Duke sez animals have souls!

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Feb 27, 3:04 am, in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
alt.recovery.catholicism, alt.abortion, alt.atheism, soc.women, duke
<duckgumb...@cox.net> screamed:
...

> Your dog does not have a human soul, but it does have what one could
> call a dog soul. The presence of the human soul is that which brings all
> mankind to the point of equality - to prefer good over bad, right over wrong,
> love over hate. No other animal possesses these traits because their souls
> don't provide such characteristics as the human soul does.

So do doggies go to heaven or hell?

> You simply can't fix stupid.

Nobody epitomizes that more completely than you, Dukie.

[Ken]

Dog have pads but not soles...

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

A dog's pad is usually referred to as a kennel.

But then, a dog can have a dog-collar and not be a catholic priest.
Funny, though, I once saw a dog trying to hump a young boy's leg.

Interesting, Koko the gorilla scores about 80-85 on an IQ test, wonder
if Koko has a human-like soul. Some cetaceans actually have a higher
brain-to-body-weight ratio than humans. Do they have a soul?

[Father Haskell]

Organophosphate bug sprays were invented as a way to sell
left over WWII surplus nerve agents originally meant to snuff
people. Apparently insect and human neurons work the same
way. This raises the possibility that they, too, are sentient
beings. And if a "soul" is the only explanation for human
sentience...

[Yap]

Never believe in any of the religious bullshits...
Past dead Christians of billions never had souls to come back to
interact with their descendants.
If there are souls, and devoid of feeling or senses, how do they be
commanded by their pixie in the sky?????????

[duke]

No, you do, for one. All you're doing is reflecting what you don't understand
about God. FYI, a dog is always a dog and never a cat. Is it a dog's soul in
action, or breed type, or are they one and the same. Leave it to another
ignorant brit to stumble with reality.


The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

You simply can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[Ken]

The Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is proof that ya just can't fix
ball-on-a-string stupid

[alen]

Animals do have souls. After death, they don't go to
heaven or hell, and don't remain unchanged. That is
an insect's soul, for example, doesn't forever remain
as that particular insect but, in the realm of disembodied
souls, it evolves towards higher forms of consciousness,
and is eventually reincarnated as a higher animal form,
like a dog or cat etc. All such souls evolve in the direction
the human form as the highest form of consciousness,
since it is the direct image of the creator.

Just in case anyone is interested :)

Alen

[Ken]

On Feb 27, 6:12 am, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote this load of
****:

> Animals do have souls. After death, they don't go to
> heaven or hell, and don't remain unchanged. That is
> an insect's soul, for example, doesn't forever remain
> as that particular insect but, in the realm of disembodied
> souls, it evolves towards higher forms of consciousness,
> and is eventually reincarnated as a higher animal form,
> like a dog or cat etc. All such souls evolve in the direction
> the human form as the highest form of consciousness,
> since it is the direct image of the creator.
>
> Just in case anyone is interested :)
>
> Alen

(We aren't and you're nutz!)

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:30:47 -0800 (PST), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

Man...

Dog souls?

Dook pulled out all the stops when he started making shit up for this
thread.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:12:07 -0800 (PST), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
wrote:

That's a pleasing thought, but it's just as speculative as any other
speculation about the existence or nature of souls.

This isn't "The Life of Pi".

[Father Haskell]

1,200,000 - 2,000,000+ total insect species. Does a
soul start out as say, a springtail, and evolve into a
dragonfly species by species, or can it jump entire orders
and kingdoms?

[casey]

The idea of a soul arises out of the feeling that
we are not physical although the feeling we have
correlate 100% with brain activity.

Talk about where the soul goes is as pointless as
talking about where does "walking" go when the
legs are not longer there doing the walking.

Some animal species have the same set of brain
modules as us and probably have feelings also.

[Father Haskell]

Only difference between reptilian and mammalian
brains is the added cortex above the limbic system.

[osugeography]

Nope, they don't change. archie the cockroach demonstrated this. See
Don Marquis for details. Or you might ask mehitabel, the cat.

Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

It can if it saves the life of a kitten!

[duke]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 04:43:37 -0800 (PST), Ken <flak...@aol.com> wrote:

> The Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is proof that ya just can't fix
>ball-on-a-string stupid

But a ball on a string knows what a soul is. You don't.

[duke]

I didn't originate this thread. But thanks for playing.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

You simply can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[duke]

What's the matter, flakey. Why can't you counter his words?

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

You simply can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[duke]

Pi doesn't have a life. Do you believe?

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

You simply can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[duke]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:37:54 -0800 (PST), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>On Feb 27, 12:30 pm, Ken <flakey...@att.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 5:30 pm, alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 27, 3:04 am, in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
>> > alt.recovery.catholicism, alt.abortion, alt.atheism, soc.women, duke
>> > <duckgumb...@cox.net> screamed:
>> > ...
>>
>> > > Your dog does not have a human soul, but it does have what one could
>> > > call a dog soul.   The presence of the human soul is that which brings all
>> > > mankind to the point of equality - to prefer good over bad, right over wrong,
>> > > love over hate.  No other animal possesses these traits because their souls
>> > > don't provide such characteristics as the human soul does.
>>
>> > So do doggies go to heaven or hell?
>>
>> > > You simply can't fix stupid.
>>
>> > Nobody epitomizes that more completely than you, Dukie.
>>
>> Dog have pads but not soles...
>
>A dog's pad is usually referred to as a kennel.
>
>But then, a dog can have a dog-collar and not be a catholic priest.
>Funny, though, I once saw a dog trying to hump a young boy's leg.

And a priest's collar is white.

>Interesting, Koko the gorilla scores about 80-85 on an IQ test, wonder
>if Koko has a human-like soul. Some cetaceans actually have a higher
>brain-to-body-weight ratio than humans. Do they have a soul?

They're your people. Ask them.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

You simply can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[•RLMeasures]

In article <el5ti85egt4hu918g...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 04:43:37 -0800 (PST), Ken <flak...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is proof that ya just can't fix
> >ball-on-a-string stupid
>
> But a ball on a string knows what a soul is. You don't.
>
> The dukester, American - American
>

• bananas

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Feb 28, 9:32 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:37:54 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Feb 27, 12:30 pm, Ken <flakey...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On Feb 26, 5:30 pm, alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 27, 3:04 am, in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
> >> > alt.recovery.catholicism, alt.abortion, alt.atheism, soc.women, duke
> >> > <duckgumb...@cox.net> screamed:
> >> > ...
>
> >> > > Your dog does not have a human soul, but it does have what one could
> >> > > call a dog soul.   The presence of the human soul is that which brings all
> >> > > mankind to the point of equality - to prefer good over bad, right over wrong,
> >> > > love over hate.  No other animal possesses these traits because their souls
> >> > > don't provide such characteristics as the human soul does.
>
> >> > So do doggies go to heaven or hell?
>
> >> > > You simply can't fix stupid.
>
> >> > Nobody epitomizes that more completely than you, Dukie.
>
> >> Dog have pads but not soles...
>
> >A dog's pad is usually referred to as a kennel.
>
> >But then, a dog can have a dog-collar and not be a catholic priest.
> >Funny, though, I once saw a dog trying to hump a young boy's leg.
>
> And a priest's collar is white.
>
> >Interesting, Koko the gorilla scores about 80-85 on an IQ test, wonder
> >if Koko has a human-like soul. Some cetaceans actually have a higher
> >brain-to-body-weight ratio than humans. Do they have a soul?
>
> They're your people.  Ask them.

That's one important characteristic right there that sets you
religious people apart from us free-thinkers - no sense of wonder, no
curiosity, the inability to think critically, to entertain the
possibility that accepted mainstream ideas may or may not be as fully
correct as we have always believed them to be.

You want your ideas spoon-fed to you, by someone else, and once you
have assimilated these ideas, you don't want them to change, ever.

