Me thinks the Catholics...

You also do not know which mountain, and even if you did you

couldn't

prove the height of it then as opposed to today, for many

reasons.

All the kingdoms of Earth do not fit in that red circle.
Therefore the Bible teaches a flat Earth.
Thanks for playing Stump the Atheist. For runners up there
is a year's supply of Turtle Wax and the home version of the
game.

Gee, too bad sick robert doesn't know that there is no dating of

Noah's flood as

it is describen in Gen 1-11. Thus the mountain could easily be a

speed bump (my

favorite) then.
the dukester, American-American

Robert can't prove he doesn't eat shit. Therefore, according to his
"logic", he does eat shit.

Makes sense to me.

Ted

2020-01-30 20:10:26 UTC

Post by Patrick B

You also do not know which mountain, and even if you did you

couldn't

prove the height of it then as opposed to today, for many

reasons.

We are told Noah's Flood could flood the entire Earth
with only 40 days and 40 nights of rain because mountains
were only knolls back then. So Mount Everest must have
been shorter than it is today. Mount Everest is
currently 29,029 feet tall. The horizon from that
elevation is 208.8 miles away. Assuming the mountain
was at least as tall as it is today, which is reasonable,
since mountain-building in the Himalayas currently
outpaces erosion (which is why there ARE Himalayas)
this image shows how far Jesus and the devil could
https://badinage1.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/everest.jpeg
All the kingdoms of Earth do not fit in that red circle.
Therefore the Bible teaches a flat Earth.
Thanks for playing Stump the Atheist. For runners up there
is a year's supply of Turtle Wax and the home version of the
game.

Gee, too bad sick robert doesn't know that there is no dating of

Noah's flood as

it is describen in Gen 1-11. Thus the mountain could easily be a

speed bump (my

favorite) then.
the dukester, American-American

Robert can't prove he doesn't eat shit. Therefore, according to his
"logic", he does eat shit.

Makes sense to me.

LOL. Thank you.

Kevrob

2020-01-31 04:03:44 UTC

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 04:56:31 -0800, LinuxGal

1. Roman Empire
2. Parthian Empire (Iran)
3. Kushan Empire (Afghanistan)
4. Armenia
5. Dacia
6. Satavahana Empire (India)
7. Han Dynasty (China)
8. Northern Xiongnu Khanate (Tibet)
9. Indo-Parthian Kingdom (Pakistan)
10. Kashmir
The list goes on. The key point is that no one could see all

these

kingdoms from the summit of a mountain unless the Earth is

flat. So the

Bible teaches a flat Earth.

So your point?

No one could see all these kingdoms from the summit of a

mountain unless

the Earth is flat. So the Bible teaches a flat Earth.

That's irrelevant and a misinterpretation. The Bible as a book

of philosophy

never cares about the inferior science.

Superior science says the Earth is an oblate spheroid 7900
miles by 7926 miles in dimension. Inferior science says
Jesus and Satan could see all the kingdoms of Earth from a
mountaintop.

And Casper was a ghost.
the dukester, American-American

Still is, dumbass.

Crazy Magazine, #8, Dec 1974

https://www.comics.org/issue/353324/cover/4/

"Kaspar The Dead Baby" by Marv Wolfman and Marie Severin

See:

http://johnglenntaylor.blogspot.com/2009/03/kaspar-dead-baby.html

CRAZY was Marvel's MAD clone. "Kaspar" was its CMOA,
though Bob Foster's "History of Moosekind" had its charms.

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

Ted

2020-01-31 19:24:56 UTC

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 11:54:18 -0800, LinuxGal

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 04:56:31 -0800, LinuxGal

al=

Post by Kevrob
l

these

kingdoms from the summit of a mountain unless the Earth is

flat. So the

Bible teaches a flat Earth.

So your point?

No one could see all these kingdoms from the summit of a

mountain unless

the Earth is flat. So the Bible teaches a flat Earth.

That's irrelevant and a misinterpretation. The Bible as a book

of philosophy

never cares about the inferior science.

Superior science says the Earth is an oblate spheroid 7900
miles by 7926 miles in dimension. Inferior science says
Jesus and Satan could see all the kingdoms of Earth from a
mountaintop.

And Casper was a ghost.
the dukester, American-American

Still is, dumbass.

Crazy Magazine, #8, Dec 1974
https://www.comics.org/issue/353324/cover/4/
"Kaspar The Dead Baby" by Marv Wolfman and Marie Severin
http://johnglenntaylor.blogspot.com/2009/03/kaspar-dead-baby.html
CRAZY was Marvel's MAD clone. "Kaspar" was its CMOA,
though Bob Foster's "History of Moosekind" had its charms.
--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

Heh. Thank Kevin.

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:25:57 UTC

Depends of if they live a life of obedience to God
and love of neighbor.

Obeying a non-existent being is a logical impossibility.

Now you know why God is not "non-existent".

It's also hard to love a "neighbor" like you, Earl, who won't
stay on his own side of the fence, and keeps proselytizing on our
doorstep, even when we've posted the "no solicitation" signs.

I don't p-word. Any more than you do.

Do we get points for not filling your britches with rocksalt,
or worse?

I wear pants.

Now, be a nice little Catholic moral robot and fuck off.

I love it when you just can't seem to make any points.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:26:43 UTC

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 12:47:10 -0800, ----------- A t h e i s t ------------

Depends of if they live a life of obedience to God
and love of neighbor.

Obeying a non-existent being is a logical impossibility.

Worse, their theology has their goal as being
sycophants to a [fictional] dictator god.
sycophant - a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.

But I'm not an idiot savant like you and kboy.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:27:44 UTC

in Rome, Paul preached there. Jesus called Peter a little rock, and he
called himself the Rock as in the Rock of Gibraltar. and it was on
that rock Christ was to build his church.

Wow, big rock, little rock, that's pretty confusing. And here I thought
God was not the author of confusion.

That's why Simon was called Peter.

Yeshua called him Rocky to avoid confusion with his little brother Shimon,
who was the disciple sometimes called Simon the Zealot.

Many times in the Bible, God changed someones name because He was calling them
to live out a new mission or identify with a new identity that God was giving
them. This is exactly what Jesus was doing with Simon, seeing in him some great
potential that no one else saw. Everyone else saw Simon, Jesus saw Peter.
the dukester, American-American

show me the quote in the bible where god ever says anything

God inspires us. God created us. Well, maybe not you.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:28:54 UTC

Many times in the Bible, God changed someone?s name because He was calling them
to live out a new mission or identify with a new identity that God was giving
them.

Is that how you went from Earl Weber to Duck Gumbo?

Not that I know of.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:30:34 UTC

in Rome, Paul preached there. Jesus called Peter a little rock,

and he

called himself the Rock as in the Rock of Gibraltar. and it was

that rock Christ was to build his church.

Wow, big rock, little rock, that's pretty confusing. And here I

thought

God was not the author of confusion.

That's why Simon was called Peter.
Robert is pretty stupid.
the dukester, American-American

Robert was lying. Jesus built his Church on the Rock Hard Peter. Says
so in the Bible.

The first view is that Jesus was declaring that Peter would be the rock on
which He would build His church. Jesus appears to be using a play on words. You
are Peter (petros) and on this rock (petra) I will build my church.
the dukester, American-American

LinuxGal

2020-02-01 01:46:58 UTC

The first view is that Jesus was declaring that Peter would be the ?rock? on
which He would build His church. Jesus appears to be using a play on words. ?You
are Peter (petros) and on this rock (petra) I will build my church.?

So did Jesus speak Greek and do this alleged play on words,
or did he speak Aramaic and say, simply, "I dub thee Cephas,
and upon this cephas I will build my church." ?

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

d***@cox.net

2020-02-02 21:30:06 UTC

So did Jesus speak Greek and do this alleged play on words,
or did he speak Aramaic and say, simply, "I dub thee Cephas,
and upon this cephas I will build my church." ?

Jesus didn't speak Greek but probably knew a few words. Same with Hebrew and
Latin. His primary language was Aramaic.

