Pornography At.......The Vatican?

[Mitchell Holman]

Someone Inside The Vatican Really Likes Illegally Downloading Porn Movies
April 9th, 2013

Among the 800 or so residents in Vatican City, there
apparently lives at least one soul who enjoys illegally
downloading heterosexual and transsexual pornography.

File sharing blog TorrentFreak.com used an anti-piracy
service to find out that people within the confines of
the Catholic Church’s headquarters have downloaded a
number of pornographic films starring transgender star
Tiffany Starr and female performers Krissy Lynn, Lea
Lexis, and Sheena Shaw.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/someone-inside-the-vatican-really-likes-
illegally-downloading-porn-movies/








Vatican Computer Users Pirated Lesbian Fetish Porn
April 10, 2013

At least three pornographic films were illegally
downloaded onto a computer with an IP address
located in the Vatican earlier this year, according
to ScanEye, a company that has also tracked illegal
downloads to Congressional IP addresses. One of
the videos, "Lea Lexis and Krissy Lynn," features
two women whipping each other. Another video, named
"RS77_Episode 01," stands for "Russian Slaves." A
third, titled "BDSM Sklavin Züchtigung im dunklen
Hobbykeller teen fesselspiele," roughly translates
into "BDSM slave punishment in the dark basement
workshop."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/10/vatican-computer-users-
pirated-lesbian-fetish-porn

[Uncle Vic]

Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
news:XnsA1C24E94BA147...@216.196.121.131:

> Someone Inside The Vatican Really Likes Illegally Downloading Porn Movies
> April 9th, 2013
>
> Among the 800 or so residents in Vatican City, there
> apparently lives at least one soul who enjoys illegally
> downloading heterosexual and transsexual pornography.
>
> File sharing blog TorrentFreak.com used an anti-piracy
> service to find out that people within the confines of
> the Catholic Church's headquarters have downloaded a
> number of pornographic films starring transgender star
> Tiffany Starr and female performers Krissy Lynn, Lea
> Lexis, and Sheena Shaw.
>
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/someone-inside-the-vatican-really-likes-
> illegally-downloading-porn-movies/

...and Dook sez the "American house has been cleaned". Maybe they need to
start with their own house.

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[PATRICK]

Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>Someone Inside The Vatican Really Likes Illegally Downloading Porn Movies

So....?

[Smiler]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 07:48:48 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> Someone Inside The Vatican Really Likes Illegally Downloading Porn Movies
> April 9th, 2013
>
> Among the 800 or so residents in Vatican City, there
> apparently lives at least one soul who enjoys illegally downloading
> heterosexual and transsexual pornography.
>
> File sharing blog TorrentFreak.com used an anti-piracy service to find out
> that people within the confines of the Catholic Church�s headquarters
> have downloaded a number of pornographic films starring transgender star
> Tiffany Starr and female performers Krissy Lynn, Lea Lexis, and Sheena
> Shaw.
>
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/someone-inside-the-vatican-really-likes-
> illegally-downloading-porn-movies/
>
> Vatican Computer Users Pirated Lesbian Fetish Porn April 10, 2013
>
> At least three pornographic films were illegally downloaded onto a
> computer with an IP address located in the Vatican earlier this year,
> according to ScanEye, a company that has also tracked illegal downloads to
> Congressional IP addresses. One of the videos, "Lea Lexis and Krissy
> Lynn," features two women whipping each other. Another video, named
> "RS77_Episode 01," stands for "Russian Slaves." A third, titled "BDSM

> Sklavin Z�chtigung im dunklen Hobbykeller teen fesselspiele," roughly

> translates into "BDSM slave punishment in the dark basement workshop."
>
> http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/10/vatican-computer-users-
> pirated-lesbian-fetish-porn

"BUT, But, but...it was only for 'research' purposes."

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

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

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Dakota]

On 5/16/2013 5:03 PM, Smiler wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 07:48:48 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> Someone Inside The Vatican Really Likes Illegally Downloading Porn Movies
>> April 9th, 2013
>>
>> Among the 800 or so residents in Vatican City, there
>> apparently lives at least one soul who enjoys illegally downloading
>> heterosexual and transsexual pornography.
>>
>> File sharing blog TorrentFreak.com used an anti-piracy service to find out

>> that people within the confines of the Catholic Church�s headquarters

>> have downloaded a number of pornographic films starring transgender star
>> Tiffany Starr and female performers Krissy Lynn, Lea Lexis, and Sheena
>> Shaw.
>>
>> http://www.mediaite.com/online/someone-inside-the-vatican-really-likes-
>> illegally-downloading-porn-movies/
>>
>> Vatican Computer Users Pirated Lesbian Fetish Porn April 10, 2013
>>
>> At least three pornographic films were illegally downloaded onto a
>> computer with an IP address located in the Vatican earlier this year,
>> according to ScanEye, a company that has also tracked illegal downloads to
>> Congressional IP addresses. One of the videos, "Lea Lexis and Krissy
>> Lynn," features two women whipping each other. Another video, named
>> "RS77_Episode 01," stands for "Russian Slaves." A third, titled "BDSM