At least once every day, I reflect on how lucky and privileged I am
not to be one of you. At the same time, it saddens me to realize that
people like you are very much in the majority.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Feb 28, 9:30 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:22:25 -0800 (PST), Ken <flakey...@att.net> wrote:
> >On Feb 27, 6:12 am, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote this load of
> >****:
>
> >> Animals do have souls. After death, they don't go to
> >> heaven or hell, and don't remain unchanged. That is
> >> an insect's soul, for example, doesn't forever remain
> >> as that particular insect but, in the realm of disembodied
> >> souls, it evolves towards higher forms of consciousness,
> >> and is eventually reincarnated as a higher animal form,
> >> like a dog or cat etc. All such souls evolve in the direction
> >> the human form as the highest form of consciousness,
> >> since it is the direct image of the creator.
>
> >> Just in case anyone is interested :)
>
> >> Alen
>
> >(We aren't and you're nutz!)
>
> What's the matter, flakey.  Why can't you counter his words?

But if Alen is correct, there may well be a time when your "duke soul"
leaves your toxin-filled corrupt obese body, and then takes up
residence inside a reasonable, intelligent, free-thinking, physically
attractive human being.

Wow.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

Anyone who has ever had a pet dog or cat knows that these creatures
are as self-aware as we are, yet some of our cleverest scientists
still view these animals as purely instinct-driven meat machines.

[nature bats_last]

On Feb 27, 10:51 am, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:

While everyone is more than aware how Duke generally
short-circuits all that dreary "research" and
"reference" and "evidence" stuff in favor of the much
less time-consuming alternative: the-making-up-of-the-shit,
in all fairness, this time Duke did not make up
this shit.

Someone else (guess who?) made up this shit for him.


http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/do-animals-have-souls-like-human-beings


See how batshit crazy scholastic reasoning from prior
authority can get you? There's as much evidence for
this as there is for ice-squids under the frozen ocean
on Europa.

`course, that goes for human "souls" as well.


NBL

[Yap]

So, you are either a dog or a cat in your previous life?

You miaw in your sleep?

[Yap]

On Feb 28, 7:29 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 04:43:37 -0800 (PST), Ken <flakey...@aol.com> wrote:
> > The Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is proof that ya just can't fix
> >ball-on-a-string stupid
>
> But a ball on a string knows what a soul is.  You don't.

So, are you a brainless ball or string?

[Smiler]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:30:47 -0800, alanp-s wrote:

> On Feb 27, 3:04 am, in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
> alt.recovery.catholicism, alt.abortion, alt.atheism, soc.women, duke
> <duckgumb...@cox.net> screamed:
> ...
>
>> Your dog does not have a human soul, but it does have what one could
>> call a dog soul. The presence of the human soul is that which brings
>> all mankind to the point of equality - to prefer good over bad, right
>> over wrong, love over hate. No other animal possesses these traits
>> because their souls don't provide such characteristics as the human soul
>> does.
>
> So do doggies go to heaven or hell?
>

>> You simply can't fix stupid.
>

> Nobody epitomizes that more completely than you, Dukie.

Dogs have souls?...he's barking.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Feb 28, 9:32 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:37:54 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Feb 27, 12:30 pm, Ken <flakey...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On Feb 26, 5:30 pm, alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 27, 3:04 am, in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
> >> > alt.recovery.catholicism, alt.abortion, alt.atheism, soc.women, duke
> >> > <duckgumb...@cox.net> screamed:
> >> > ...
>
> >> > > Your dog does not have a human soul, but it does have what one could
> >> > > call a dog soul.   The presence of the human soul is that which brings all
> >> > > mankind to the point of equality - to prefer good over bad, right over wrong,
> >> > > love over hate.  No other animal possesses these traits because their souls
> >> > > don't provide such characteristics as the human soul does.
>
> >> > So do doggies go to heaven or hell?
>
> >> > > You simply can't fix stupid.
>
> >> > Nobody epitomizes that more completely than you, Dukie.
>
> >> Dog have pads but not soles...
>
> >A dog's pad is usually referred to as a kennel.
>
> >But then, a dog can have a dog-collar and not be a catholic priest.
> >Funny, though, I once saw a dog trying to hump a young boy's leg.
>
> And a priest's collar is white.

To contrast the blackness of his "soul", maybe.

> >Interesting, Koko the gorilla scores about 80-85 on an IQ test, wonder
> >if Koko has a human-like soul. Some cetaceans actually have a higher
> >brain-to-body-weight ratio than humans. Do they have a soul?
>
> They're your people.  Ask them.

Huh? "My People"?

Duke, go look up the word "cetacean". No need to be ignorant all your
life, ya know.

> You simply can't fix stupid.

No, you can't. But you can, theoretically, fix ignorance. That's why
it's important that you start now.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

I know. It was a work of fiction.

A very pleasing work of fiction, but fiction just the same.

And, I find it's essential message, believe in God because it's more
pleasing to believe in God than to not believe in God, unpersuasive.

>Do you believe?

I can't think of anything I "believe" in.

I accept the balance of evidence in matters where evidence exists and
say "no one knows" in matters where it doesn't.

You, on the other hand...

You and your fellow theists believe all sorts of crazy nonsense. When
there's no evidence you make shit up.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:29:57 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:51:14 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:30:47 -0800 (PST), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 27, 3:04 am, in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
>>>alt.recovery.catholicism, alt.abortion, alt.atheism, soc.women, duke
>>><duckgumb...@cox.net> screamed:
>>>...
>>>
>>>> Your dog does not have a human soul, but it does have what one could
>>>> call a dog soul. The presence of the human soul is that which brings all
>>>> mankind to the point of equality - to prefer good over bad, right over wrong,
>>>> love over hate. No other animal possesses these traits because their souls
>>>> don't provide such characteristics as the human soul does.
>>>
>>>So do doggies go to heaven or hell?
>>>
>>>> You simply can't fix stupid.
>>>
>>>Nobody epitomizes that more completely than you, Dukie.
>>
>>Man...
>>
>>Dog souls?
>>
>>Dook pulled out all the stops when he started making shit up for this
>>thread.
>
>I didn't originate this thread.

I didn't claim you did.

I just noted that you pulled out all the stops when you started making

shit up for this thread.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

Well...

Making shit up is universal among theists, so it's not surprising that
someone else beat him to the punch on this one.

I mean, we've evidence that theists have been making shit up for
almost 50,000 years. There aren't many unique ideas left.

[duke]

Then why am I enjoying my life in faith so much? As a free thinker, I fully
recognize the wonderfulness of my decision. I must feel sorry for you, thought.
Satan loves you as fresh meat coming his way.

>You want your ideas spoon-fed to you, by someone else, and once you
>have assimilated these ideas, you don't want them to change, ever.

>At least once every day, I reflect on how lucky and privileged I am
>not to be one of you.

And I'm twice as elated not to be one of you.

> At the same time, it saddens me to realize that
>people like you are very much in the majority.

Of course we are. Right is right.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

You simply can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[duke]

Yes, thanks be to God. But God promises us a glorified body. Accept free
thought against God is a soul destroyer. I want my glorified body. You can
have your blackened free thinker that satan rides.

>Wow.

Yes, WOW.

[duke]

then why do you believe in it?

>A very pleasing work of fiction, but fiction just the same.
>And, I find it's essential message, believe in God because it's more
>pleasing to believe in God than to not believe in God, unpersuasive.

That just makes you a agnostic, and definitely not an atheist wannabe.

>>Do you believe?
>I can't think of anything I "believe" in.

You can't see the flow of electrical current. You can't see the oxygen in the
air. You believe in these because of the impact these invisible things have on
you and your surroundings. And I believe in God because of the impact of the
unseen God has on me and my surroundings..

>I accept the balance of evidence in matters where evidence exists and
>say "no one knows" in matters where it doesn't.

