what the Bible says
because they admit it isn't their primary source of doctrine. So
perhaps they can be excused from accusations of hypocrisy based on
that.

Yes, we fundies agree that no Catholic is born again, unless they
actually accept Jesus and have a valid baptism. So let's discuss the
Protestants who claim to be born again, but are instead unregenerate.
(I've always liked that word.)

And I dunno. Who can say whether or not someone is born again or not.
I'd be interested in your answer, if you have one.
b***@gmail.com
2017-09-10 16:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
But you've never really met and talked to *all* Christians, or even
much greater than 50% of all Christians have you?
In fact, much less than 1%. But you're ignoring the concept of statistical
sampling, probably because you're unfamiliar with it, and so you're not
understanding that your objection is invalid.
No, you're wrong. I'm actually not unfamiliar with it.
In how many different locations have you taken samples from, around the world, and for how long, on the average, did you speak with them?
Sampling can be done with higher degrees of sophistication, as you
allude, but it's an ability that humans use frequently on a crude
level with a large fraction of success, that success being the reason
we evolved the ability. And in this case, such an ordinary sampling is
sufficient to validate my conclusion.
Perhaps there are different geographical regions where my conclusion
doesn't apply, but that's probably not the case, given that basic
human nature is universal. However, even if it were the case, my "all
christians" would still be valid, as I was clearly referring to those
Christians with whom I've had familiarity.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
So your statement above would not be exactly true either, would it?
Yes it would be true, as in quite probable.
Here again, that would just be your opinion, wouldn't it?
Nope. It's a true statement, as I again explained above.
After re-reading your posts, it came to my attention that your "conclusions"
yesterday
at 7:31 PM (EDT), your last sentence was, "It's because they don't
really give
a fuck about what they say they believe is the Word of God." Now, unless you
can show verifiable proof that statement is true, and not just the way you
happened to "see" it at the time, i.e. just your biased opinion, then
your entire
argument collapses.
So you've explained.
And so it stands.
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
That is what leads me to believe that they were not
regenerated born again believers. (Perhaps they were Roman Catholics. ;) )
I'd assume most Catholics don't really care what the Bible says
because they admit it isn't their primary source of doctrine. So
perhaps they can be excused from accusations of hypocrisy based on
that.
Yes, we fundies agree that no Catholic is born again, unless they
actually accept Jesus and have a valid baptism. So let's discuss the
Protestants who claim to be born again, but are instead unregenerate.
(I've always liked that word.)
And I dunno.
Obviously.
Post by Ted
Who can say whether or not someone is born again or not.
I'd be interested in your answer, if you have one.
Well, actually Jesus answered that question best two thousand
years ago.

"You will recognize them by their fruits." [Matthew 7:20]

Paul had one that was almost as good.

"The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are
children of God." (Romans 8:16)