The key thought is that Jesus built his Church on the rock of Peter, the Pope
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:33:09 UTC

It doesn't matter what mountain they chose, there is none high
enough to see all the land on Earth unless the Earth is taken

be flat.

Or, unless you're an immortal non-human, like Jesus and Satan.

Paul seemed to think Jesus was a male human.
1 Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus.

That's just more proof that you don't know what you pretend to

know.

"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set

apart for

the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his

prophets in

the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from

David

according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in

power

according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the

dead,

Jesus Christ our Lord." [Romans 1:1-4]

Congratulations, you prots. You don't even believe in the

transfiguration of

the Lord Jesus.

Protestants believe in the Transfiguration. It's in the Bible.

I know it's in the Gospels, but prots don't believe in reading the gospels.

Don't ever believe a prot like bob duncan.
the dukester, American-American

Good advice.

the dukester, American-American

Ted

2020-02-01 06:37:17 UTC

It doesn't matter what mountain they chose, there is none high
enough to see all the land on Earth unless the Earth is taken

be flat.

Or, unless you're an immortal non-human, like Jesus and

Satan.

Paul seemed to think Jesus was a male human.
1 Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus.

That's just more proof that you don't know what you pretend to

know.

"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set

apart for

the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his

prophets in

the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from

David

according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in

power

according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the

dead,

Jesus Christ our Lord." [Romans 1:1-4]

Congratulations, you prots. You don't even believe in the

transfiguration of

the Lord Jesus.

Protestants believe in the Transfiguration. It's in the Bible.

I know it's in the Gospels, but prots don't believe in reading the gospels.

Protestants read the gospels much more frequently than do Catholics,
who almost never read the Bible at all.

d***@cox.net

2020-02-02 21:34:55 UTC

It doesn't matter what mountain they chose, there is none

high

enough to see all the land on Earth unless the Earth is

taken

be flat.

Or, unless you're an immortal non-human, like Jesus and

Satan.

Paul seemed to think Jesus was a male human.
1 Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God

and

men, the man Christ Jesus.

That's just more proof that you don't know what you pretend to

know.

"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set

apart for

the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his

prophets in

the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from

David

according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in

power

according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from

the

dead,

Jesus Christ our Lord." [Romans 1:1-4]

Congratulations, you prots. You don't even believe in the

transfiguration of

the Lord Jesus.

Protestants believe in the Transfiguration. It's in the Bible.

I know it's in the Gospels, but prots don't believe in reading the

gospels.
Protestants read the gospels much more frequently than do Catholics,
who almost never read the Bible at all.

You're an idiot, fairy boy.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:35:10 UTC

You also do not know which mountain, and even if you did you
couldn't prove the height of it then as opposed to today, for many
reasons.

Gee, too bad sick robert doesn't know that there is no dating of
Noah's flood as it is describen in Gen 1-11. Thus the mountain could
easily be a speed bump (my favorite) then.

Everest was a "speed bump" 10 million years
ago, when the Indian plate collided with the
Asian plate.
Is that what you are saying - that Ye Floode
happened before humans even existed?

Of course.

From my Catholic Study bible, intro to Genesis
The time period of Genesis 1-11 takes us back to the very beginning of all
things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Genesis 1-11 are not a
scientific accounting of the beginning of the universe or of life. They are
Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe and of
mankind. These chapters use simple language which has been adapted to the
mentality of a particular people in a particular culture. The chapters state
athe principle truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and give a
popular description of how the human race and the chosen people began.

the dukester, American-American

Mitchell Holman

2020-02-01 02:28:05 UTC

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:30:06 -0600, Mitchell Holman

You also do not know which mountain, and even if you did you
couldn't prove the height of it then as opposed to today, for many
reasons.

Gee, too bad sick robert doesn't know that there is no dating of
Noah's flood as it is describen in Gen 1-11. Thus the mountain could
easily be a speed bump (my favorite) then.

Everest was a "speed bump" 10 million years
ago, when the Indian plate collided with the
Asian plate.
Is that what you are saying - that Ye Floode
happened before humans even existed?

Of course.

So god saved Noah's family back before
people even existed.

Is that what your pedophile priest has
been telling you?

d***@cox.net

2020-02-02 21:36:23 UTC

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:30:06 -0600, Mitchell Holman

You also do not know which mountain, and even if you did you
couldn't prove the height of it then as opposed to today, for many
reasons.

Gee, too bad sick robert doesn't know that there is no dating of
Noah's flood as it is describen in Gen 1-11. Thus the mountain could
easily be a speed bump (my favorite) then.

Everest was a "speed bump" 10 million years
ago, when the Indian plate collided with the
Asian plate.
Is that what you are saying - that Ye Floode
happened before humans even existed?

Of course.

So god saved Noah's family back before
people even existed.

Screwed yourself, didn't you.

Post by Mitchell Holman
Is that what your pedophile priest has
been telling you?

I think you believe it.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:35:43 UTC

Post by Patrick B

You also do not know which mountain, and even if you did you

couldn't

prove the height of it then as opposed to today, for many

reasons.

Gee, too bad sick robert doesn't know that there is no dating of

Noah's flood as

it is describen in Gen 1-11. Thus the mountain could easily be a

speed bump (my

favorite) then.
the dukester, American-American

Robert can't prove he doesn't eat shit. Therefore, according to his
"logic", he does eat shit.

Makes sense to me.

And to me.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:37:37 UTC

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:32:06 -0600, Mitchell Holman

So your point?

No one could see all these kingdoms from the summit of a mountain
unless the Earth is flat. So the Bible teaches a flat Earth.

Still couldn't. Just nothing on the horizon. Line of sight on the
earth sphere is 50 miles.
the dukester, American-American

Explain how Jesus could see the Mayan and
Inca kingdoms from Palestine if the Earth wasn't
flat

.
Before becoming flesh, Jesus existed in all places, all time and saw
all.

That's not what Bible says.

Yes, it does.
the dukester, American-American

Mitchell Holman

2020-02-01 02:28:41 UTC

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 12:53:37 -0600, Mitchell Holman

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:32:06 -0600, Mitchell Holman

So your point?

No one could see all these kingdoms from the summit of a mountain
unless the Earth is flat. So the Bible teaches a flat Earth.

Still couldn't. Just nothing on the horizon. Line of sight on
the earth sphere is 50 miles.
the dukester, American-American

Explain how Jesus could see the Mayan and
Inca kingdoms from Palestine if the Earth wasn't
flat

.
Before becoming flesh, Jesus existed in all places, all time and saw
all.

That's not what Bible says.

Yes, it does.

Prove it.

d***@cox.net

2020-02-02 21:37:48 UTC

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 12:53:37 -0600, Mitchell Holman

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:32:06 -0600, Mitchell Holman

So your point?

No one could see all these kingdoms from the summit of a mountain
unless the Earth is flat. So the Bible teaches a flat Earth.

Still couldn't. Just nothing on the horizon. Line of sight on
the earth sphere is 50 miles.
the dukester, American-American

Explain how Jesus could see the Mayan and
Inca kingdoms from Palestine if the Earth wasn't
flat

.
Before becoming flesh, Jesus existed in all places, all time and saw
all.

That's not what Bible says.

Yes, it does.

Prove it.

Done.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:40:28 UTC

Explain how Jesus could see the Mayan and
Inca kingdoms from Palestine if the Earth wasn't
flat

.
Before becoming flesh, Jesus existed in all places, all time and saw all.

So the passage where Jesus and Satan stand on a mountaintop
is in Luke chapter 4. Jesus became flesh in Luke chapter 2.
Of course, you wouldn't know that, because you only hear
this stuff in the scattered format of the readings at mass.

Gee, I gave you credit all this time for logic and reason. Please tell me that
the teachings of Jesus don't have to come in numerical order.
the dukester, American-American

LinuxGal

2020-02-01 01:06:38 UTC

Explain how Jesus could see the Mayan and
Inca kingdoms from Palestine if the Earth wasn't
flat

.
Before becoming flesh, Jesus existed in all places, all time and saw all.

Gee, I gave you credit all this time for logic and reason. Please tell me that
the teachings of Jesus don't have to come in numerical order.