If that's the same as what I said, now you know why I believe in God.

[duke]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:09:44 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>>Dog souls?
>>>Dook pulled out all the stops when he started making shit up for this
>>>thread.
>>I didn't originate this thread.
>I didn't claim you did.

>I just noted that you pulled out all the stops when you started making
>shit up for this thread.

Shit to you, truth to me. You can't even come to grips with a soul, much less
your black heart.

[duke]

Did your cat ever tell you it's in love?

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

You simply can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

I don't.

Neither have I written anything to indicate that I do, Dook.

You're making shit up again.

>
>>A very pleasing work of fiction, but fiction just the same.
>>And, I find it's essential message, believe in God because it's more
>>pleasing to believe in God than to not believe in God, unpersuasive.
>
>That just makes you a agnostic, and definitely not an atheist wannabe.

Wrong again, Dook.

Atheism means one who does not believe in a god or gods.

I don't believe in any gods.

I am an atheist.

>
>>>Do you believe?
>>I can't think of anything I "believe" in.
>
>You can't see the flow of electrical current.

Of course I can.

I saw the flow of electrical current just a week or so ago, when I
witnessed a flash of lightning during a recent storm.

Seeing a lightning flash is also called "seeing the flow of electrical
current".

See what Catholicism has done to your mind, Dook?

It's made you batshit crazy and dogshit stupid.

>You can't see the oxygen in the
>air.

Of course I can.

I can see it when ever it's hot enough to start glowing.

Light a match for an example.

>You believe in these because of the impact these invisible things have on
>you and your surroundings.

No, Dook.

I believe in these things because I can -see- them.

And, the impact these things have on me and my surroundings can be
-measured- with a very high degree of precision.

That's called -e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e-, Dook.

> And I believe in God because of the impact of the
>unseen God has on me and my surroundings..

Yea...

You believe that something you can't see and can't measure is having
an impact on you and your surroundings...

We've another name for that, Dook.

Insanity.

>>I accept the balance of evidence in matters where evidence exists and
>>say "no one knows" in matters where it doesn't.
>
>If that's the same as what I said, now you know why I believe in God.

It's not the same at all, Dook.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:30:46 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:09:44 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>Dog souls?
>>>>Dook pulled out all the stops when he started making shit up for this
>>>>thread.
>>>I didn't originate this thread.
>>I didn't claim you did.
>
>>I just noted that you pulled out all the stops when you started making
>>shit up for this thread.
>
>Shit to you, truth to me.

Truth has a objective measure.

Your claims about dogs and souls do not.

That's what makes your claims -shit- to -everyone-, whether they agree
that it's shit or not.

See what Catholicism has done to your mind, Dook?

It's made you delusional.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Feb 28, 10:27 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:08:05 -0500, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
...

> >I can't think of anything I "believe" in.
>
> You can't see the flow of electrical current.  You can't see the oxygen in the
> air.  You believe in these because of the impact these invisible things have on
> you and your surroundings.  And I believe in God because of the impact of the
> unseen God has on me and my surroundings..
>
> >I accept the balance of evidence in matters where evidence exists and
> >say "no one knows" in matters where it doesn't.
>
> If that's the same as what I said, now you know why I believe in God.

So why do you think you need the catholic church? Can't you believe
without having to watch and take part in religious rituals?

[Father Haskell]

On Feb 28, 7:18 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> Then why am I enjoying my life in faith so much?

That means you're probably a junkie.

[Father Haskell]

On Feb 28, 7:32 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

Did you ever see a cat fooled by a mirror more than once?

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Feb 28, 10:32 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

Unlike Koko the gorilla, my cat has not yet learned deaf-dumb sign
language.

Koko used sign language to express her grief when her pet kitten
died.

Google "Koko the gorilla", with quotes, and learn something, you
arrogant bible-bot.

[duke]

You asked about it. You must be a believer.

>>>A very pleasing work of fiction, but fiction just the same.
>>>And, I find it's essential message, believe in God because it's more
>>>pleasing to believe in God than to not believe in God, unpersuasive.
>>That just makes you a agnostic, and definitely not an atheist wannabe.
>Wrong again, Dook.

No, I'm right, as usual and always.

>Atheism means one who does not believe in a god or gods.
>I don't believe in any gods.
>I am an atheist.

No, you're not. The evidence is there for all to see. Believe and you are a
theist. Deny and you are an agnostic. Reject and you are an atheist wannabe.

>>>>Do you believe?
>>>I can't think of anything I "believe" in.
>>You can't see the flow of electrical current.

>Of course I can.

No you can't.

>I saw the flow of electrical current just a week or so ago, when I
>witnessed a flash of lightning during a recent storm.

You didn't see the flow of current. You only saw the ionization of the air
particles as the current flowed past. Try again.

Like God, you saw the results of the presence of something you can't see.

>Seeing a lightning flash is also called "seeing the flow of electrical
>current".

Bullshit.

>See what Catholicism has done to your mind, Dook?

Yeah, it turns people like you into fools.

>>You can't see the oxygen in the
>>air.
>Of course I can.

No you can't.

>I can see it when ever it's hot enough to start glowing.
>Light a match for an example.

Like God, you see the presence of something you can't see in the flame.

>>You believe in these because of the impact these invisible things have on
>>you and your surroundings.
>No, Dook.
>I believe in these things because I can -see- them.

And you can't see either electricity nor oxygen in the air.

>And, the impact these things have on me and my surroundings can be
>-measured- with a very high degree of precision.
>That's called -e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e-, Dook.

Yes, environmental evidence generated by something you can't see.

>> And I believe in God because of the impact of the
>>unseen God has on me and my surroundings..
>Yea...

There you go. YEAH. Heeheehee.

>You believe that something you can't see and can't measure is having
>an impact on you and your surroundings...

You better agree or that current gonna git yu, silent.

Heeheehee. Never a shred of evidence about his ignorance.

[duke]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:04:22 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:30:46 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:09:44 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>Dog souls?
>>>>>Dook pulled out all the stops when he started making shit up for this
>>>>>thread.
>>>>I didn't originate this thread.
>>>I didn't claim you did.
>>
>>>I just noted that you pulled out all the stops when you started making
>>>shit up for this thread.

>>Shit to you, truth to me.

>Truth has a objective measure.
>Your claims about dogs and souls do not.

You can't even begin to disagree.

Does a dog have a dog soul? Speak o'dumbass.

[duke]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:27:41 -0800 (PST), nature bats_last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

See, stick with me. I know what I'm talking about.

>
>See how batshit crazy scholastic reasoning from prior
>authority can get you? There's as much evidence for
>this as there is for ice-squids under the frozen ocean
>on Europa.

It's called the power of logic and reason, not a strong suit of you numbnuts in
these ng's.

>`course, that goes for human "souls" as well.
>NBL

Well, can nbl use logic and reason. Let us see.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

You simply can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[Andrew W]

"duke" wrote in message news:pjiui811spgk1f5b4...@4ax.com...

Because the Catholic church likes to keep its flock fat, dumb and happy.

>
As a free thinker, I fully
>recognize the wonderfulness of my decision.
>

Lol. If you really were a free thinker then you wouldn't have joined the
Catholic church.

>
I must feel sorry for you, thought.
>Satan loves you as fresh meat coming his way.
>

Lol. That's the con.
You're only happy because you think you've avoided a big torture, but sadly
you can't figure out that its just a con.

>
>>You want your ideas spoon-fed to you, by someone else, and once you
>>have assimilated these ideas, you don't want them to change, ever.
>
>>At least once every day, I reflect on how lucky and privileged I am
>>not to be one of you.
>
>And I'm twice as elated not to be one of you.
>

We're four times elated to have seen through the con upon reaching
adulthood.

>
>> At the same time, it saddens me to realize that
>>people like you are very much in the majority.
>
>Of course we are. Right is right.
>

Of course the majority is dumb, and at the same time self-assured, sadly.
Especially in the southern states of America (Bible belt).