HTH.
Ted
2017-09-10 16:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
But you've never really met and talked to *all* Christians, or even
much greater than 50% of all Christians have you?
In fact, much less than 1%. But you're ignoring the concept of statistical
sampling, probably because you're unfamiliar with it, and so you're not
understanding that your objection is invalid.
No, you're wrong. I'm actually not unfamiliar with it.
In how many different locations have you taken samples from, around the world, and for how long, on the average, did you speak with them?
Sampling can be done with higher degrees of sophistication, as you
allude, but it's an ability that humans use frequently on a crude
level with a large fraction of success, that success being the reason
we evolved the ability. And in this case, such an ordinary sampling is
sufficient to validate my conclusion.
Perhaps there are different geographical regions where my conclusion
doesn't apply, but that's probably not the case, given that basic
human nature is universal. However, even if it were the case, my "all
christians" would still be valid, as I was clearly referring to those
Christians with whom I've had familiarity.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
So your statement above would not be exactly true either, would it?
Yes it would be true, as in quite probable.
Here again, that would just be your opinion, wouldn't it?
Nope. It's a true statement, as I again explained above.
After re-reading your posts, it came to my attention that your "conclusions"
yesterday
at 7:31 PM (EDT), your last sentence was, "It's because they don't
really give
a fuck about what they say they believe is the Word of God." Now, unless you
can show verifiable proof that statement is true, and not just the way you
happened to "see" it at the time, i.e. just your biased opinion, then
your entire
argument collapses.
So you've explained.
And so it stands.
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
That is what leads me to believe that they were not
regenerated born again believers. (Perhaps they were Roman Catholics. ;) )
I'd assume most Catholics don't really care what the Bible says
because they admit it isn't their primary source of doctrine. So
perhaps they can be excused from accusations of hypocrisy based on
that.
Yes, we fundies agree that no Catholic is born again, unless they
actually accept Jesus and have a valid baptism. So let's discuss the
Protestants who claim to be born again, but are instead unregenerate.
(I've always liked that word.)
And I dunno.
Obviously.
Got it, Bob. Fuck you too. :)
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Who can say whether or not someone is born again or not.
I'd be interested in your answer, if you have one.
Well, actually Jesus answered that question best two thousand
years ago.
"You will recognize them by their fruits." [Matthew 7:20]
Paul had one that was almost as good.
"The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are
children of God." (Romans 8:16)
HTH.
So you have to wait until they stab you in the back to know not to
trust them. That's what I thought.
Bob
2017-09-10 16:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
But you've never really met and talked to *all* Christians, or even
much greater than 50% of all Christians have you?
In fact, much less than 1%. But you're ignoring the concept of statistical
sampling, probably because you're unfamiliar with it, and so you're not
understanding that your objection is invalid.
No, you're wrong. I'm actually not unfamiliar with it.
In how many different locations have you taken samples from, around the world, and for how long, on the average, did you speak with them?
Sampling can be done with higher degrees of sophistication, as you
allude, but it's an ability that humans use frequently on a crude
level with a large fraction of success, that success being the reason
we evolved the ability. And in this case, such an ordinary sampling is
sufficient to validate my conclusion.
Perhaps there are different geographical regions where my conclusion
doesn't apply, but that's probably not the case, given that basic
human nature is universal. However, even if it were the case, my "all
christians" would still be valid, as I was clearly referring to those
Christians with whom I've had familiarity.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
So your statement above would not be exactly true either, would it?
Yes it would be true, as in quite probable.
Here again, that would just be your opinion, wouldn't it?
Nope. It's a true statement, as I again explained above.
After re-reading your posts, it came to my attention that your "conclusions"
yesterday
at 7:31 PM (EDT), your last sentence was, "It's because they don't
really give
a fuck about what they say they believe is the Word of God." Now, unless you
can show verifiable proof that statement is true, and not just the way you
happened to "see" it at the time, i.e. just your biased opinion, then
your entire
argument collapses.
So you've explained.
And so it stands.
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
That is what leads me to believe that they were not
regenerated born again believers. (Perhaps they were Roman Catholics. ;) )
I'd assume most Catholics don't really care what the Bible says
because they admit it isn't their primary source of doctrine. So
perhaps they can be excused from accusations of hypocrisy based on
that.
Yes, we fundies agree that no Catholic is born again, unless they
actually accept Jesus and have a valid baptism. So let's discuss the
Protestants who claim to be born again, but are instead unregenerate.
(I've always liked that word.)
And I dunno.
Obviously.
Got it, Bob. Fuck you too. :)
The truth hurts, don't it? Up yours. ;)
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Who can say whether or not someone is born again or not.
I'd be interested in your answer, if you have one.
Well, actually Jesus answered that question best two thousand
years ago.
"You will recognize them by their fruits." [Matthew 7:20]
Paul had one that was almost as good.
"The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are
children of God." (Romans 8:16)
HTH.
So you have to wait until they stab you in the back to know not to
trust them. That's what I thought.
You "thought" it because your daddy (Satan) told you to think it.

You're welcome.