In this case, if you don't take the teachings of Jesus in
numerical order, you will teach that Jesus was not in flesh,
and hence omniscient, at the time when Satan took him to the
top of a mountain. And it would be in error. Because at
roughly the same time Satan told Jesus to turn stones into
bread. If Jesus was not in flesh, then he wouldn't be
hungry.

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

d***@cox.net

2020-02-02 21:40:16 UTC

Explain how Jesus could see the Mayan and
Inca kingdoms from Palestine if the Earth wasn't
flat

.
Before becoming flesh, Jesus existed in all places, all time and saw all.

Gee, I gave you credit all this time for logic and reason. Please tell me that
the teachings of Jesus don't have to come in numerical order.

??? Does this mean you actually think all scripture as presented is
chronological?
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:41:17 UTC

You neglected one thing, no specific mountain was mentioned,

and the

time spent thereon was in the blink of an eye, so to assume

what was

not spoken is to create your personal theology.

It doesn't matter what mountain they chose, there is none high

enough to

see all the land on Earth unless the Earth is taken to be flat.

It did not say all the land on earth.

Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain,

shewed unto

him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
1. Roman Empire
2. Parthian Empire (Iran)
3. Kushan Empire (Afghanistan)
4. Armenia
5. Dacia
6. Satavahana Empire (India)
7. Han Dynasty (China)
8. Northern Xiongnu Khanate (Tibet)
9. Indo-Parthian Kingdom (Pakistan)
10. Kashmir
The list goes on. The key point is that no one could see all

these

kingdoms from the summit of a mountain unless the Earth is flat.

So the

Bible teaches a flat Earth.

So your point?
the dukester, American-American

That the Gospel writers thought the Earth was flat.

They never even thought about it.
the dukester, American-American

LinuxGal

2020-02-01 01:02:56 UTC

So your point?

That the Gospel writers thought the Earth was flat.

They never even thought about it.

They never even thought about a lot of things that are in
the Bible.

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

Robert

2020-02-01 02:19:12 UTC

So your point?

That the Gospel writers thought the Earth was flat.

They never even thought about it.

They never even thought about a lot of things that are in
the Bible.

In actuality I showed Earl in the bible where is speaks of a round
earth and the earth revolving around the sun many years ago.
But he denies so many things so many times that he starts accepting
his denials as the truth.

--
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
(Heb 11:6 KJV)

LinuxGal

2020-02-01 02:33:19 UTC

Post by Robert
In actuality I showed Earl in the bible where is speaks of a round
earth and the earth revolving around the sun many years ago.
But he denies so many things so many times that he starts accepting
his denials as the truth.

He stakes out a position, and where the Bible or even
established Catholic doctrine contradicts him, the
Bible and the Catechism be damned.

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

d***@cox.net

2020-02-02 21:50:22 UTC

No, no, you idiot, lg. Here's the question of interest: If an aircraft is
moving continuosly "around" a single point, say a mile out, is it revolving or
circling?

Post by LinuxGal
He stakes out a position, and where the Bible or even
established Catholic doctrine contradicts him, the
Bible and the Catechism be damned.

robert is a jerk of the nth degree..
the dukester, American-American

LinuxGal

2020-02-02 22:04:57 UTC

No, no, you idiot, lg. Here's the question of interest: If an aircraft is
moving continuosly "around" a single point, say a mile out, is it revolving or
circling?

The compass changes from heading 000 to 359 and back again,
so obviously it is rotating. Yahweh knows all about yaw.
Never mind the ground track. In the NAV we say the CAP
(Combat Air Patrol) is orbiting on station.

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

d***@cox.net

2020-02-03 13:59:11 UTC

No, no, you idiot, lg. Here's the question of interest: If an aircraft is
moving continuosly "around" a single point, say a mile out, is it revolving or
circling?

The compass changes from heading 000 to 359 and back again,
so obviously it is rotating.

Wrong. Circling.

Post by LinuxGal
Yahweh knows all about yaw.
Never mind the ground track. In the NAV we say the CAP
(Combat Air Patrol) is orbiting on station.

Orbiting = circling, not rotating.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-02-03 14:01:27 UTC

No, no, you idiot, lg. Here's the question of interest: If an aircraft is
moving continuosly "around" a single point, say a mile out, is it revolving or
circling?

The compass changes from heading 000 to 359 and back again,
so obviously it is rotating.

Sounds like yaw.
the dukester, American-American

LinuxGal

2020-02-04 03:11:55 UTC

Post by LinuxGal
The compass changes from heading 000 to 359 and back again,
so obviously it is rotating.

Sounds like yaw.

LG: "No way!"

Duke" "Yaw-weh!"

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

d***@cox.net

2020-02-06 23:00:14 UTC

Post by LinuxGal
The compass changes from heading 000 to 359 and back again,
so obviously it is rotating.

Sounds like yaw.

LG: "No way!"
Duke" "Yaw-weh!"

Now you're speaking for me.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-02-02 21:41:03 UTC

So your point?

That the Gospel writers thought the Earth was flat.

They never even thought about it.

They never even thought about a lot of things that are in
the Bible.

Well, not that you would know about, anyway.
the dukester, American-American

Ted

2020-02-01 06:35:53 UTC

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 19:10:28 -0800, LinuxGal

You neglected one thing, no specific mountain was

mentioned,

and the

time spent thereon was in the blink of an eye, so to assume

what was

not spoken is to create your personal theology.

It doesn't matter what mountain they chose, there is none high

enough to

see all the land on Earth unless the Earth is taken to be flat.

It did not say all the land on earth.

Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain,

shewed unto

these

kingdoms from the summit of a mountain unless the Earth is

flat.

So the

Bible teaches a flat Earth.

So your point?
the dukester, American-American

That the Gospel writers thought the Earth was flat.

They never even thought about it.
the dukester, American-American

Of course they did.

d***@cox.net

2020-02-02 21:52:45 UTC

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 19:10:28 -0800, LinuxGal

You neglected one thing, no specific mountain was

mentioned,

and the

time spent thereon was in the blink of an eye, so to assume

what was

not spoken is to create your personal theology.

It doesn't matter what mountain they chose, there is none

high

enough to

see all the land on Earth unless the Earth is taken to be

flat.

It did not say all the land on earth.

Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain,

shewed unto

these

kingdoms from the summit of a mountain unless the Earth is

flat.

So the

Bible teaches a flat Earth.

So your point?
the dukester, American-American

That the Gospel writers thought the Earth was flat.

They never even thought about it.
the dukester, American-American

Of course they did.

How would they know. They just rode the camel until they got to wherever they
were going.

I've come to believe that atheists are absolutely the dumbest people on the
planet.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:42:05 UTC

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:35:02 -0600, Mitchell Holman

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 10:34:56 -0700, Captain Obvious

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 19:10:28 -0800, LinuxGal

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:44:18 -0800, LinuxGal

In verse 5 it is actually speaking of the habitable

kingdoms

that existed at the time, over which he had authority as

given

to him by Adam at the fall.

That's why I made sure to mention the kingdom of Chin, or

China.

Also, there was civilization in the valley of the Indus,

where

Alexander's successors (the Diadochi) ruled the

Greco-Bactrian

Kingdom and Indo-Greek Kingdom. These would have only been
visible from Mt. Hermon on a flat earth.

You neglected one thing, no specific mountain was

mentioned, and

the time spent thereon was in the blink of an eye, so to

assume

what was not spoken is to create your personal theology.

It doesn't matter what mountain they chose, there is none high
enough to see all the land on Earth unless the Earth is taken

to be

flat.

True, but not the issue. "They" (who ever "they" are) thought

they

were seeing the end of the earth. Technically, the end of the
visible earth in 50 miles away, discounting any mountains.
the dukester, American-American

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone then knew how huge the
Roman Empire was. No one thought the end of the earth was
50 miles away.

Not what I said. The earth's horizon drops below the line of

sight.

A traditional fact knows to pilots.

The earth's "horizon" IS the line of sight.

That's what I said.

The whole concept is subjective to the viewers'
position, like a rainbow.

Brrrrr.

Are you a victim of home schooling or something?