--
Religions breed hypocrisy, ignorance and self-righteousness.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

No, but when he has sex, he sometimes cries out "Oh Rover, oh ma gahd,
Rover!".

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Feb 28, 3:51 am, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:30:47 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Feb 27, 3:04 am, in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
> >alt.recovery.catholicism, alt.abortion, alt.atheism, soc.women, duke
> ><duckgumb...@cox.net> screamed:
> >...
>
> >> Your dog does not have a human soul, but it does have what one could
> >> call a dog soul.   The presence of the human soul is that which brings all
> >> mankind to the point of equality - to prefer good over bad, right over wrong,
> >> love over hate.  No other animal possesses these traits because their souls
> >> don't provide such characteristics as the human soul does.
>
> >So do doggies go to heaven or hell?
>
> >> You simply can't fix stupid.
>
> >Nobody epitomizes that more completely than you, Dukie.
>

> Man...
>
> Dog souls?
>
> Dook pulled out all the stops when he started making shit up for this
> thread.

Dook always pulls out all stops when he is making up shit.

[nature bats_last]

On Feb 28, 3:05 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:27:41 -0800 (PST), nature bats_last <seqkl...@gmail.com>

> >    http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/do-animals-have-souls-like-hum...

>
> See, stick with me.  I know what I'm talking about.
>
>
>
;
> >See how batshit crazy scholastic reasoning from prior
> >authority can get you? There's as much evidence for
> >this as there is for ice-squids under the frozen ocean
> >on Europa.

;
> It's called the power of logic and reason, not a strong suit of you numbnuts in
> these ng's.

Excellent! Now for our benefit, kindly demonstrate for
us the logic and reasoning behind the conclusion that a
praying mantis has a soul.

Or, you may use a squid if you prefer.

(actually, since the link I so kindly provided claims
plants have "vegetable souls", you may even use
crabgrass instead, if that is your pleasure)

Put all that logic and reason of yours right here:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


NBL

[SkyEyes]

My goodness, but it got quiet. Where did duke go? I was looking
forward to his proof that animals and plants have souls. <Wilts with
disappointment>

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[duke]

You're a wiccan, aren't you.

[duke]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:26:26 +1100, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>>Satan loves you as fresh meat coming his way.
>Lol. That's the con.
>You're only happy because you think you've avoided a big torture, but sadly
>you can't figure out that its just a con.

It's your funeral. Go for it.

>>>At least once every day, I reflect on how lucky and privileged I am
>>>not to be one of you.
>>And I'm twice as elated not to be one of you.
>We're four times elated to have seen through the con upon reaching
>adulthood.

I win, you lose.

>>> At the same time, it saddens me to realize that
>>>people like you are very much in the majority.
>>Of course we are. Right is right.

>Of course the majority is dumb, and at the same time self-assured, sadly.
>Especially in the southern states of America (Bible belt).

God doesn't judge us by where we live. We're judged by turning our back on him.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

You simply can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[duke]

Spiritual leadership and guidance.

> Can't you believe without having to watch and take part in religious rituals?

Sure.

[duke]

?? No.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

You simply can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[duke]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:46:22 -0800 (PST), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>> Did your cat ever tell you it's in love?
>Unlike Koko the gorilla, my cat has not yet learned deaf-dumb sign
>language.

Hang around. Your cat will teach you one day.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

You simply can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[duke]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:19:19 -0800 (PST), nature bats_last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> >> >> Your dog does not have a human soul, but it does have what one could
>> >> >> call a dog soul.   The presence of the human soul is that which brings all
>> >> >> mankind to the point of equality - to prefer good over bad, right over wrong,
>> >> >> love over hate.  No other animal possesses these traits because their souls
>> >> >> don't provide such characteristics as the human soul does.

>> >> Dog souls?
>> >> Dook pulled out all the stops when he started making shit up for this
>> >> thread.
>> >While everyone is more than aware how Duke generally
>> >short-circuits all that dreary "research" and
>> >"reference" and "evidence" stuff in favor of the much
>> >less time-consuming alternative: the-making-up-of-the-shit,
>> >in all fairness, this time Duke did not make up
>> >this shit.

>> >Someone else (guess who?) made up this shit for him.
>> >    http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/do-animals-have-souls-like-hum...

>> See, stick with me.  I know what I'm talking about.

>> >See how batshit crazy scholastic reasoning from prior
>> >authority can get you? There's as much evidence for
>> >this as there is for ice-squids under the frozen ocean
>> >on Europa.

>> It's called the power of logic and reason, not a strong suit of you numbnuts in
>> these ng's.

>Excellent! Now for our benefit, kindly demonstrate for
>us the logic and reasoning behind the conclusion that a
>praying mantis has a soul.

See one, see all. Their driving principle.

>(actually, since the link I so kindly provided claims
>plants have "vegetable souls", you may even use
>crabgrass instead, if that is your pleasure)
>Put all that logic and reason of yours right here:

Have you ever seen crabgrass grow up to be a oak tree?

[duke]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:16:28 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:

>> (actually, since the link I so kindly provided claims
>> plants have "vegetable souls", you may even use
>> crabgrass instead, if that is your pleasure)

>> Put all that logic and reason of yours right here:
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>>
>> NBL

>My goodness, but it got quiet. Where did duke go? I was looking
>forward to his proof that animals and plants have souls. <Wilts with
>disappointment>

Good grief. You can't even wait on me to see the request.

But first, tell me if you believe in the human soul.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

You simply can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

I didn't ask about it, Dook.

I made a comment about it.

You're babbling worse than usual today.

>
>>>>A very pleasing work of fiction, but fiction just the same.
>>>>And, I find it's essential message, believe in God because it's more
>>>>pleasing to believe in God than to not believe in God, unpersuasive.
>>>That just makes you a agnostic, and definitely not an atheist wannabe.
>>Wrong again, Dook.
>
>No, I'm right, as usual and always.

Nope.

Atheism has definition.

>>Atheism means one who does not believe in a god or gods.
>>I don't believe in any gods.
>>I am an atheist.
>
>No, you're not. The evidence is there for all to see. Believe and you are a
>theist. Deny and you are an agnostic. Reject and you are an atheist wannabe.

Hahahahahhaha...

Nope.

Atheism has a definition.

>>>>>Do you believe?
>>>>I can't think of anything I "believe" in.
>>>You can't see the flow of electrical current.
>
>>Of course I can.
>
>No you can't.

Yes, I can.

>
>>I saw the flow of electrical current just a week or so ago, when I
>>witnessed a flash of lightning during a recent storm.
>
>You didn't see the flow of current. You only saw the ionization of the air
>particles as the current flowed past. Try again.

Oh, well, Dook.

If you want to break it down like that, no body can see anything
except photons.

So, you can't see anything either, not even the influence of God on
your surroundings.

All you're seeing is photons.

>Like God, you saw the results of the presence of something you can't see.

No.

You're using "can't see" as a synonym for "can't detect".

We can detect electrical energy.

We can detect it with our eyes when it ionized gases.

We can detect it with our fingers when we touch it.

>>Seeing a lightning flash is also called "seeing the flow of electrical
>>current".
>
>Bullshit.

You can't see anything either.

You're blind to everything except photons.

So what are you on about?

>>See what Catholicism has done to your mind, Dook?
>
>Yeah, it turns people like you into fools.

Catholicism hasn't done anything to me.

I'm not a Catholic.

You, on the other hand...

Nothing left but mush.

>>>You can't see the oxygen in the
>>>air.
>>Of course I can.
>
>No you can't.

You can't see any evidence of your God either, Dook.

All you see are photons.

Are you back to claiming God is a flashlight?

>>I can see it when ever it's hot enough to start glowing.
>>Light a match for an example.
>
>Like God, you see the presence of something you can't see in the flame.