<smirk>
--
"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules."
[Matthew 15:8, 9]
Ted
2017-09-10 16:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
But you've never really met and talked to *all* Christians, or even
much greater than 50% of all Christians have you?
In fact, much less than 1%. But you're ignoring the concept of statistical
sampling, probably because you're unfamiliar with it, and so you're not
understanding that your objection is invalid.
No, you're wrong. I'm actually not unfamiliar with it.
In how many different locations have you taken samples from, around the world, and for how long, on the average, did you speak with them?
Sampling can be done with higher degrees of sophistication, as you
allude, but it's an ability that humans use frequently on a crude
level with a large fraction of success, that success being the reason
we evolved the ability. And in this case, such an ordinary sampling is
sufficient to validate my conclusion.
Perhaps there are different geographical regions where my conclusion
doesn't apply, but that's probably not the case, given that basic
human nature is universal. However, even if it were the case, my "all
christians" would still be valid, as I was clearly referring to those
Christians with whom I've had familiarity.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
So your statement above would not be exactly true either, would it?
Yes it would be true, as in quite probable.
Here again, that would just be your opinion, wouldn't it?
Nope. It's a true statement, as I again explained above.
After re-reading your posts, it came to my attention that your "conclusions"
yesterday
at 7:31 PM (EDT), your last sentence was, "It's because they don't
really give
a fuck about what they say they believe is the Word of God." Now, unless you
can show verifiable proof that statement is true, and not just the way you
happened to "see" it at the time, i.e. just your biased opinion, then
your entire
argument collapses.
So you've explained.
And so it stands.
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
That is what leads me to believe that they were not
regenerated born again believers. (Perhaps they were Roman Catholics. ;) )
I'd assume most Catholics don't really care what the Bible says
because they admit it isn't their primary source of doctrine. So
perhaps they can be excused from accusations of hypocrisy based on
that.
Yes, we fundies agree that no Catholic is born again, unless they
actually accept Jesus and have a valid baptism. So let's discuss the
Protestants who claim to be born again, but are instead unregenerate.
(I've always liked that word.)
And I dunno.
Obviously.
Got it, Bob. Fuck you too. :)
The truth hurts, don't it? Up yours. ;)
LOL.
Bob
2017-09-10 17:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
But you've never really met and talked to *all* Christians, or even
much greater than 50% of all Christians have you?
In fact, much less than 1%. But you're ignoring the concept of statistical
sampling, probably because you're unfamiliar with it, and so you're not
understanding that your objection is invalid.
No, you're wrong. I'm actually not unfamiliar with it.
In how many different locations have you taken samples from, around the world, and for how long, on the average, did you speak with them?
Sampling can be done with higher degrees of sophistication, as you
allude, but it's an ability that humans use frequently on a crude
level with a large fraction of success, that success being the reason
we evolved the ability. And in this case, such an ordinary sampling is
sufficient to validate my conclusion.
Perhaps there are different geographical regions where my conclusion
doesn't apply, but that's probably not the case, given that basic
human nature is universal. However, even if it were the case, my "all
christians" would still be valid, as I was clearly referring to those
Christians with whom I've had familiarity.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
So your statement above would not be exactly true either, would it?
Yes it would be true, as in quite probable.
Here again, that would just be your opinion, wouldn't it?
Nope. It's a true statement, as I again explained above.
After re-reading your posts, it came to my attention that your "conclusions"
yesterday
at 7:31 PM (EDT), your last sentence was, "It's because they don't
really give
a fuck about what they say they believe is the Word of God." Now, unless you
can show verifiable proof that statement is true, and not just the way you
happened to "see" it at the time, i.e. just your biased opinion, then
your entire
argument collapses.
So you've explained.
And so it stands.
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
That is what leads me to believe that they were not
regenerated born again believers. (Perhaps they were Roman Catholics. ;) )
I'd assume most Catholics don't really care what the Bible says
because they admit it isn't their primary source of doctrine. So
perhaps they can be excused from accusations of hypocrisy based on
that.
Yes, we fundies agree that no Catholic is born again, unless they
actually accept Jesus and have a valid baptism. So let's discuss the
Protestants who claim to be born again, but are instead unregenerate.
(I've always liked that word.)
And I dunno.
Obviously.
Got it, Bob. Fuck you too. :)
The truth hurts, don't it? Up yours. ;)
LOL.
The pleasure's all mine.
--
"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules."
[Matthew 15:8, 9]
Ted
2017-09-10 17:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
But you've never really met and talked to *all* Christians, or even
much greater than 50% of all Christians have you?
In fact, much less than 1%. But you're ignoring the concept of statistical
sampling, probably because you're unfamiliar with it, and so you're not
understanding that your objection is invalid.
No, you're wrong. I'm actually not unfamiliar with it.
In how many different locations have you taken samples from, around the world, and for how long, on the average, did you speak with them?
Sampling can be done with higher degrees of sophistication, as you
allude, but it's an ability that humans use frequently on a crude
level with a large fraction of success, that success being the reason
we evolved the ability. And in this case, such an ordinary sampling is
sufficient to validate my conclusion.
Perhaps there are different geographical regions where my conclusion
doesn't apply, but that's probably not the case, given that basic
human nature is universal. However, even if it were the case, my "all
christians" would still be valid, as I was clearly referring to those
Christians with whom I've had familiarity.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
So your statement above would not be exactly true either, would it?
Yes it would be true, as in quite probable.
Here again, that would just be your opinion, wouldn't it?
Nope. It's a true statement, as I again explained above.
After re-reading your posts, it came to my attention that your "conclusions"
yesterday
at 7:31 PM (EDT), your last sentence was, "It's because they don't
really give
a fuck about what they say they believe is the Word of God." Now, unless you
can show verifiable proof that statement is true, and not just the way you
happened to "see" it at the time, i.e. just your biased opinion, then
your entire
argument collapses.
So you've explained.
And so it stands.
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
That is what leads me to believe that they were not
regenerated born again believers. (Perhaps they were Roman Catholics. ;) )
I'd assume most Catholics don't really care what the Bible says
because they admit it isn't their primary source of doctrine. So
perhaps they can be excused from accusations of hypocrisy based on
that.
Yes, we fundies agree that no Catholic is born again, unless they
actually accept Jesus and have a valid baptism. So let's discuss the
Protestants who claim to be born again, but are instead unregenerate.
(I've always liked that word.)
And I dunno.
Obviously.
Got it, Bob. Fuck you too. :)
The truth hurts, don't it? Up yours. ;)
LOL.
The pleasure's all mine.
Hey, I tried. :)
Bob
2017-09-10 17:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
The pleasure's all mine.
Hey, I tried. :)
I hope you learned something new.

I know I did.
--
"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules."
[Matthew 15:8, 9]
duke
2017-09-11 12:33:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
I'd assume most Catholics don't really care what the Bible says
because they admit it isn't their primary source of doctrine.
You're a jerk. The bible + 2000 years of Catholic human intervention with Jesus
himself bring out truth. Protest_ants showed up 400 years ago and have nothing
but the bible to use.
Post by Ted
So
perhaps they can be excused from accusations of hypocrisy based on
that.
Yes, we fundies agree that no Catholic is born again, unless they
actually accept Jesus and have a valid baptism.
We MUST be baptized in order to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation as Roman
Catholics.