You would be lucky to be able to claim that.
the dukester, American-American

Homeschooling is superior. I was adamant that none of my kids would
be forced to waste their time in "school". As a result, they're now
all intelligent and successful.

Can you prove that?
the dukester, American-American

Ted

2020-02-01 06:38:15 UTC

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:35:02 -0600, Mitchell Holman

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 10:34:56 -0700, Captain Obvious

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 19:10:28 -0800, LinuxGal

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:44:18 -0800, LinuxGal

In verse 5 it is actually speaking of the habitable

kingdoms

that existed at the time, over which he had authority as

given

to him by Adam at the fall.

That's why I made sure to mention the kingdom of Chin, or

China.

Also, there was civilization in the valley of the Indus,

where

Alexander's successors (the Diadochi) ruled the

Greco-Bactrian

Kingdom and Indo-Greek Kingdom. These would have only been
visible from Mt. Hermon on a flat earth.

You neglected one thing, no specific mountain was

mentioned, and

the time spent thereon was in the blink of an eye, so to

assume

what was not spoken is to create your personal theology.

It doesn't matter what mountain they chose, there is none high
enough to see all the land on Earth unless the Earth is taken

to be

flat.

True, but not the issue. "They" (who ever "they" are)

thought

they

were seeing the end of the earth. Technically, the end of the
visible earth in 50 miles away, discounting any mountains.
the dukester, American-American

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone then knew how huge the
Roman Empire was. No one thought the end of the earth was
50 miles away.

Not what I said. The earth's horizon drops below the line of

sight.

A traditional fact knows to pilots.

The earth's "horizon" IS the line of sight.

That's what I said.

The whole concept is subjective to the viewers'
position, like a rainbow.

Brrrrr.

Are you a victim of home schooling or something?

You would be lucky to be able to claim that.
the dukester, American-American

Homeschooling is superior. I was adamant that none of my kids

would

be forced to waste their time in "school". As a result, they're now
all intelligent and successful.

Can you prove that?
the dukester, American-American

It's objective and provable, yes.

d***@cox.net

2020-02-02 21:54:47 UTC

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:35:02 -0600, Mitchell Holman

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 10:34:56 -0700, Captain Obvious

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 19:10:28 -0800, LinuxGal

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:44:18 -0800, LinuxGal

In verse 5 it is actually speaking of the habitable

kingdoms

that existed at the time, over which he had authority

given

to him by Adam at the fall.

That's why I made sure to mention the kingdom of Chin,

China.

Also, there was civilization in the valley of the

Indus,

where

Alexander's successors (the Diadochi) ruled the

Greco-Bactrian

Kingdom and Indo-Greek Kingdom. These would have only

been

visible from Mt. Hermon on a flat earth.

You neglected one thing, no specific mountain was

mentioned, and

the time spent thereon was in the blink of an eye, so to

assume

what was not spoken is to create your personal theology.

It doesn't matter what mountain they chose, there is none

high

enough to see all the land on Earth unless the Earth is

taken

to be

flat.

True, but not the issue. "They" (who ever "they" are)

thought

they

were seeing the end of the earth. Technically, the end of

the

visible earth in 50 miles away, discounting any mountains.
the dukester, American-American

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone then knew how huge the
Roman Empire was. No one thought the end of the earth was
50 miles away.

Not what I said. The earth's horizon drops below the line of

sight.

A traditional fact knows to pilots.

The earth's "horizon" IS the line of sight.

That's what I said.

The whole concept is subjective to the viewers'
position, like a rainbow.

Brrrrr.

Are you a victim of home schooling or something?

You would be lucky to be able to claim that.
the dukester, American-American

Homeschooling is superior. I was adamant that none of my kids

would

be forced to waste their time in "school". As a result, they're

now

all intelligent and successful.

Can you prove that?
the dukester, American-American

It's objective and provable, yes.

Prove it. No social life with other kids, no sports. no time away from the
parents.
the dukester, American-American

Ted

2020-02-04 03:43:11 UTC

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:35:02 -0600, Mitchell Holman

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 10:34:56 -0700, Captain Obvious

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 19:10:28 -0800, LinuxGal

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:44:18 -0800, LinuxGal

In verse 5 it is actually speaking of the habitable

kingdoms

that existed at the time, over which he had

authority

given

to him by Adam at the fall.

That's why I made sure to mention the kingdom of Chin,

China.

Also, there was civilization in the valley of the

Indus,

where

Alexander's successors (the Diadochi) ruled the

Greco-Bactrian

Kingdom and Indo-Greek Kingdom. These would have only

been

visible from Mt. Hermon on a flat earth.

You neglected one thing, no specific mountain was

mentioned, and

the time spent thereon was in the blink of an eye, so to

assume

what was not spoken is to create your personal

theology.

It doesn't matter what mountain they chose, there is none

high

enough to see all the land on Earth unless the Earth is

taken

to be

flat.

True, but not the issue. "They" (who ever "they" are)

thought

they

were seeing the end of the earth. Technically, the end of

the

visible earth in 50 miles away, discounting any

mountains.

the dukester, American-American

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone then knew how huge the
Roman Empire was. No one thought the end of the earth was
50 miles away.

Not what I said. The earth's horizon drops below the line of

sight.

A traditional fact knows to pilots.

The earth's "horizon" IS the line of sight.

That's what I said.

The whole concept is subjective to the viewers'
position, like a rainbow.

Brrrrr.

Are you a victim of home schooling or something?

You would be lucky to be able to claim that.
the dukester, American-American

Homeschooling is superior. I was adamant that none of my kids

would

be forced to waste their time in "school". As a result, they're

now

all intelligent and successful.

Can you prove that?
the dukester, American-American

It's objective and provable, yes.

Prove it. No social life with other kids, no sports. no time away from the
parents.
the dukester, American-American

In Pennsylvania, the schools had to let them participate in sports.
And there's plenty of opportunity for social interaction in the
churches and homeschooling groups. But true, they spend a lot more
time with parents.

As for "prove it", 'tis easy. My kids are more successful, including
socially, than are most others (like you). Public school fucks kids
up.

d***@cox.net

2020-02-06 23:05:29 UTC

Post by Ted

Homeschooling is superior. I was adamant that none of my kids

would

be forced to waste their time in "school". As a result, they're

now

all intelligent and successful.

Can you prove that?
the dukester, American-American

It's objective and provable, yes.

Prove it. No social life with other kids, no sports. no time away

from the

Post by d***@cox.net
parents.
the dukester, American-American

In Pennsylvania, the schools had to let them participate in sports.
And there's plenty of opportunity for social interaction in the
churches and homeschooling groups. But true, they spend a lot more
time with parents.
As for "prove it", 'tis easy. My kids are more successful, including
socially, than are most others (like you). Public school fucks kids
up.

Ted, you're a fairy. You don't have kids.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:43:36 UTC

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 10:34:56 -0700, Captain Obvious

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:44:18 -0800, LinuxGal

In verse 5 it is actually speaking of the habitable

kingdoms that

existed at the time, over which he had authority as given

to him by

Adam at the fall.

That's why I made sure to mention the kingdom of Chin, or

China. Also,

there was civilization in the valley of the Indus, where

Alexander's

successors (the Diadochi) ruled the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom

and Indo-Greek

Kingdom. These would have only been visible from Mt. Hermon

on a flat

earth.

You neglected one thing, no specific mountain was mentioned,

and the

time spent thereon was in the blink of an eye, so to assume

what was

not spoken is to create your personal theology.

It doesn't matter what mountain they chose, there is none high

enough to

see all the land on Earth unless the Earth is taken to be flat.

True, but not the issue. "They" (who ever "they" are) thought

they were seeing

the end of the earth. Technically, the end of the visible earth

in 50 miles

away, discounting any mountains.
the dukester, American-American

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone then knew how huge the
Roman Empire was. No one thought the end of the earth was
50 miles away.

Not what I said. The earth's horizon drops below the line of

sight. A

traditional fact known to pilots.
the dukester, American-American

But not to the Gospel writers, obviously.