You can't see anything for what it is either, Dook.

You're seeing photons and making up stories about them.

>>>You believe in these because of the impact these invisible things have on
>>>you and your surroundings.
>>No, Dook.
>>I believe in these things because I can -see- them.
>
>And you can't see either electricity nor oxygen in the air.

You can't see any of God's supposed works either, Dook.

>>And, the impact these things have on me and my surroundings can be
>>-measured- with a very high degree of precision.
>>That's called -e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e-, Dook.
>
>Yes, environmental evidence generated by something you can't see.

You can't see any evidence of God's supposed works either, Dook.

>
>>> And I believe in God because of the impact of the
>>>unseen God has on me and my surroundings..

See?

You can't see the impact God has on your surroundings.

All you can see are photons.

You'll never know for certain what caused the photons to be emitted.

They might look like they came from a lightning strike or an oxygen
atom, but in the end, that's just a guess.

This was the part of the thread where you shoot yourself in your foot
before you hoist yourself on your own petard.

>>Yea...
>
>There you go. YEAH. Heeheehee.

Sigh...

Just more bullshit a theistic Catholic liar.

So sad...

I was hoping for more.

>>You believe that something you can't see and can't measure is having
>>an impact on you and your surroundings...
>
>You better agree or that current gonna git yu, silent.

You can't know there is any current, Dook.

You can't detect God no matter what standard of detection you use.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.


>

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:02:28 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:04:22 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:30:46 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:09:44 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Dog souls?
>>>>>>Dook pulled out all the stops when he started making shit up for this
>>>>>>thread.
>>>>>I didn't originate this thread.
>>>>I didn't claim you did.
>>>
>>>>I just noted that you pulled out all the stops when you started making
>>>>shit up for this thread.
>
>>>Shit to you, truth to me.
>
>>Truth has a objective measure.
>>Your claims about dogs and souls do not.
>
>You can't even begin to disagree.

I did disagree.

>Does a dog have a dog soul? Speak o'dumbass.

You're the one who said they do, Dook.

i.e. You made shit up.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.



>

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

No, you don't, Dook.

You've proven it.

You lie and make shit up, and that's all you do.

>>
>>See how batshit crazy scholastic reasoning from prior
>>authority can get you? There's as much evidence for
>>this as there is for ice-squids under the frozen ocean
>>on Europa.
>
>It's called the power of logic and reason, not a strong suit of you numbnuts in
>these ng's.

You don't get to use logic and reason, Dook.

You believe in miracles.

Logic and reason cannot exist in a universe where there are miracles..

You're not to bright, are you, Dook?

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.


>

[duke]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:51:54 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>>>>>>This isn't "The Life of Pi".
>>>>>>Pi doesn't have a life.

>I didn't ask about it, Dook.
>I made a comment about it.

Did you get an answer?

>Atheism has definition.

Yep you reject God's existence.

>Believe and you are a theist. Deny and you are an agnostic. Reject and you are an atheist wannabe.
>Hahahahahhaha...
>Nope.

Yep.

[duke]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:54:46 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>>Truth has a objective measure.
>>>Your claims about dogs and souls do not.
>>You can't even begin to disagree.
>I did disagree.

But ignorantly.

>>Does a dog have a dog soul? Speak o'dumbass.
>You're the one who said they do, Dook.

Ok, so you don't know.

[duke]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:57:12 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>See, stick with me. I know what I'm talking about.
>No, you don't, Dook.

I'm great for your knowledge base.

[Father Haskell]

On Mar 1, 7:18 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:39:41 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
>

> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 28, 7:18 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Then why am I enjoying my life in faith so much?
> >That means you're probably a junkie.
>
> You're a wiccan, aren't you.

Wicca is as ludicrous as catholicism, only difference
is, they keep it to themselves.

[duke]

There's also no salvation offered to wiccans.

[duke]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:35:11 -0800 (PST), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>On Feb 28, 9:32 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:37:54 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> >On Feb 27, 12:30 pm, Ken <flakey...@att.net> wrote:

>> >> On Feb 26, 5:30 pm, alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 27, 3:04 am, in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
>> >> > alt.recovery.catholicism, alt.abortion, alt.atheism, soc.women, duke
>> >> > <duckgumb...@cox.net> screamed:
>> >> > ...
>>
>> >> > > Your dog does not have a human soul, but it does have what one could
>> >> > > call a dog soul.   The presence of the human soul is that which brings all
>> >> > > mankind to the point of equality - to prefer good over bad, right over wrong,
>> >> > > love over hate.  No other animal possesses these traits because their souls
>> >> > > don't provide such characteristics as the human soul does.
>>
>> >> > So do doggies go to heaven or hell?
>>

>> >> > > You simply can't fix stupid.
>>

>> >> > Nobody epitomizes that more completely than you, Dukie.
>>

>> >> Dog have pads but not soles...
>>
>> >A dog's pad is usually referred to as a kennel.
>>
>> >But then, a dog can have a dog-collar and not be a catholic priest.
>> >Funny, though, I once saw a dog trying to hump a young boy's leg.
>>
>> And a priest's collar is white.

>To contrast the blackness of his "soul", maybe.

A priest has a heart of gold. He job is to lead and guide others spiritually.

>> >Interesting, Koko the gorilla scores about 80-85 on an IQ test, wonder
>> >if Koko has a human-like soul. Some cetaceans actually have a higher
>> >brain-to-body-weight ratio than humans. Do they have a soul?
>> They're your people.  Ask them.

>Huh? "My People"?

>Duke, go look up the word "cetacean". No need to be ignorant all your
>life, ya know.

You run with the gorillas, I'll stick with human beings.

>> You simply can't fix stupid.

>No, you can't. But you can, theoretically, fix ignorance. That's why
>it's important that you start now.

But you show no improvement.

[duke]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:35:04 -0800 (PST), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 28, 7:29 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 04:43:37 -0800 (PST), Ken <flakey...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > The Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is proof that ya just can't fix
>> >ball-on-a-string stupid
>>
>> But a ball on a string knows what a soul is.  You don't.
>
>So, are you a brainless ball or string?

If I am, I don't rotate.

[Andrew W]

"duke" wrote in message news:t571j85pehnj3an3b...@4ax.com...

>On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:26:26 +1100, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>>Satan loves you as fresh meat coming his way.
>>Lol. That's the con.
>>You're only happy because you think you've avoided a big torture, but
>>sadly
>>you can't figure out that its just a con.
>
>It's your funeral. Go for it.
>

There's no funeral.

>
>>>>At least once every day, I reflect on how lucky and privileged I am
>>>>not to be one of you.
>>>And I'm twice as elated not to be one of you.
>>We're four times elated to have seen through the con upon reaching
>>adulthood.
>
>I win, you lose.
>

You can never win while you follow corrupt authorities.

>
>>>> At the same time, it saddens me to realize that
>>>>people like you are very much in the majority.
>>>Of course we are. Right is right.
>
>>Of course the majority is dumb, and at the same time self-assured, sadly.
>>Especially in the southern states of America (Bible belt).
>
>God doesn't judge us by where we live. We're judged by turning our back on
>him.
>

Only dumb people believe in your tyrannical god.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Mar 2, 3:10 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:54:46 -0500, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>Truth has a objective measure.
> >>>Your claims about dogs and souls do not.
> >>You can't even begin to disagree.
> >I did disagree.
>
> But ignorantly.
>
> >>Does a dog have a dog soul?  Speak o'dumbass.
> >You're the one who said they do, Dook.
>
> Ok, so you don't know.

You believe a dog has a soul. Did you read that in the bible, or did
your RCC tell you to believe that?