So let's discuss the
Post by Ted
Protestants who claim to be born again, but are instead unregenerate.
(I've always liked that word.)
And I dunno. Who can say whether or not someone is born again or not.
I'd be interested in your answer, if you have one.
God is the only one that knows for sure. Human records are kept.

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
2017-09-11 18:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
But you've never really met and talked to *all* Christians, or even
much greater than 50% of all Christians have you?
In fact, much less than 1%. But you're ignoring the concept of statistical
sampling, probably because you're unfamiliar with it, and so you're not
understanding that your objection is invalid.
No, you're wrong. I'm actually not unfamiliar with it.
In how many different locations have you taken samples from, around the world, and for how long, on the average, did you speak with them?
Sampling can be done with higher degrees of sophistication, as you
allude, but it's an ability that humans use frequently on a crude
level with a large fraction of success, that success being the reason
we evolved the ability. And in this case, such an ordinary sampling is
sufficient to validate my conclusion.
Perhaps there are different geographical regions where my conclusion
doesn't apply, but that's probably not the case, given that basic
human nature is universal. However, even if it were the case, my "all
christians" would still be valid, as I was clearly referring to those
Christians with whom I've had familiarity.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
So your statement above would not be exactly true either, would it?
Yes it would be true, as in quite probable.
Here again, that would just be your opinion, wouldn't it?
Nope. It's a true statement, as I again explained above.
After re-reading your posts, it came to my attention that your "conclusions"
yesterday
at 7:31 PM (EDT), your last sentence was, "It's because they don't
really give
a fuck about what they say they believe is the Word of God." Now, unless you
can show verifiable proof that statement is true, and not just the way you
happened to "see" it at the time, i.e. just your biased opinion, then
your entire
argument collapses.
So you've explained.
Post by Bob
That is what leads me to believe that they were not
regenerated born again believers. (Perhaps they were Roman Catholics. ;) )
I'd assume most Catholics don't really care what the Bible says
because they admit it isn't their primary source of doctrine. So
perhaps they can be excused from accusations of hypocrisy based on
that.
Yes, we fundies agree that no Catholic is born again, unless they
actually accept Jesus and have a valid baptism. So let's discuss the
Protestants who claim to be born again, but are instead unregenerate.
(I've always liked that word.)
Not all fundie-Prods are Calvinists. Just get the ones who
are frothing about "Arminians."
Post by Ted
And I dunno. Who can say whether or not someone is born again or not.
I'd be interested in your answer, if you have one.
If you stuffed somebody back into an oversized womb, and "rebirthed"
him, maybe he'd be "born again." But that would be woo-woo, like
these cats:

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20000628/rebirthing-therapy#1 OR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirthing_(breathwork)

Kevin R
Kevrob
2017-09-11 18:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by Bob
Post by Ted
Christians couldn't care less what the Bible says. And they're all like
that, both Catholic and Protestant.
Really? Is that what you believe?
Yes, I'm no longer a Christian. I thought I already told you that.
I wasn't questioning that.
What makes you think that *all* Christians "couldn't care less what the Bible says"?
Oh, sorry I didn't understand at first. Well, a lot of what you say rings a
familiar chord with me. Partly for that reason, I'd rather not argue with
you.
We're not arguing. We're just clarifying an issue.
So then you admit that *all* "Christians couldn't care less what the
Bible says" is not exactly a true statement?
Oh yeah, I see what you mean. No, I certainly cared what the Bible
said when I was a Christian and it's undeniable that a lot of
Christians feel the same as I did.
Perhaps I should have said, instead of "all Christians", was "a large
fraction of members of all Christian sects". But in fact, that large
fraction is *much* greater than 50% for all the denominations with
which I'm familiar and so the "all Christians" is a reasonable
approximation to use just for the purpose of casual discussion.
And it's very evident, particularly when you engage them in
discussion. You can quote the Bible to them, but they'll never admit
that their preconceptions are perhaps mistaken, even if they don't
have a clue what might be a reasonable refutation for your Bible
quote. It's because they don't really give a fuck about what they say
they believe is the Word of God.
But you've never really met and talked to *all* Christians, or even
much greater than 50% of all Christians have you?
In fact, much less than 1%. But you're ignoring the concept of statistical
sampling, probably because you're unfamiliar with it, and so you're not
understanding that your objection is invalid.
Post by Bob
So your statement above would not be exactly true either, would it?
Yes it would be true, as in quite probable.
Post by Bob
And the ones that you in your last paragraph above are probably not
regenerated, born again Christians in the first place. So they don't
really count in this survey.
Do they play bagpipes? I seem to be hearing them.
Calvinism was very popular in the Scottish kirk.
That's what American Presbyterianism is: Scottish
Calvinism exported to North America, often by way of
Ulster.