>> Sklavin Z�chtigung im dunklen Hobbykeller teen fesselspiele," roughly

>> translates into "BDSM slave punishment in the dark basement workshop."
>>
>> http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/10/vatican-computer-users-
>> pirated-lesbian-fetish-porn
>
> "BUT, But, but...it was only for 'research' purposes."
>

I guess it must be difficult for the old men of the Vatican to get it
up without some S&M to remind them of the "good old days" when their
vile organization was openly active in the torture and murder
business. Raping children is unspeakably cruel but it has to be done
in private. The old men of the Vatican long for the days when they
could satisfy their sadistic fetishes in public.

[Andrew W]

>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>news:sg0ap8t4auq7h9hoi...@4ax.com...

>
>Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>>Someone Inside The Vatican Really Likes Illegally Downloading Porn Movies
>
>So....?
>

Isn't watching porn a sin in Catholicism?
I'm pretty sure it is.


--
Forcing someone to either worship or burn is called tyranny.
My motto: Never follow any leader who gives lifelong (or eternal) torture in
a fire as one of your 'free' choices, because that is a despot.

Religions breed hypocrisy, ignorance and self-righteousness.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <kn44t9$ddq$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> >"PATRICK" wrote in message
> >news:sg0ap8t4auq7h9hoi...@4ax.com...
> >
> >Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> >>Someone Inside The Vatican Really Likes Illegally Downloading Porn Movies
> >
> >So....?
> >
>
> Isn't watching porn a sin in Catholicism?
> I'm pretty sure it is.

I don't know if it is or not. But the self-abuse WHILE watching
definitely is.

--

JD

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

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

On May 17, 8:15 am, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/16/2013 5:03 PM, Smiler wrote:

> > On Thu, 16 May 2013 07:48:48 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> >> Someone Inside The Vatican Really Likes Illegally Downloading Porn Movies
> >> April 9th, 2013
>
> >>   Among the 800 or so residents in Vatican City, there
> >> apparently lives at least one soul who enjoys illegally downloading
> >> heterosexual and transsexual pornography.
>
> >> File sharing blog TorrentFreak.com used an anti-piracy service to find out

> >> that people within the confines of the Catholic Church’s headquarters

> >> have downloaded a number of pornographic films starring transgender star
> >> Tiffany Starr and female performers Krissy Lynn, Lea Lexis, and Sheena
> >> Shaw.
>
> >>http://www.mediaite.com/online/someone-inside-the-vatican-really-likes-
> >> illegally-downloading-porn-movies/
>
> >> Vatican Computer Users Pirated Lesbian Fetish Porn April 10, 2013
>
> >> At least three pornographic films were illegally downloaded onto a
> >> computer with an IP address located in the Vatican earlier this year,
> >> according to ScanEye, a company that has also tracked illegal downloads to
> >> Congressional IP addresses. One of the videos, "Lea Lexis and Krissy
> >> Lynn," features two women whipping each other. Another video, named
> >> "RS77_Episode 01," stands for "Russian Slaves." A third, titled "BDSM

> >> Sklavin Züchtigung im dunklen Hobbykeller teen fesselspiele," roughly

> >> translates into "BDSM slave punishment in the dark basement workshop."
>
> >>http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/10/vatican-computer-users-
> >> pirated-lesbian-fetish-porn
>
> > "BUT, But, but...it was only for 'research' purposes."
>
> I guess it must be difficult for the old men of the Vatican to get it
> up without some S&M to remind them of the "good old days" when their
> vile organization was openly active in the torture and murder
> business. Raping children is unspeakably cruel but it has to be done
> in private. The old men of the Vatican long for the days when they
> could satisfy their sadistic fetishes in public.

I have long suspected that the priestly tradition of wearing those
flowing robes originated from purely practical reasons. The robes are
intended to hide the hard-ons that the priests got when watching
someone being tortured or whipped or burned alive at the stake.

Nowadays they just want to hide the hard-ons they get from being
around altar boys.

[Dakota]

On 5/16/2013 11:06 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <kn44t9$ddq$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> "PATRICK" wrote in message
>>> news:sg0ap8t4auq7h9hoi...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>>>> Someone Inside The Vatican Really Likes Illegally Downloading Porn Movies
>>>
>>> So....?
>>>
>>
>> Isn't watching porn a sin in Catholicism?
>> I'm pretty sure it is.
>
> I don't know if it is or not. But the self-abuse WHILE watching
> definitely is.
>

I learned that odd euphemism for masturbation when I was a freshman at
a Catholic high school. To this day, I wonder why that term was used.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <kn4io1$to3$1...@dont-email.me>, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

Well, what else would you call something that grows hair on your palms
and makes you go blind?