Yeah, the first encyclopedia was still about 2 weeks from being released.
the dukester, American-American

Ted

2020-02-01 06:38:41 UTC

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 10:34:56 -0700, Captain Obvious

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 19:10:28 -0800, LinuxGal

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:44:18 -0800, LinuxGal

In verse 5 it is actually speaking of the habitable

kingdoms that

existed at the time, over which he had authority as

given

to him by

Adam at the fall.

That's why I made sure to mention the kingdom of Chin, or

China. Also,

there was civilization in the valley of the Indus, where

Alexander's

successors (the Diadochi) ruled the Greco-Bactrian

Kingdom

and Indo-Greek

Kingdom. These would have only been visible from Mt. Hermon

on a flat

earth.

You neglected one thing, no specific mountain was

mentioned,

and the

time spent thereon was in the blink of an eye, so to

assume

what was

not spoken is to create your personal theology.

It doesn't matter what mountain they chose, there is none high

enough to

see all the land on Earth unless the Earth is taken to be flat.

True, but not the issue. "They" (who ever "they" are)

thought

they were seeing

the end of the earth. Technically, the end of the visible earth

in 50 miles

away, discounting any mountains.
the dukester, American-American

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone then knew how huge the
Roman Empire was. No one thought the end of the earth was
50 miles away.

Not what I said. The earth's horizon drops below the line of

sight. A

traditional fact known to pilots.
the dukester, American-American

But not to the Gospel writers, obviously.

Yeah, the first encyclopedia was still about 2 weeks from being released.
the dukester, American-American

True.

d***@cox.net

2020-02-02 21:55:37 UTC

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 10:34:56 -0700, Captain Obvious

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 19:10:28 -0800, LinuxGal

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:44:18 -0800, LinuxGal

In verse 5 it is actually speaking of the habitable

kingdoms that

existed at the time, over which he had authority as

given

to him by

Adam at the fall.

That's why I made sure to mention the kingdom of Chin, or

China. Also,

there was civilization in the valley of the Indus, where

Alexander's

successors (the Diadochi) ruled the Greco-Bactrian

Kingdom

and Indo-Greek

Kingdom. These would have only been visible from Mt.

Hermon

on a flat

earth.

You neglected one thing, no specific mountain was

mentioned,

and the

time spent thereon was in the blink of an eye, so to

assume

what was

not spoken is to create your personal theology.

It doesn't matter what mountain they chose, there is none

high

enough to

see all the land on Earth unless the Earth is taken to be

flat.

True, but not the issue. "They" (who ever "they" are)

thought

they were seeing

the end of the earth. Technically, the end of the visible

earth

in 50 miles

away, discounting any mountains.
the dukester, American-American

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone then knew how huge the
Roman Empire was. No one thought the end of the earth was
50 miles away.

Not what I said. The earth's horizon drops below the line of

sight. A

traditional fact known to pilots.
the dukester, American-American

But not to the Gospel writers, obviously.

Yeah, the first encyclopedia was still about 2 weeks from being

released.

Post by d***@cox.net
the dukester, American-American

True.

Heeheehee.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:44:37 UTC

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:40:25 -0600, Mitchell Holman

It doesn't matter what mountain they chose, there is none high
enough to see all the land on Earth unless the Earth is taken to
be flat.

True, but not the issue. "They" (who ever "they" are) thought
they were seeing the end of the earth. Technically, the end of
the visible earth in 50 miles away, discounting any mountains.

I suppose you are technically correct. Even a rolling boulder is at
the correct elevation for an instant.
-----------------------------------------------------
1,000 ft................38.7 miles
1,667 ft................50.0 miles
2,000 ft................54.8 miles
9,232 ft...............117.7 miles
The tallest mountain in the lands occupied by Israel (Mt. Hermon)
is 9,232 feet. Jesus and Satan would have only been able to see the
kingdoms in a circle 235.4 miles across. That must be why Jesus
didn't take the offer.

Well, now... we all know.
Thanks.

Except she finds it difficult that Gen 1-11 throws the flood back in
time before there was man.

If man didn't exist then why was god so
mad that he flooded the world?

It's a teaching.

Who was being taught?

All people of ignorance.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:48:00 UTC

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:39:04 -0600, Mitchell Holman

It doesn't matter what mountain they chose, there is none high
enough to see all the land on Earth unless the Earth is taken to
be flat.

True, but not the issue. "They" (who ever "they" are) thought
they were seeing the end of the earth. Technically, the end of
the visible earth in 50 miles away, discounting any mountains.

I suppose you are technically correct. Even a rolling boulder is at
the correct elevation for an instant.
-----------------------------------------------------
1,000 ft................38.7 miles
1,667 ft................50.0 miles
2,000 ft................54.8 miles
9,232 ft...............117.7 miles
The tallest mountain in the lands occupied by Israel (Mt. Hermon) is
9,232 feet. Jesus and Satan would have only been able to see the
kingdoms in a circle 235.4 miles across. That must be why Jesus
didn't take the offer.

Yet you still pretend that Gen 1-11 is literal truth.
From my Catholic Study bible, intro to Genesis
The time period of Genesis 1-11 takes us back to the very beginning
of all things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Genesis
1-11 are not a scientific accounting of the beginning of the
universe or of life. They are Israel's faith statement of God's
activity in the origins of the universe and of mankind.

Show us where Genesis says it is not factual
but just a "faith statement".

How can it? There were no people.

So the whole thing is a fable,
but you believe it anyways.

Stupid people believe there were no human being before 6000BC

Because your pedophile priest
tells you to, of course.

I can get him to help you if you wish.

These chapters use simple
language which has been adapted to the mentality of a particular
people in a particular culture. The chapters state the principle
truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and give a popular
description of how the human race and the chosen people began.
the dukester, American-American

Just more of your Cafeteria Christianity,
taking the bits you like as "gospel truth"
and dismissing the rest as "instructive fables"
and "musings of primitive peoples".

So you think man existed 13.8 billion years ago?

the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:48:34 UTC

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:39:04 -0600, Mitchell Holman

It doesn't matter what mountain they chose, there is none high
enough to see all the land on Earth unless the Earth is taken to
be flat.

True, but not the issue. "They" (who ever "they" are) thought
they were seeing the end of the earth. Technically, the end of
the visible earth in 50 miles away, discounting any mountains.

I suppose you are technically correct. Even a rolling boulder is at
the correct elevation for an instant.
-----------------------------------------------------
1,000 ft................38.7 miles
1,667 ft................50.0 miles
2,000 ft................54.8 miles
9,232 ft...............117.7 miles
The tallest mountain in the lands occupied by Israel (Mt. Hermon) is
9,232 feet. Jesus and Satan would have only been able to see the
kingdoms in a circle 235.4 miles across. That must be why Jesus
didn't take the offer.

Show us where Genesis says it is not factual
but just a "faith statement".

Just more of your Cafeteria Christianity,
taking the bits you like as "gospel truth"
and dismissing the rest as "instructive fables"
and "musings of primitive peoples".

It just goes to show you how little you understand about scripture.

You dare to lecture others about scripture?

You need help very badly.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-01-31 23:49:24 UTC

On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 12:48:39 AM UTC-5, Robert

In verse 5 it is actually speaking of the habitable kingdoms

that

existed at the time,

So, were the ancient civilizations in the New World shown?
Or in the Southern hemisphere? The Hopewell culture?
The Preclassic Maya? See the Nazca lines in Peru?
Teotihuacan?
One could not see "all the kingdoms" from any terrestrial
mountain peak.

This is why a physical scientist can't understand a spiritual

insight

philosophically. Atheists make this kind of foolish mistakes all

the time.

Given the total area of the spherical Earth is 200,000,000 square

miles,

the amount of the surface visible as your elevation rises without

limit

approaches 100,000,000 square miles. This contradicts the claim in

Luke

4:5 that Satan showed Jesus ALL the kingdoms of the Earth, unless

the

Earth was assumed to be flat.

Discussion for the sake of stupid argument.
the dukester, American-American

Her argument is sound. Yours isn't (because you're a blithering
moron).