Kevin R
Rick Johnson
2017-09-10 04:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 10:15:06 AM UTC-5, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
[...]
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Oh, but it does. And in that passage, which has been posted
here hundreds of times, is an order from god to force a
woman to have an abortion by drinking an herbal
abortificent if she is suspected of adultery. So the
Abrahamic god seems entirely fine with abortion.
Yes, but only when it pleases the Abrahamic god -- or more
precisly -- only when it pleases those who utilize the fear
inducing power of the concept of the Abrahamic god to
control the behavoir of others. AKA: A means to a tyrannical
end...
Marvin Sebourn
2017-09-09 19:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Scripture well says she ate of the fruit and then gave some to adam. I presume
"some" means apple. And I explained to you why poor adam is accused of being
the bad one. You certainly didn't give any valid discussion as to why it
shouldn't be eve.
And Duke wrote: Oh, and by the way, I never lie on the ng.

No, when you say something that is not true, and are shown to be incorrect, you, in your infrequent acknowledgement of your having uttered something not true, have referred to your untrue statement as "I (Duke) overstated my case".

If anyone doubts this, please look up Duke's claim that President Obama is the only President that has not visited the D-Day sites. There are compound untruths there, which Duke excuses by stating "I overstated my case".

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/alt.atheism/Duke$20AND$20author$3Ame/alt.atheism/YjlXSdA7d5g

Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****
Ted
2017-09-09 20:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Scripture well says she ate of the fruit and then gave some to adam. I presume
"some" means apple. And I explained to you why poor adam is accused of being
the bad one. You certainly didn't give any valid discussion as to why it
shouldn't be eve.
And Duke wrote: Oh, and by the way, I never lie on the ng.
No, when you say something that is not true, and are shown to be
incorrect, you, in your infrequent acknowledgement of your having uttered
something not true, have referred to your untrue statement as "I (Duke)
overstated my case".
If anyone doubts this, please look up Duke's claim that President Obama
is the only President that has not visited the D-Day sites. There are
compound untruths there, which Duke excuses by stating "I overstated my case".
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/alt.atheism/Duke$20AND$20author$3Ame/alt.atheism/YjlXSdA7d5g
Marvin Sebourn
We have countless examples of Duke's lies.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-09-10 07:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Scripture well says she ate of the fruit and then gave some to adam. I presume
"some" means apple. And I explained to you why poor adam is accused of being
the bad one. You certainly didn't give any valid discussion as to why it
shouldn't be eve.
And Duke wrote: Oh, and by the way, I never lie on the ng.
No, when you say something that is not true, and are shown to be
incorrect, you, in your infrequent acknowledgement of your having uttered
something not true, have referred to your untrue statement as "I (Duke)
overstated my case".
If anyone doubts this, please look up Duke's claim that President Obama
is the only President that has not visited the D-Day sites. There are
compound untruths there, which Duke excuses by stating "I overstated my case".
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/alt.atheism/Duke$20AND$20author$3Ame/alt.atheism/YjlXSdA7d5g
Marvin Sebourn
We have countless examples of Duke's lies.
And the lie he has told the most is his statement that he never lies on the ng.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Ted
2017-09-10 13:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 02:49:35 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Scripture well says she ate of the fruit and then gave some to adam. I presume
"some" means apple. And I explained to you why poor adam is accused of being
the bad one. You certainly didn't give any valid discussion as to why it
shouldn't be eve.
And Duke wrote: Oh, and by the way, I never lie on the ng.
No, when you say something that is not true, and are shown to be
incorrect, you, in your infrequent acknowledgement of your having uttered
something not true, have referred to your untrue statement as "I (Duke)
overstated my case".
If anyone doubts this, please look up Duke's claim that President Obama
is the only President that has not visited the D-Day sites. There are
compound untruths there, which Duke excuses by stating "I overstated my case".
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/alt.atheism/Duke$20AND$20author$3Ame/alt.atheism/YjlXSdA7d5g
Marvin Sebourn
We have countless examples of Duke's lies.
And the lie he has told the most is his statement that he never lies on the ng.
LOL. Yes. :)
hypatiab7
2017-09-12 22:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Scripture well says she ate of the fruit and then gave some to adam. I presume
"some" means apple. And I explained to you why poor adam is accused of being
the bad one. You certainly didn't give any valid discussion as to why it
shouldn't be eve.
Oh, and by the way, I never lie on the ng.
the dukester, American-American
There were no apples in the Middle East 6,000 years ago.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-09-12 23:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Scripture well says she ate of the fruit and then gave some to adam. I presume
"some" means apple. And I explained to you why poor adam is accused of being
the bad one. You certainly didn't give any valid discussion as to why it
shouldn't be eve.
Oh, and by the way, I never lie on the ng.
And there's the lie that poor poor dukie has told the most often.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Syd M.
2017-09-12 23:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Scripture well says she ate of the fruit and then gave some to adam. I presume
"some" means apple. And I explained to you why poor adam is accused of being
the bad one. You certainly didn't give any valid discussion as to why it
shouldn't be eve.
Oh, and by the way, I never lie on the ng.
And there's the lie that poor poor dukie has told the most often.
It is his most popular, yes.