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Mar 1, 10:23 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:38:05 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Feb 28, 10:27 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:08:05 -0500, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >I can't think of anything I "believe" in.
>
> >> You can't see the flow of electrical current.  You can't see the oxygen in the
> >> air.  You believe in these because of the impact these invisible things have on
> >> you and your surroundings.  And I believe in God because of the impact of the
> >> unseen God has on me and my surroundings..
>
> >> >I accept the balance of evidence in matters where evidence exists and
> >> >say "no one knows" in matters where it doesn't.
>
> >> If that's the same as what I said, now you know why I believe in God.
> >So why do you think you need the catholic church?
>
> Spiritual leadership and guidance.

Is that all?

> > Can't you believe without having to watch and take part in religious rituals?
>
> Sure.

Don"t you sometimes think that all those silly old men in those
strange garments, that metal thing they swing around with the smoke
coming out of it, watch your head, them fools on the prayer mats, them
fools at the wailing wall rocking backwards and forwards... umm..
isn't all that stuff a bit out of place in a technological age like
this one? Will all those silly old men still be doing this stuff
when the rest of humanity is flitting around the galaxy in faster-than-
light space cruisers?

[Andrew W]

"duke" wrote in message news:7p52j81b77hhiri59...@4ax.com...

>On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:57:36 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
><father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 1, 7:18 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:39:41 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
>>>
>>> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >On Feb 28, 7:18 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> >> Then why am I enjoying my life in faith so much?
>>> >That means you're probably a junkie.
>>>
>>> You're a wiccan, aren't you.
>>
>>Wicca is as ludicrous as catholicism, only difference
>>is, they keep it to themselves.
>
>There's also no salvation offered to wiccans.
>

There's no damnation either so why would they need salvation?
Not much into thinking are you.

[Andrew W]

"duke" wrote in message news:fq52j8d8g3r39ovk4...@4ax.com...

He? Which one?

>
>>> >Interesting, Koko the gorilla scores about 80-85 on an IQ test, wonder
>>> >if Koko has a human-like soul. Some cetaceans actually have a higher
>>> >brain-to-body-weight ratio than humans. Do they have a soul?
>>> They're your people. Ask them.
>>Huh? "My People"?
>
>>Duke, go look up the word "cetacean". No need to be ignorant all your
>>life, ya know.
>
>You run with the gorillas, I'll stick with human beings.
>

We'd make more headway with gorillas than with you.
At least we wouldn't be perpetually going around in circles.

>
>>> You simply can't fix stupid.
>>No, you can't. But you can, theoretically, fix ignorance. That's why
>>it's important that you start now.
>
>But you show no improvement.
>

We improved when we became adults.
You never got there mentally.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<375a6d0a-41a7-455a...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

I've have yet to figure out what dukie's obsession with wiccan is.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Yap]

On Mar 1, 8:21 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:26:26 +1100, "Andrew W" <spam_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>

> wrote:
>
> >>Satan loves you as fresh meat coming his way.
> >Lol. That's the con.
> >You're only happy because you think you've avoided a big torture, but sadly
> >you can't figure out that its just a con.
>
> It's your funeral.  Go for it.

His funeral probably is long after you, old man.

But, when you depart, you still have no where else to go except 6 feet
under.

>
> >>>At least once every day, I reflect on how lucky and privileged I am
> >>>not to be one of you.
> >>And I'm twice as elated not to be one of you.
> >We're four times elated to have seen through the con upon reaching
> >adulthood.
>
> I win, you lose.

You win by having your whole life wasted?
That is a plus.

>
> >>> At the same time, it saddens me to realize that
> >>>people like you are very much in the majority.
> >>Of course we are.  Right is right.
> >Of course the majority is dumb, and at the same time self-assured, sadly.
> >Especially in the southern states of America (Bible belt).
>
> God doesn't judge us by where we live.  We're judged by turning our back on him.

This tells us much about how weak you are as a human.
In your present life, you are being controlled in every aspect. Is it
your desire to be controlled for eternity as well?

[Father Haskell]

On Mar 2, 12:39 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <375a6d0a-41a7-455a-88d3-6c33d716f...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

>  Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 1, 7:18 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:39:41 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
>
> > > <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >On Feb 28, 7:18 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >> Then why am I enjoying my life in faith so much?
> > > >That means you're probably a junkie.
>
> > > You're a wiccan, aren't you.
>
> > Wicca is as ludicrous as catholicism, only difference
> > is, they keep it to themselves.
>
> I've have yet to figure out what dukie's obsession with wiccan is.

His church doesn't worship skyclad.

[alen]

That kind of ritualistic stuff does not constitute
the substance of christian faith. The true faith
consists of a substantial direct contact with
the creator, the Eternal Father-in-Jesus, within
one's own being.

This humanity will never get to the point of
building galactic space cruisers. The Eternal
Father has other plans entirely for this planet,
which are on the point of being put into effect
in a major way. He will, as I understand it,
lift up the entire planet, and all its beings, to
a condition much closer to the spirit realm than
it is now, or has ever been since the fall of Adam.

Alen

[duke]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 14:16:00 +1100, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

I'll just leave you to your crimes. Don't blame me for the flames when you meet
them.

[duke]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 08:24:20 +1100, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>"duke" wrote in message news:t571j85pehnj3an3b...@4ax.com...
>>On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:26:26 +1100, "Andrew W"
>><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Satan loves you as fresh meat coming his way.
>>>Lol. That's the con.
>>>You're only happy because you think you've avoided a big torture, but
>>>sadly
>>>you can't figure out that its just a con.
>>
>>It's your funeral. Go for it.
>There's no funeral.

idiot. They'll hold a memorial service for your ashes when satan returns them..

[duke]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 21:54:08 -0800 (PST), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 1, 8:21 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:26:26 +1100, "Andrew W" <spam_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>Satan loves you as fresh meat coming his way.
>> >Lol. That's the con.
>> >You're only happy because you think you've avoided a big torture, but sadly
>> >you can't figure out that its just a con.
>>
>> It's your funeral.  Go for it.

>His funeral probably is long after you, old man.

Or long before. We don't die by age.

>But, when you depart, you still have no where else to go except 6 feet
>under.

That's the easy part. Do you have a special place for satan your return your
ashes.

[duke]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 14:21:20 +1100, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

All of them.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

You simply can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[duke]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:31:09 -0800 (PST), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>On Mar 1, 10:23 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:38:05 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> >On Feb 28, 10:27 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:08:05 -0500, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >I can't think of anything I "believe" in.
>>
>> >> You can't see the flow of electrical current.  You can't see the oxygen in the
>> >> air.  You believe in these because of the impact these invisible things have on
>> >> you and your surroundings.  And I believe in God because of the impact of the
>> >> unseen God has on me and my surroundings..
>>
>> >> >I accept the balance of evidence in matters where evidence exists and
>> >> >say "no one knows" in matters where it doesn't.
>>
>> >> If that's the same as what I said, now you know why I believe in God.
>> >So why do you think you need the catholic church?
>>
>> Spiritual leadership and guidance.

>Is that all?

Well..........yes, pretty much.

>> > Can't you believe without having to watch and take part in religious rituals?
>> Sure.

>Don"t you sometimes think that all those silly old men in those
>strange garments, that metal thing they swing around with the smoke
>coming out of it, watch your head

Do you understand the issue?

>them fools on the prayer mats

That's muslims, asshole.

>them fools at the wailing wall rocking backwards and forwards... umm..

That's Jews, asshole.

>isn't all that stuff a bit out of place in a technological age like
>this one? Will all those silly old men still be doing this stuff
>when the rest of humanity is flitting around the galaxy in faster-than-
>light space cruisers?

Your ashes will long be gone.