I'm trying to keep it down at your level so you understand.
the dukester, American-American

Ted

2020-02-01 06:39:46 UTC

On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 12:48:39 AM UTC-5, Robert

In verse 5 it is actually speaking of the habitable

kingdoms

that

existed at the time,

This is why a physical scientist can't understand a spiritual

insight

philosophically. Atheists make this kind of foolish mistakes all

the time.

Given the total area of the spherical Earth is 200,000,000

square

miles,

the amount of the surface visible as your elevation rises

without

limit

approaches 100,000,000 square miles. This contradicts the claim in

Luke

4:5 that Satan showed Jesus ALL the kingdoms of the Earth,

unless

the

Earth was assumed to be flat.

Discussion for the sake of stupid argument.
the dukester, American-American

Her argument is sound. Yours isn't (because you're a blithering
moron).

I'm trying to keep it down at your level so you understand.
the dukester, American-American

Oh. Then thanks.

Kevrob

2020-02-01 01:07:43 UTC

Are you a sexual pervert, drunk and jailbird 35 times.

Ted, were you ever ordained an RCC priest? Earl seems
to think you might have been.

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

LinuxGal

2020-02-01 01:21:43 UTC

Are you a sexual pervert, drunk and jailbird 35 times.

Ted, were you ever ordained an RCC priest? Earl seems
to think you might have been.

Earl also thinks F = Gm 1m 2 r 2 is a thing.

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

d***@cox.net

2020-02-02 21:32:06 UTC

Are you a sexual pervert, drunk and jailbird 35 times.

Ted, were you ever ordained an RCC priest? Earl seems
to think you might have been.

Earl also thinks F = Gm 1m 2 r 2 is a thing.

Nope, a force.
the dukester, American-American

Michael Christ

2020-02-01 01:57:23 UTC

Are you a sexual pervert, drunk and jailbird 35 times.

Ted, were you ever ordained an RCC priest? Earl seems
to think you might have been.
--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

Have you disciplined Ted yet for his misogynistic comment that all
hetero woman are cocksuckers, Gerty?

Or have you given away the fake, pretence, misogynistic line now??

Also, Ted is a very poor atheist clinician! That is pretty bad, as none
are any good! :-).

Michael Christ

--
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us.

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."

d***@cox.net

2020-02-03 21:42:48 UTC

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 11:47:10 +1100, Michael Christ

...are banking heavily on purgatory!

Well, we don't really have a choice except before we die. The

damned (died in

mortal sin) never go there. The purging is a final cleansing of

those headed

for heaven. The damned are headed straight to the fires of hell.
the dukester, American-American

What does a Catholic have to do if he commits a mortal sin? Isn't
there a way he can be forgiven?

Yes, the Confessional. Veniel sins (against man) can be forgiven

in the

Confeitor as recited at daily Mass.
the dukester, American-American

Thanks Duke.

the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-02-03 21:43:36 UTC

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 11:47:10 +1100, Michael Christ

...are banking heavily on purgatory!

Well, we don't really have a choice except before we die. The

damned (died in

mortal sin) never go there. The purging is a final cleansing of

those headed

for heaven. The damned are headed straight to the fires of hell.
the dukester, American-American

What does a Catholic have to do if he commits a mortal sin? Isn't
there a way he can be forgiven?

Exactly. Be forgiven in the Sacrament of Confession. A shame that

all atheists

and all prots reject the gift of salvation for those in sin.
And here's the kicker. Purgatory is not an issue as stated above.

If one is

forgiven for his moral sin in confession, he still hurt others. So

purgatory is

the final cleansing of the pain to others.
Exodus 34:6-7 New International Version (NIV)
6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, The Lord, the

Lord, the

compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and
faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving

wickedness,

rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he

punishes the

children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third

and fourth

generation.
I wonder what the last verse means.
the dukester, American-American

It means God's a prick.

Now there's one needing the confessional for salvation..
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-02-03 21:44:28 UTC

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 16:17:44 -0500, Patrick B

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:28:34 -0500, Ted

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 16:25:40 -0600,

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 11:47:10 +1100, Michael Christ

...are banking heavily on purgatory!

Well, we don't really have a choice except before we

die.

The

damned (died in

mortal sin) never go there. The purging is a final

cleansing

those headed

for heaven. The damned are headed straight to the

fires

hell.

the dukester, American-American

What does a Catholic have to do if he commits a mortal

sin?

Isn't

there a way he can be forgiven?

Exactly. Be forgiven in the Sacrament of Confession.

shame

that

all atheists

and all prots reject the gift of salvation for those in

sin.

And here's the kicker. Purgatory is not an issue as

stated

above.

If one is

forgiven for his moral sin in confession, he still hurt

others.

purgatory is

the final cleansing of the pain to others.
Exodus 34:6-7 New International Version (NIV)
6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, The

Lord,

the

Lord, the

compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger,

abounding

love

and

faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and

forgiving

wickedness,

rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty

unpunished;

punishes the

children and their children for the sin of the parents

the

third

and fourth

generation.
I wonder what the last verse means.
the dukester, American-American

It means God's a prick.

Now there's a mortal sin of blasphemy
the dukester, American-American

That don't mean fucking shit,, man.

1. Go to confession for your blasphemy against God and ask

for

forgiveness.

2. Burn in hell.
the dukester, American-American

Uh oh. But how can I go to confession if I ain't Catholic?

That is going to be tough for you.....

True. And I've often considered converting to Catholicism.

Don't wait. You could die tonight.
the dukester, American-American

I'm waiting for a sign.

You lose if you die first.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-02-03 21:46:08 UTC

Convert. It may be your only way to the heavenly kingdom.

Pope Francis says atheists can go to heaven now.
While meeting kids and responding to their questions, a boy went to him in
tears, telling the Pope the story of his recently deceased father and
asking whether or not he is now in heaven. The boy made sure to inform the
Pope that his father, though wanting his children to be baptized, was
himself an atheist.
So what to say to this boy mourning his father and asking for information
God has the heart of a father, your father was a good man, he is in
heaven with Him, be sure..."

Believe it or not, athesits "can" be good people. That's the key.

http://vaticanfiles.org/fr/2018/05/149-atheists-go-heaven-pope-francis-says-yes/

the dukester, American-American

LinuxGal

2020-02-04 02:22:47 UTC

Post by d***@cox.net
Believe it or not, athesits "can" be good people. That's the key.

I believe it not.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous,
no, not one.

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

Michael Christ

2020-02-04 04:37:09 UTC

Believe it or not, athesits "can" be good people. That's the key.

I believe it not.
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.

Please do not quote a bible to a Catholic!!

It's too conflicting.

Michael Christ

--
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us.

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."

Ted

2020-02-04 06:06:24 UTC

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:37:09 +1100, Michael Christ

Post by Michael Christ

Believe it or not, athesits "can" be good people. That's the key.

I believe it not.
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.

Please do not quote a bible to a Catholic!!
It's too conflicting.
Michael Christ

LOL.

d***@cox.net

2020-02-06 22:52:27 UTC

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:37:09 +1100, Michael Christ

Post by Michael Christ

Believe it or not, athesits "can" be good people. That's the key.

I believe it not.
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.

Please do not quote a bible to a Catholic!!

Why not? We know it better than you. And you've proven that.

Post by Michael Christ
It's too conflicting.

Remember, you're the one that runs and hides form Jesus as God, the Holy Mass, 7
sacraments, the Pope, the Apostles, etc.

the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-02-06 22:50:20 UTC

Post by d***@cox.net
Believe it or not, athesits "can" be good people. That's the key.

I believe it not.
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous,
no, not one.

Heb 4:15 says that Jesus alone never sinned.
the dukester, American-American

LinuxGal

2020-02-07 02:28:15 UTC

Post by LinuxGal
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous,
no, not one.

Heb 4:15 says that Jesus alone never sinned.

If the author of Hebrews didn't check with Paul before he
wrote his shit, that's not a problem for atheists.

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

Kevrob

2020-02-07 05:37:23 UTC

Post by LinuxGal
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous,
no, not one.

Heb 4:15 says that Jesus alone never sinned.

If the author of Hebrews didn't check with Paul before he
wrote his shit, that's not a problem for atheists.