PDW
hypatiab7
2017-09-12 22:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by raven1
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
I happen to know Catholic doctrine quite well, having been raised as
one, and educated in Catholic school. Before I killfiled Duke for his
constant lying (as opposed to his abject stupidity), I spent over a
month explaining to him that his position that Eve (rather than Adam)
was responsible for Original Sin was not only heretical, but contrary
to the RCC catechism he keeps proclaiming he follows. He refused to
listen, even when presented with quotes from it that contradicted him.
He's in a state of what his own church refers to as "Invincible
Ignorance".
Scripture well says she ate of the fruit and then gave some to adam. I presume
"some" means apple. And I explained to you why poor adam is accused of being
the bad one. You certainly didn't give any valid discussion as to why it
shouldn't be eve.
Oh, and by the way, I never lie on the ng.
You've been lying in alt.atheism for 20 years. Why stop now?
duke
2017-09-09 17:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
Now, for a D student coming out of high school, you shouldn't point fingers at a
college graduate, don't you thing?

Now as for me, I was baptized as a Christian at age 8 weeks and confirmed as a
Roman Catholic at age 13 years. What do you claim, peckerhead?

the dukester, American-American


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

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Ted
2017-09-09 17:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
Now, for a D student coming out of high school,
I got straight A's in HS math (without trying) and a consistent A average
after HS.
Post by duke
you shouldn't point fingers at a
college graduate, don't you thing?
By that criterion, you shouldn't point fingers at me. My formal education
exceeds yours by a factor of 5. And that's assuming you really do have an
engineering degree (but you don't). Doubt me? Care to wager? :)
duke
2017-09-10 15:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
Now, for a D student coming out of high school,
I got straight A's in HS math (without trying) and a consistent A average
after HS.
You were a D-average in high school. No college would accept you with grades
like that.

the dukester, American-American


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

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Ted
2017-09-10 15:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
Now, for a D student coming out of high school,
I got straight A's in HS math (without trying) and a consistent A average
after HS.
You were a D-average in high school. No college would accept you with grades
like that.
They didn't give a damn what my HS grades were. You've been a moron
all of your life, so you can't relate.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-09-10 19:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
Now, for a D student coming out of high school,
I got straight A's in HS math (without trying) and a consistent A average
after HS.
You were a D-average in high school. No college would accept you with grades
like that.
They didn't give a damn what my HS grades were. You've been a moron
all of your life, so you can't relate.
His SATs more than made up for a few bad grades.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Ted
2017-09-10 20:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
Now, for a D student coming out of high school,
I got straight A's in HS math (without trying) and a consistent A average
after HS.
You were a D-average in high school. No college would accept you with grades
like that.
They didn't give a damn what my HS grades were. You've been a moron
all of your life, so you can't relate.
His SATs more than made up for a few bad grades.
Thanks, Jeanne. I know that you didn't find it difficult to get accepted
either. My guess is that Duke's projecting.
duke
2017-09-11 12:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person?s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant?
bible. He bitches and moans about the ?protest-ants? yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
Now, for a D student coming out of high school,
I got straight A's in HS math (without trying) and a consistent A average
after HS.
You were a D-average in high school. No college would accept you with grades
like that.
They didn't give a damn what my HS grades were. You've been a moron
all of your life, so you can't relate.
I know. You were the village idiot. Not 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
*****
Tim
2017-09-10 14:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by hleopold
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will
test the quality of each person’s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant”
bible. He bitches and moans about the “protest-ants” yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession.
Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
LOL!!!
hypatiab7
2017-09-12 22:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by raven1
Post by hleopold
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will
test the quality of each person’s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant”
bible. He bitches and moans about the “protest-ants” yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
I didn't know that, but it shouldn't surprise me, given Duke's ignorance of
his claimed profession. Now, after what you've just revealed, I'd be
beginning to doubt that he's really Catholic, except for the fact that his
IQ is clearly very low.
That pamphlet from his church with his photo and a blurb about him helping reconvert some dimwitted woman is the only evidence we've seen that he is RCC.
He was very old-fashioned RCC when he started in alt.atheism. And he was very
unhappy about changes in RCC doctrine. But now he goes along with whatever the Church says.
duke
2017-09-09 13:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by raven1
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will
test the quality of each person’s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant”
bible. He bitches and moans about the “protest-ants” yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
All valid bibles say the same thing. The language style is the issue - some
easy to understand, some garbage. The kjv, being in old Elizabethan English, is
so confusing that the protest_ants use it.

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
2017-09-11 17:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by raven1
Post by hleopold
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person’s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant”
bible.
I gigged Earl for that in this message:

Message-ID: <8a9fb7c3-e641-4350-a5ca-***@googlegroups.com>

I replied to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, but left
alt.atheism out of the conversation.

[quote]
Romans 8:13New International Version (NIV).....
Hebrews 10:26-27New International Version (NIV)....
Funny how "uber-Catholic" Earl uses an NIV,
which is pretty much a "Protestant bible."