[duke]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 02:19:24 -0800 (PST), alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:

>On Mar 2, 1:31�ｿｽpm, alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>> On Mar 1, 10:23�ｿｽpm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

>> > On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:38:05 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> > >On Feb 28, 10:27�ｿｽpm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> > >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:08:05 -0500, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > >> >I can't think of anything I "believe" in.
>>

>> > >> You can't see the flow of electrical current. �ｿｽYou can't see the oxygen in the
>> > >> air. �ｿｽYou believe in these because of the impact these invisible things have on
>> > >> you and your surroundings. �ｿｽAnd I believe in God because of the impact of the

>> > >> unseen God has on me and my surroundings..
>>
>> > >> >I accept the balance of evidence in matters where evidence exists and
>> > >> >say "no one knows" in matters where it doesn't.
>>
>> > >> If that's the same as what I said, now you know why I believe in God.
>> > >So why do you think you need the catholic church?
>>
>> > Spiritual leadership and guidance.
>>
>> Is that all?
>>
>> > > Can't you believe without having to watch and take part in religious rituals?
>>
>> > Sure.
>>
>> Don"t you sometimes think that all those silly old men in those
>> strange garments, that metal thing they swing around with the smoke
>> coming out of it, watch your head, them fools on the prayer mats, them
>> fools at the wailing wall rocking backwards and forwards... umm..
>> isn't all that stuff a bit out of place in a technological age like

>> this one? �ｿｽ Will all those silly old men still be doing this stuff

>> when the rest of humanity is flitting around the galaxy in faster-than-
>> light space cruisers?
>
>That kind of ritualistic stuff does not constitute
>the substance of christian faith. The true faith
>consists of a substantial direct contact with
>the creator, the Eternal Father-in-Jesus, within
>one's own being.

alanp is a joke.

>This humanity will never get to the point of
>building galactic space cruisers. The Eternal
>Father has other plans entirely for this planet,
>which are on the point of being put into effect
>in a major way. He will, as I understand it,
>lift up the entire planet, and all its beings, to
>a condition much closer to the spirit realm than
>it is now, or has ever been since the fall of Adam.
>
>Alen

[duke]

As is usually the case, I'm considerably more intelligent than you are and hence
I understand the soul and it's properties so much better than you do.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 11:09:38 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:51:54 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>This isn't "The Life of Pi".
>>>>>>>Pi doesn't have a life.
>>I didn't ask about it, Dook.
>>I made a comment about it.
>
>Did you get an answer?

Why would I expect an answer to a comment?

>>Atheism has definition.
>
>Yep you reject God's existence.

Nope.

I don't believe in any God or Gods.

I am an atheist.

>>Believe and you are a theist. Deny and you are an agnostic. Reject and you are an atheist wannabe.
>>Hahahahahhaha...
>>Nope.

Otto's Law: The rightardedness of a rightard is in direct proportion
to how much they snip.

You rightard theists think snipping points means they went away, when
it really means I've won.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.







>

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 11:10:55 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:54:46 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>Truth has a objective measure.
>>>>Your claims about dogs and souls do not.
>>>You can't even begin to disagree.
>>I did disagree.
>
>But ignorantly.

Nope.

I noted that you're claims about dogs and souls have no objective
measure.

Meaning, of course, that you made it up out of whole cloth.

>>>Does a dog have a dog soul? Speak o'dumbass.
>>You're the one who said they do, Dook.
>
>Ok, so you don't know.

How would I know whether dogs have souls or not, since there is no
evidence for souls at all?

Really, Dook...

This isn't as complicated as you're making it seem.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.







>

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 11:22:08 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:17:27 -0800 (PST), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
>>On Mar 2, 3:10 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:54:46 -0500, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> >>>Truth has a objective measure.
>>> >>>Your claims about dogs and souls do not.
>>> >>You can't even begin to disagree.
>>> >I did disagree.
>>>
>>> But ignorantly.
>>>
>>> >>Does a dog have a dog soul?  Speak o'dumbass.
>>> >You're the one who said they do, Dook.
>>>
>>> Ok, so you don't know.
>>
>>You believe a dog has a soul. Did you read that in the bible, or did
>>your RCC tell you to believe that?
>
>As is usually the case, I'm considerably more intelligent than you are and hence
>I understand the soul and it's properties so much better than you do.

No, Dook.

You mean you're more willing to -make-shit-up than other people are.

There's nothing in the Bible, the only "divine revelation" that the
RCC accepts, about dogs and souls.

Unless you're going to claim that God speaks directly to you, then
you've -nothing- that supports your claim.

Does God speak directly to you, Dook?

Do you hear him at odd times, and does he tell you to do things? Bad
things?

If you do, there's help available.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.



>

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 11:11:36 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:57:12 -0500, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>See, stick with me. I know what I'm talking about.
>>No, you don't, Dook.
>
>I'm great for your knowledge base.

The only way you've increased my knowledge base is to inform me of how
freely you theists lie and make shit up.

For that, I should thank you.

I never would have believed that people could lie and make shit up so
freely had I not witnessed it with my own eyes.

As to the rest of the post...

Otto's Law: The rightardedness of a rightard is in direct proportion
to how much they snip.

You rightard theists think snipping points means they went away, when
it really means I've won.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.







>

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 02:19:24 -0800 (PST), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
wrote:

The self-proclaimed keepers of the true faith say you're wrong.

They say ritual is an important part of communion with God.

>The true faith
>consists of a substantial direct contact with
>the creator, the Eternal Father-in-Jesus, within
>one's own being.

That's not what the RCC says.

What standard should I use to determine who is correct?

>This humanity will never get to the point of
>building galactic space cruisers. The Eternal
>Father has other plans entirely for this planet,
>which are on the point of being put into effect
>in a major way. He will, as I understand it,
>lift up the entire planet, and all its beings, to
>a condition much closer to the spirit realm than
>it is now, or has ever been since the fall of Adam.

That was a fiction novel penned by Arthur C. Clarke.

It was called "Childhood's End".

You should attribute stolen ideas, lest you get accused of plagiarism.


>
>Alen

[Syd M.]

On Mar 2, 12:22 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:17:27 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Mar 2, 3:10 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:54:46 -0500, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >>>Truth has a objective measure.
> >> >>>Your claims about dogs and souls do not.
> >> >>You can't even begin to disagree.
> >> >I did disagree.
>
> >> But ignorantly.
>
> >> >>Does a dog have a dog soul?  Speak o'dumbass.
> >> >You're the one who said they do, Dook.
>
> >> Ok, so you don't know.
>
> >You believe a dog has a soul. Did you read that in the bible, or did
> >your RCC tell you to believe that?
>
> As is usually the case, I'm considerably more intelligent than you are

Ooops. Earl lies again.

PDW

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 06:33:11 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:16:28 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> (actually, since the link I so kindly provided claims
>>> plants have "vegetable souls", you may even use
>>> crabgrass instead, if that is your pleasure)
>
>>> Put all that logic and reason of yours right here:
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>>
>>> NBL
>
>>My goodness, but it got quiet. Where did duke go? I was looking
>>forward to his proof that animals and plants have souls. <Wilts with
>>disappointment>
>
>Good grief. You can't even wait on me to see the request.
>
>But first, tell me if you believe in the human soul.

What people believe is irrelevant to evidence, Dook.

You either have evidence, or you do not.

[Andrew W]

"duke" wrote in message news:roc4j8hlb0cdmmqhu...@4ax.com...

>On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 14:16:00 +1100, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>"duke" wrote in message
>>news:7p52j81b77hhiri59...@4ax.com...
>>>On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:57:36 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
>>><father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mar 1, 7:18 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:39:41 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
>>>>>
>>>>> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> >On Feb 28, 7:18 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> >> Then why am I enjoying my life in faith so much?
>>>>> >That means you're probably a junkie.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're a wiccan, aren't you.
>>>>
>>>>Wicca is as ludicrous as catholicism, only difference
>>>>is, they keep it to themselves.
>>>
>>>There's also no salvation offered to wiccans.
>
>>There's no damnation either so why would they need salvation?
>>Not much into thinking are you.
>
>I'll just leave you to your crimes. Don't blame me for the flames when you
>meet
>them.
>

Why do you keep trying to accuse me of crimes etc and pointing me to
'flames'?
You're a very unpleasant and paranoid SOB aren't you.