Maybe Paulie was like Charles Barkley, who
famously didn't read his own autobiography.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1991/12/12/Barkley-wants-his-own-book-banned/6862692514000/

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

Christopher A. Lee

2020-02-07 07:51:43 UTC

Post by LinuxGal
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous,
no, not one.

Heb 4:15 says that Jesus alone never sinned.

If the author of Hebrews didn't check with Paul before he
wrote his shit, that's not a problem for atheists.

Maybe Paulie was like Charles Barkley, who
famously didn't read his own autobiography.
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1991/12/12/Barkley-wants-his-own-book-banned/6862692514000/

Or Moses who described events after his death?

LinuxGal

2020-02-07 16:13:14 UTC

Post by LinuxGal
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous,
no, not one.

Heb 4:15 says that Jesus alone never sinned.

If the author of Hebrews didn't check with Paul before he
wrote his shit, that's not a problem for atheists.

Maybe Paulie was like Charles Barkley, who
famously didn't read his own autobiography.
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1991/12/12/Barkley-wants-his-own-book-banned/6862692514000/

Galveston GOP Chairwoman Yolanda Waters says her use of the
N-word in a text about fellow party member J.T. Edwards was
simply a "typo".

https://boingboing.net/2019/12/10/galveston-gop-chairwoman-says.html

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

Cloud Hobbit

2020-02-07 18:00:49 UTC

Post by LinuxGal
Galveston GOP Chairwoman Yolanda Waters says her use of the

N-word in a text about fellow party member J.T. Edwards was
simply a "typo".

A typo is when you misspell a word. Typing the 'n' word is a typo how exactly? What was she trying to spell?

Politicians will say anything. Sometimes they actually mean something.
Mostly not.

LinuxGal

2020-02-07 18:25:48 UTC

Post by LinuxGal
Galveston GOP Chairwoman Yolanda Waters says her use of the

N-word in a text about fellow party member J.T. Edwards was
simply a "typo".
A typo is when you misspell a word. Typing the 'n' word is a typo how exactly? What was she trying to spell?

Bigger? Nigerian? Niggardly?

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

Kevrob

2020-02-08 21:17:58 UTC

Post by LinuxGal
Galveston GOP Chairwoman Yolanda Waters says her use of the

N-word in a text about fellow party member J.T. Edwards was
simply a "typo".
A typo is when you misspell a word. Typing the 'n' word is a typo how exactly? What was she trying to spell?
Politicians will say anything. Sometimes they actually mean something.
Mostly not.

Thought she was typing about an Uber driver or a
frog hunter: a "gigger!" :)

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

d***@cox.net

2020-02-07 21:48:41 UTC

Post by LinuxGal
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous,
no, not one.

Heb 4:15 says that Jesus alone never sinned.

If the author of Hebrews didn't check with Paul before he
wrote his shit, that's not a problem for atheists.

Maybe Paulie was like Charles Barkley, who
famously didn't read his own autobiography.
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1991/12/12/Barkley-wants-his-own-book-banned/6862692514000/

Galveston GOP Chairwoman Yolanda Waters says her use of the
N-word in a text about fellow party member J.T. Edwards was
simply a "typo".
https://boingboing.net/2019/12/10/galveston-gop-chairwoman-says.html

The bros and siss call themselves that all the time.
the dukester, American-American

Robert

2020-02-07 07:08:59 UTC

Post by LinuxGal
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous,
no, not one.

Heb 4:15 says that Jesus alone never sinned.

If the author of Hebrews didn't check with Paul before he
wrote his shit, that's not a problem for atheists.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with
the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as
we are, yet without sin.

That is what it really said, not what Earl Weber said.

--
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
(Heb 11:6 KJV)

d***@cox.net

2020-02-07 19:10:05 UTC

Post by LinuxGal
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous,
no, not one.

Heb 4:15 says that Jesus alone never sinned.

If the author of Hebrews didn't check with Paul before he
wrote his shit, that's not a problem for atheists.

Heb 4:15 is the final answer.
the dukester, American-American

LinuxGal

2020-02-07 19:44:19 UTC

Post by LinuxGal
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous,
no, not one.

Heb 4:15 says that Jesus alone never sinned.

If the author of Hebrews didn't check with Paul before he
wrote his shit, that's not a problem for atheists.

Heb 4:15 is the final answer.

That's awesome. We just find the last statement with
respect to a particular doctine in the Bible, by order of
appearance, and we have the "final answer". The Bible could
be a hell of a lot shorter, in that case.

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

d***@cox.net

2020-02-07 21:51:06 UTC

Post by LinuxGal
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous,
no, not one.

Heb 4:15 says that Jesus alone never sinned.

If the author of Hebrews didn't check with Paul before he
wrote his shit, that's not a problem for atheists.

Author unknown.

Post by d***@cox.net
Heb 4:15 is the final answer.

LIfe is ............ life. You and I and all peoples are sinners. So I go to
confession. Do you?
the dukester, American-American

LinuxGal

2020-02-07 22:05:32 UTC

Post by LinuxGal
If the author of Hebrews didn't check with Paul before he
wrote his shit, that's not a problem for atheists.

Author unknown.

Irrelevant.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

d***@cox.net

2020-02-08 14:06:37 UTC

Post by LinuxGal
If the author of Hebrews didn't check with Paul before he
wrote his shit, that's not a problem for atheists.

Author unknown.

Irrelevant.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,

Same sex marriage - that's a sin that will nail you..
the dukester, American-American

LinuxGal

2020-02-08 14:30:02 UTC

Post by d***@cox.net
Same sex marriage - that's a sin that will nail you..

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the
law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

I don't see a section in the law forbidding two women from
getting married.

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

LinuxGal

2020-02-08 15:38:15 UTC

Post by d***@cox.net
Same sex marriage - that's a sin that will nail you..

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the
law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
I don't see a section in the law forbidding two women from
getting married.

Romans Chapter One speaks against it, although it does not use the
word "marriage".

Romans talks about going against the "natural use of the woman".
Well, guess what, women are human beings par excellence, we don't
exist for someone else to "use".

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the natural use
into that which is against nature.

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

Robert

2020-02-09 00:58:06 UTC

Post by d***@cox.net
Same sex marriage - that's a sin that will nail you..

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the
law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
I don't see a section in the law forbidding two women from
getting married.

Romans Chapter One speaks against it, although it does not use the
word "marriage".

Romans talks about going against the "natural use of the woman".
Well, guess what, women are human beings par excellence, we don't
exist for someone else to "use".

I hope you really know that, because not only do some men "use" women,
but so do a lot of Women. Fact is that there is a higher incidence of
abuse there then in society as a whole. Also women can be very crafty
and it is always amazing to me that some women are "used" by others.
And yes, I have been around all types from the Butch to the Lipstick
Lez.

Post by LinuxGal
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the natural use
into that which is against nature.

Yes, and there is more about the promiscuous of all peoples there as
well. In other places it also speaks of women and animals.

But I really don't want to discuss all of that here because of the
bozo's. I just figured that you have enough knowledge of the word so
that you would know fame better than most here and so I'm trusting the
Lord to rescue you.

--
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
(Heb 11:6 KJV)

d***@cox.net

2020-02-09 15:56:15 UTC

Post by Robert

Post by d***@cox.net
Same sex marriage - that's a sin that will nail you..

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the
law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
I don't see a section in the law forbidding two women from
getting married.

Romans Chapter One speaks against it, although it does not use the
word "marriage".

Romans talks about going against the "natural use of the woman".
Well, guess what, women are human beings par excellence, we don't
exist for someone else to "use".

Post by LinuxGal
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the natural use
into that which is against nature.

Yes, and there is more about the promiscuous of all peoples there as
well. In other places it also speaks of women and animals.
But I really don't want to discuss all of that here because of the
bozo's. I just figured that you have enough knowledge of the word so
that you would know fame better than most here and so I'm trusting the
Lord to rescue you.