No "Jerusalem Bible," original or "New" in the house?
No NAB? or CTS?

C'mon Earl. Check indicia pages for that "Nihil Obstat"
and "Imprimatur" before you quote, was what I was taught.

[/quote]

`Course, in this group it's all trolling nonsense and proselytizing,
but, gee willikers! Do it right!
He bitches and moans about the “protest-ants” yet here, again, he
Post by raven1
Post by hleopold
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
All valid bibles say the same thing. The language style is the issue - some
easy to understand, some garbage. The kjv, being in old Elizabethan English, is
so confusing that the protest_ants use it.
They like it for the poetry, and for the historical resonance.
Clarity doesn't matter, because the various sects just reinterpret
to their hearts content, anyway.

I suspect if Earl were the particular, Tridentine-mass holdout,
Sedevacantist schismatic like Mel G's loony Dad, he wouldn't be
comfortable with any English translation but the Douay-Rheims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible

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

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

Kevin R
duke
2017-09-12 18:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Romans 8:13New International Version (NIV).....
Hebrews 10:26-27New International Version (NIV)....
Funny how "uber-Catholic" Earl uses an NIV,
which is pretty much a "Protestant bible."
No, it's not. A REAL protest_er bible is the kjv. NOOOOObody can understand
it.

And I'm horribly surprised that you don't know that all valid bibles say the
same thing, some better than others, the kjv beings almost as bad as the
vietnamese bible.

It's all 100% in language translation. Why my first use of Bible Gateway went
to the NIV is beyond me, but it has great language easy for understanding, not
like the crappy kjv.

Oh, and btw, the bible here on my computer table is: "The New Catholic Study
Bible, St. Jerome Edition".

How about that.
Post by Kevrob
No "Jerusalem Bible," original or "New" in the house?
No NAB? or CTS?
C'mon Earl. Check indicia pages for that "Nihil Obstat"
and "Imprimatur" before you quote, was what I was taught.
[/quote]
`Course, in this group it's all trolling nonsense and proselytizing,
but, gee willikers! Do it right!
He bitches and moans about the “protest-ants” yet here, again, he
Post by raven1
Post by hleopold
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
All valid bibles say the same thing. The language style is the issue - some
easy to understand, some garbage. The kjv, being in old Elizabethan English, is
so confusing that the protest_ants use it.
They like it for the poetry, and for the historical resonance.
Clarity doesn't matter, because the various sects just reinterpret
to their hearts content, anyway.
KJV = lack of clarity, NIV = great clarity.


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
2017-09-12 18:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Romans 8:13New International Version (NIV).....
Hebrews 10:26-27New International Version (NIV)....
Funny how "uber-Catholic" Earl uses an NIV,
which is pretty much a "Protestant bible."
No, it's not. A REAL protest_er bible is the kjv. NOOOOObody can understand
it.
Are you serious? I don't mean that as an insult, or a net gibe ... just want to know.
You seriously think the King Version is hard to understand?

Why? It's one of the jewels of the English language. Full blown hardcore
atheists have no problem admitting that. James himself was a cosmic prick,
but this work he commissioned is one of the glories of Western literature.