Your church cult did this to your mind. And you let them.

[Andrew W]

"duke" wrote in message news:7qc4j8l2betskhcin...@4ax.com...

>On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 08:24:20 +1100, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>"duke" wrote in message
>>news:t571j85pehnj3an3b...@4ax.com...
>>>On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:26:26 +1100, "Andrew W"
>>><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Satan loves you as fresh meat coming his way.
>>>>Lol. That's the con.
>>>>You're only happy because you think you've avoided a big torture, but
>>>>sadly
>>>>you can't figure out that its just a con.
>>>
>>>It's your funeral. Go for it.
>>There's no funeral.
>
>idiot. They'll hold a memorial service for your ashes when satan returns
>them..
>

You are insane. Just look at the stupid things you're saying.
And all because I reject your old cult with its false old tyrannical god
figure.
Your mind has been stuffed up badly.

[Andrew W]

"duke" wrote in message news:cvc4j8pla5mc5238d...@4ax.com...

Pedo priests also have a heart of gold etc?

[Yap]

On Mar 3, 1:22 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:17:27 -0800 (PST), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Mar 2, 3:10 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:54:46 -0500, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >>>Truth has a objective measure.
> >> >>>Your claims about dogs and souls do not.
> >> >>You can't even begin to disagree.
> >> >I did disagree.
>
> >> But ignorantly.
>
> >> >>Does a dog have a dog soul?  Speak o'dumbass.
> >> >You're the one who said they do, Dook.
>
> >> Ok, so you don't know.
>
> >You believe a dog has a soul. Did you read that in the bible, or did
> >your RCC tell you to believe that?
>
> As is usually the case, I'm considerably more intelligent than you are and hence
> I understand the soul and it's properties so much better than you do.

Understand soul and its properties?
Which branch of science has taught you on that except the church, old
fool?

[Virgil]

On Mar 3, 1:22 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

>
> As is usually the case, I'm considerably more intelligent than you are

Actually those claiming to be are more often than not not!

Google for the Dunning-Kruger Effect or go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning­Kruger_effect
--

[alen]

On Mar 3, 6:02 am, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 02:19:24 -0800 (PST), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
> wrote:
>

[...]

> >That kind of ritualistic stuff does not constitute
> >the substance of christian faith.
>
> The self-proclaimed keepers of the true faith say you're wrong.
>
> They say ritual is an important part of communion with God.

That is their mistake, which originated somewhere
back near the dark ages. Jesus didn't build a single
stone church, institute vestments, the ringing of bells,
the burning of incense or any other such thing. He
taught only a direct love for Himself and the Eternal Father.

>
> >The true faith
> >consists of a substantial direct contact with
> >the creator, the Eternal Father-in-Jesus, within
> >one's own being.
>
> That's not what the RCC says.
>
> What standard should I use to determine who is correct?

You can forget about rational comparison 'standards'.
The rational intellect can portray belief in a creator
as justifiable, but it cannot actually encounter God.
The human intellect in contact with the eternal
divine intellect would be a ridiculous abomination.
The result would be like a droplet of water falling
on a white hot metal plate. The creature's consciousness
would be vapourised into eternity and infinity and
effectively destroyed. The rational mind is incompetent
in such matters.

> >This humanity will never get to the point of
> >building galactic space cruisers. The Eternal
> >Father has other plans entirely for this planet,
> >which are on the point of being put into effect
> >in a major way. He will, as I understand it,
> >lift up the entire planet, and all its beings, to
> >a condition much closer to the spirit realm than
> >it is now, or has ever been since the fall of Adam.
>
> That was a fiction novel penned by Arthur C. Clarke.
>
> It was called "Childhood's End".
>
> You should attribute stolen ideas, lest you get accused of plagiarism.
>

Absolute rubbish - it has nothing whatever to do with
Clarke's science fiction fantasy.

Alen

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:30:47 -0800, alanp-s wrote:

> On Feb 27, 3:04 am, in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
> alt.recovery.catholicism, alt.abortion, alt.atheism, soc.women, duke
> <duckgumb...@cox.net> screamed:
> ...
>
>> Your dog does not have a human soul, but it does have what one could
>> call a dog soul. The presence of the human soul is that which brings
>> all mankind to the point of equality - to prefer good over bad, right
>> over wrong,
>> love over hate. No other animal possesses these traits because their
>> souls don't provide such characteristics as the human soul does.
>
> So do doggies go to heaven or hell?
>

Well, it seems to me that all social animals have, to varying degrees,
the conflict between selfish and social drives, which is the essential
basis of what good, evil and the choice between them comes down to.

Deliberate deceit, for example, has been observed in Chimps.

Your dog may "know" he's not supposed to steal food, but do it anyway as
the selfish urge overwhelms the social.

On the other hand some studies have shown that, contrary to what owners
think, a dog doesn't really experience "guilt". They probably don't have
the kind of memory that would record the infraction.

So, when Anubis weighs the dog's soul against a feather, is it safe to
assume than no guilt burdens the pan? If so, how about the sociopath who
also feels no guilt, however evil his deeds?

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 19:49:39 -0800 (PST), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>

wrote:

>On Mar 3, 6:02 am, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 02:19:24 -0800 (PST), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>[...]
>> >That kind of ritualistic stuff does not constitute
>> >the substance of christian faith.
>>
>> The self-proclaimed keepers of the true faith say you're wrong.
>>
>> They say ritual is an important part of communion with God.
>
>That is their mistake, which originated somewhere
>back near the dark ages. Jesus didn't build a single
>stone church, institute vestments, the ringing of bells,
>the burning of incense or any other such thing. He
>taught only a direct love for Himself and the Eternal Father.

Roman Catholics claim that Jesus commanded Peter to found the RCC, and
their position is that the church that Peter founded and what it has
become is what Jesus intended.

How is one to judge if Roman Catholics are right or if you're right?

>> >The true faith
>> >consists of a substantial direct contact with
>> >the creator, the Eternal Father-in-Jesus, within
>> >one's own being.
>>
>> That's not what the RCC says.
>>
>> What standard should I use to determine who is correct?
>
>You can forget about rational comparison 'standards'.

Without rational standards of comparison, what means is one to use to
determine which of the competing visions of God and man's relationship
to God is correct?

Am I to take your word for it?

>The rational intellect can portray belief in a creator
>as justifiable, but it cannot actually encounter God.
>The human intellect in contact with the eternal
>divine intellect would be a ridiculous abomination.
>The result would be like a droplet of water falling
>on a white hot metal plate. The creature's consciousness
>would be vapourised into eternity and infinity and
>effectively destroyed. The rational mind is incompetent
>in such matters.

What do you base the above on?

It's not Biblical.

Is it based on divine revelation?

Frankly, it sounds like the sort of thing that theists make up out of
whole cloth when someone asks them a difficult question.

But, not having interacted with you before, I'm willing to give you
the benefit of the doubt.

How did you arrive at your conclusion and how do you know it's
correct?

>> >This humanity will never get to the point of
>> >building galactic space cruisers. The Eternal
>> >Father has other plans entirely for this planet,
>> >which are on the point of being put into effect
>> >in a major way. He will, as I understand it,
>> >lift up the entire planet, and all its beings, to
>> >a condition much closer to the spirit realm than
>> >it is now, or has ever been since the fall of Adam.
>>
>> That was a fiction novel penned by Arthur C. Clarke.
>>
>> It was called "Childhood's End".
>>
>> You should attribute stolen ideas, lest you get accused of plagiarism.
>>
>
>Absolute rubbish - it has nothing whatever to do with
>Clarke's science fiction fantasy.

It's the exact same theme, man's sudden blossoming into a superior
existence.


>
>Alen