When he rescues lg, I hope he rescues you from your Catholic hatred also. BTW,
seeing as you are not Christian, what are you?
the dukester, American-American

LinuxGal

2020-02-09 16:20:43 UTC

Post by Robert
But I really don't want to discuss all of that here because of the
bozo's. I just figured that you have enough knowledge of the word so
that you would know fame better than most here and so I'm trusting the
Lord to rescue you.

When he rescues lg, I hope he rescues you from your Catholic hatred also. BTW,
seeing as you are not Christian, what are you?

Taoist, atheist, leftist, American, veteran.

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

d***@cox.net

2020-02-09 22:45:13 UTC

When he rescues lg, I hope he rescues you from your Catholic hatred also. BTW,
seeing as you are not Christian, what are you?

Taoist, atheist, leftist, American, veteran.

You forgot dyke.
the dukester, American-American

LinuxGal

2020-02-10 01:24:39 UTC

When he rescues lg, I hope he rescues you from your Catholic hatred also. BTW,
seeing as you are not Christian, what are you?

Taoist, atheist, leftist, American, veteran.

You forgot dyke.

That's because I collect purses instead of DeWalt power
tools.

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

d***@cox.net

2020-02-11 22:21:50 UTC

When he rescues lg, I hope he rescues you from your Catholic hatred also. BTW,
seeing as you are not Christian, what are you?

Taoist, atheist, leftist, American, veteran.

You forgot dyke.

That's because I collect purses instead of DeWalt power
tools.

I hope you noticed I apologized for the "slut" usage. It was wrong thing to do
but was in connection with many partners.
the dukester, American-American

d***@cox.net

2020-02-09 15:53:03 UTC

Post by d***@cox.net
Same sex marriage - that's a sin that will nail you..

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the
law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
I don't see a section in the law forbidding two women from
getting married.

Romans Chapter One speaks against it, although it does not use the
word "marriage".

Romans talks about going against the "natural use of the woman".
Well, guess what, women are human beings par excellence, we don't
exist for someone else to "use".

So 2 women "use" each other sexually and can never cleave to each other to
become one flesh.

The Bible tells us we are to leave our father and mother and cleave to each
other after we marry. It tells us, Therefore a man shall leave his father and
mother and be joined (cleave) to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
(Genesis 2:24).

Post by LinuxGal
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the natural use
into that which is against nature.

the dukester, American-American

LinuxGal

2020-02-09 18:38:43 UTC

Post by d***@cox.net
The Bible tells us we are to leave our father and mother and cleave to each
other after we marry. It tells us, ? Therefore a man shall leave his father and
mother and be joined (cleave) to his wife, and they shall become one flesh ?
(Genesis 2:24).

The Bible also tells us there are windows in the solid dome
overhead that open to let it rain, that a wind evaporated
1.1 billion cubic miles of water, that snakes and donkeys
talk, that the sun stood still in the sky until God's chosen
ones won a battle, that a man lost his super strength when a
woman cut his hair, that the most wise man in human history
signed up for seven hundred mothers-in-law, and dead people
resurrect and float into the sky.

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

d***@cox.net

2020-02-09 22:46:26 UTC

But God didn't.
the dukester, American-American

Robert

2020-02-11 19:10:54 UTC

Don't forget that the live ones will also be transformed and float
into the sky. :) (faith believers)

--
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
(Heb 11:6 KJV)

Mitchell Holman

2020-02-09 18:50:40 UTC

Post by d***@cox.net
Same sex marriage - that's a sin that will nail you..

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the
law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
I don't see a section in the law forbidding two women from
getting married.

Romans Chapter One speaks against it, although it does not use the
word "marriage".

Romans talks about going against the "natural use of the woman".
Well, guess what, women are human beings par excellence, we don't
exist for someone else to "use".

So 2 women "use" each other sexually and can never cleave to each
other to become one flesh.
The Bible tells us we are to leave our father and mother and cleave to
each other after we marry. It tells us, Therefore a man shall leave
his father and mother and be joined (cleave) to his wife, and they
shall become one flesh (Genesis 2:24).

You mean "cleave" to ALL his wives, no?

In Genesis 4:19 Lamech took two wives for himself.
The name of the first was Adah, and the name of
the second was Zillah.

In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of
women without any limits to how many he can marry.

In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David
had six wives and numerous concubines.

In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300
concubines.

In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had
18 wives and 60 concubines.

In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he
loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."

In Deuteronomy 25:5 if a woman's husband dies, and she
didn't have any kids from him, then she must marry his
brother regardless whether he had a wife or not. '''

d***@cox.net

2020-02-09 22:54:14 UTC

Post by d***@cox.net
Same sex marriage - that's a sin that will nail you..

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the
law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
I don't see a section in the law forbidding two women from
getting married.

Romans Chapter One speaks against it, although it does not use the
word "marriage".

Romans talks about going against the "natural use of the woman".
Well, guess what, women are human beings par excellence, we don't
exist for someone else to "use".

So 2 women "use" each other sexually and can never cleave to each
other to become one flesh.
The Bible tells us we are to leave our father and mother and cleave to
each other after we marry. It tells us, Therefore a man shall leave
his father and mother and be joined (cleave) to his wife, and they
shall become one flesh (Genesis 2:24).

You mean "cleave" to ALL his wives, no?
In Genesis 4:19 Lamech took two wives for himself.
The name of the first was Adah, and the name of
the second was Zillah.

Scripture is a book of teachings, not mandates. Genesis 4 was written by pagan
sources long, long after the time of the activities was thought to occur.

From my Catholic Study bible, intro to Genesis
The time period of Genesis 1-11 takes us back to the very beginning of all
things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Genesis 1-11 are not a
scientific accounting of the beginning of the universe or of life. They are
Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe and of
mankind. These chapters use simple language which has been adapted to the
mentality of a particular people in a particular culture. The chapters state
athe principle truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and give a
popular description of how the human race and the chosen people began.

Post by Mitchell Holman
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of
women without any limits to how many he can marry.

There would have been no need or a new covenant if there had been nothing wrong
with the first covenant.

Post by Mitchell Holman
In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David
had six wives and numerous concubines.
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300
concubines.
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had
18 wives and 60 concubines.
In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he
loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."
In Deuteronomy 25:5 if a woman's husband dies, and she
didn't have any kids from him, then she must marry his
brother regardless whether he had a wife or not. '''

the dukester, American-American

Mitchell Holman

2020-02-10 02:56:42 UTC

On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 12:50:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman

Post by d***@cox.net
Same sex marriage - that's a sin that will nail you..

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the
law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
I don't see a section in the law forbidding two women from
getting married.

Romans Chapter One speaks against it, although it does not use the
word "marriage".

Romans talks about going against the "natural use of the woman".
Well, guess what, women are human beings par excellence, we don't
exist for someone else to "use".

So 2 women "use" each other sexually and can never cleave to each
other to become one flesh.
The Bible tells us we are to leave our father and mother and cleave
to each other after we marry. It tells us, Therefore a man shall
leave his father and mother and be joined (cleave) to his wife, and
they shall become one flesh (Genesis 2:24).

You mean "cleave" to ALL his wives, no?
In Genesis 4:19 Lamech took two wives for himself.
The name of the first was Adah, and the name of
the second was Zillah.

Scripture is a book of teachings, not mandates. Genesis 4 was
written by pagan sources long, long after the time of the activities
was thought to occur.
From my Catholic Study bible, intro to Genesis
The time period of Genesis 1-11 takes us back to the very beginning of
all things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Genesis 1-11
are not a scientific accounting of the beginning of the universe or of
life. They are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the
origins of the universe and of mankind. These chapters use simple
language which has been adapted to the mentality of a particular
people in a particular culture. The chapters state athe principle
truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and give a popular
description of how the human race and the chosen people began.

Post by Mitchell Holman
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of
women without any limits to how many he can marry.

There would have been no need or a new covenant if there had been
nothing wrong with the first covenant.

There WAS no "new covenant".

Polygamy was so common in the early
Christian community that leadership was
restricted to those Christians who DIDN'T
have multiple wives.

1 Timothy 3
This is a true saying, if a man desire the
office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband
of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour,
given to hospitality, apt to teach.

Robert

2020-02-11 19:16:01 UTC