Aa
Post by duke
And I'm horribly surprised that you don't know that all valid bibles say the
same thing, some better than others, the kjv beings almost as bad as the
vietnamese bible.
It's all 100% in language translation. Why my first use of Bible Gateway went
to the NIV is beyond me, but it has great language easy for understanding, not
like the crappy kjv.
Oh, and btw, the bible here on my computer table is: "The New Catholic Study
Bible, St. Jerome Edition".
How about that.
Post by Kevrob
No "Jerusalem Bible," original or "New" in the house?
No NAB? or CTS?
C'mon Earl. Check indicia pages for that "Nihil Obstat"
and "Imprimatur" before you quote, was what I was taught.
[/quote]
`Course, in this group it's all trolling nonsense and proselytizing,
but, gee willikers! Do it right!
He bitches and moans about the “protest-ants” yet here, again, he
Post by raven1
Post by hleopold
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
All valid bibles say the same thing. The language style is the issue - some
easy to understand, some garbage. The kjv, being in old Elizabethan English, is
so confusing that the protest_ants use it.
They like it for the poetry, and for the historical resonance.
Clarity doesn't matter, because the various sects just reinterpret
to their hearts content, anyway.
KJV = lack of clarity, NIV = great clarity.
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
2017-09-12 18:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Oh, and btw, the bible here on my computer table is: "The New Catholic Study
Bible, St. Jerome Edition".
How about that.
Post by Kevrob
No "Jerusalem Bible," original or "New" in the house?
No NAB? or CTS?
C'mon Earl. Check indicia pages for that "Nihil Obstat"
and "Imprimatur" before you quote, was what I was taught.
[/quote]
So, you do have a Douay–Rheims translation of Jerome's Latin Vulgate!
What, are you too lazy to transcribe it, preferring to cut'n'paste
the heretics' versions? :)
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
`Course, in this group it's all trolling nonsense and proselytizing,
but, gee willikers! Do it right!
Post by hleopold
He bitches and moans about the “protest-ants” yet here, again, he
They like it for the poetry, and for the historical resonance.
Clarity doesn't matter, because the various sects just reinterpret
to their hearts content, anyway.
KJV = lack of clarity, NIV = great clarity.
Kevin R
hypatiab7
2017-09-12 23:43:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by raven1
Post by hleopold
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire
will
test the quality of each person’s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant”
bible.
I replied to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, but left
alt.atheism out of the conversation.
[quote]
Romans 8:13New International Version (NIV).....
Hebrews 10:26-27New International Version (NIV)....
Funny how "uber-Catholic" Earl uses an NIV,
which is pretty much a "Protestant bible."
No "Jerusalem Bible," original or "New" in the house?
No NAB? or CTS?
C'mon Earl. Check indicia pages for that "Nihil Obstat"
and "Imprimatur" before you quote, was what I was taught.
[/quote]
`Course, in this group it's all trolling nonsense and proselytizing,
but, gee willikers! Do it right!
He bitches and moans about the “protest-ants” yet here, again, he
Post by raven1
Post by hleopold
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad.
He's certainly almost astonishingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine for
someone who claims to be one.
All valid bibles say the same thing. The language style is the issue - some
easy to understand, some garbage. The kjv, being in old Elizabethan English, is
so confusing that the protest_ants use it.
They like it for the poetry, and for the historical resonance.
Clarity doesn't matter, because the various sects just reinterpret
to their hearts content, anyway.
This reminds me of the Yom Kippur when my mother asked me to go to synagogue
with her. I asked if we could go to a Reform synagogue where the services were all done in English. She said no, she wanted to go to the Conservative service
which was mostly in Hebrew. I asked why, since she couldn't understand what they're saying. She said that she just liked listening to the sound of it.
Years later a Catholic friend said that she didn't like the Latin services
because she couldn't understand them. Her parent, on the other hand, just
liked to listen to the sound of it. I figure, in both cases, that they knew what was being said, so the foreign language was like hypnotic music.
Post by Kevrob
I suspect if Earl were the particular, Tridentine-mass holdout,
Sedevacantist schismatic like Mel G's loony Dad, he wouldn't be
comfortable with any English translation but the Douay-Rheims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson
Kevin R
Cloud Hobbit
2017-09-07 23:37:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ask duke what he thinks of vat grown meat.😉
Jeanne Douglas
2017-09-08 10:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ask duke what he thinks of vat grown meat.=F0=9F=98=89
His religion isn't against eating meat, so his opinion is just his personal opinion and I don't care.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-09-09 13:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Ask duke what he thinks of vat grown meat.=F0=9F=98=89
His religion isn't against eating meat, so his opinion is just his personal opinion and I don't care.
So who cares what you think.

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
2017-09-09 13:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ask duke what he thinks of vat grown meat.?
Well, I've never eaten it as far as I know. But I do prefer my meat to moo
first, or oink or quack or cluck. I don't know if seafood makes noise.

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
2017-09-09 13:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Syd M.
Post by duke
1 Corinthians 3:11-13New International Version (NIV)
11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which
is
Jesus Christ. 12If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver,
costly
stones, wood, hay or straw, 13their work will be shown for what it is,
because
the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will
test the quality of each person’s work.
TULIP is a false foundation.
Coming from you, that makes it all the more a true foundation..
PDW
I still would like to know why Duke, claimed Catholic, uses a "protest-ant”
bible.
It isn't a "protest_ant" bible. By now you should understand that all valid
bibles reveal the same spiritual truths of God. If they didn't, they would be
rejected. The NIV says things in a very simple and easy presentation to
understand. For the same reason, the kjv is garbage in it's presentation. No
man in his right man can understand it, and that is the reason the protest_ants
are so confused.


He bitches and moans about the “protest-ants” yet here, again, he
is quoting from their bible. My opinion is that he is not Catholic, certainly
not RCC, and is just doing his best to make Catholics look bad. I have known
quite a number of “holier than the Pope” Catholics and they would not be
caught dead using the KJ or any version of that bible. Duke has always tried
to come across as one of the holier than the Pope type, but has always quoted
from the NIV. I think, just like everything else about him, by him, or from
him, he is lying about what he is.
I thought for years that he might have been one of those pre-Vatican II
types, (Mel Gibbson or his father version of Catholics) but have given that
idea up as probably wrong. Personally I would not be surprised to find out
one day that he really is a Southern Baptist doing his best to slander the
RCC. I have asked Duke at lest three times why he used the NIV, no response
ever received.
the dukester, American-American


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

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Ted
2017-09-06 21:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The Total Depravity of the Calvanist <sic>
And now
Boob and the TULIP's delima <sic>
LOL. What a buffoon. :)
duke
2017-09-07 22:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
The Total Depravity of the Calvanist <sic>
And now
Boob and the TULIP's delima <sic>
LOL. What a buffoon. :)
Pasta fairies have false gospels too.

the dukester, American-American


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

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Loading...