[Les]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:36:48 +1000, "Andrew W"
<spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>>news:sg0ap8t4auq7h9hoi...@4ax.com...
>>
>>Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>>>Someone Inside The Vatican Really Likes Illegally Downloading Porn Movies
>>
>>So....?
>>
>
>Isn't watching porn a sin in Catholicism?
>I'm pretty sure it is.

Every sperm is sacred and should only be used for
procreation purposes.

Anything enjoyable is a sin. You are not supposed
to be happy, it is self indulgent and takes your thought
from their wannahave god who will be filled with
wrath and send you to hell for eternal torture if
you love for him falters even for a microsecond.


Your only joy should be in thoughts of the wannahave
Lord. Anything else is shallow and without
purpose (so we have been told)


--
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"When you are in a crowd and you stand out from the
crowd it's ususually because you are being carried on
the shoulders of others."
- Desmond Tutu

[duke]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 07:48:48 -0500, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:


>Someone Inside The Vatican Really Likes Illegally Downloading Porn Movies
>April 9th, 2013

Rumor has it that it was the token atheist wannabe.

> Among the 800 or so residents in Vatican City, there
>apparently lives at least one soul who enjoys illegally
>downloading heterosexual and transsexual pornography.
>
>File sharing blog TorrentFreak.com used an anti-piracy
>service to find out that people within the confines of
>the Catholic Church�s headquarters have downloaded a
>number of pornographic films starring transgender star
>Tiffany Starr and female performers Krissy Lynn, Lea
>Lexis, and Sheena Shaw.
>
>http://www.mediaite.com/online/someone-inside-the-vatican-really-likes-
>illegally-downloading-porn-movies/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Vatican Computer Users Pirated Lesbian Fetish Porn
>April 10, 2013
>
>At least three pornographic films were illegally
>downloaded onto a computer with an IP address
>located in the Vatican earlier this year, according
>to ScanEye, a company that has also tracked illegal
>downloads to Congressional IP addresses. One of
>the videos, "Lea Lexis and Krissy Lynn," features
>two women whipping each other. Another video, named
>"RS77_Episode 01," stands for "Russian Slaves." A

>third, titled "BDSM Sklavin Z�chtigung im dunklen

>Hobbykeller teen fesselspiele," roughly translates
>into "BDSM slave punishment in the dark basement
>workshop."
>
>http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/10/vatican-computer-users-
>pirated-lesbian-fetish-porn
>
>
>

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[linuxgal]

Self-loving is far more accurate.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Dakota]

How could I have been so blind as not to see that?

[Syd M.]

So, they are hypocrites.

PDW

[Syd M.]

On May 17, 6:00 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 07:48:48 -0500, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> >Someone Inside The Vatican Really Likes Illegally Downloading Porn Movies
> >April 9th, 2013
>
> Rumor has it that it was the token atheist wannabe.
>
>

Any excuse to downplay the problem, eh, Dork?

PDW

[default]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:39:53 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:36:48 +1000, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>>>news:sg0ap8t4auq7h9hoi...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>>>>Someone Inside The Vatican Really Likes Illegally Downloading Porn Movies
>>>
>>>So....?
>>>
>>
>>Isn't watching porn a sin in Catholicism?
>>I'm pretty sure it is.
>
>Every sperm is sacred and should only be used for
>procreation purposes.
>
>Anything enjoyable is a sin. You are not supposed
>to be happy, it is self indulgent and takes your thought
>from their wannahave god who will be filled with
>wrath and send you to hell for eternal torture if
>you love for him falters even for a microsecond.
>
>
>Your only joy should be in thoughts of the wannahave
>Lord. Anything else is shallow and without
>purpose (so we have been told)

Sounds like we went to the same Catholic school.

[default]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:39:36 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

More like scratching an itch - love is something that requires another
person IMO.

[linuxgal]

Me, myself, and I.

[Dreamer In Colore]

I'm not so sure about that. I think love requires suspension of reason
to a great degree. That's why people say they can love a supernatural
entity.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <m71fp8lm1lehoh5h9...@4ax.com>,
Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...

>I'm not so sure about that. I think love requires suspension of reason
>to a great degree. That's why people say they can love a supernatural
>entity.

Indeed. Myself, I love Fridays.

And French Toast.

--
People who say they'll vote for someone else because Obama couldn't solve
all of Bush's messes are like people complaining that he couldn't cure cancer,
so they'll go and vote for cancer.

[default]

Technically you are correct because the word is a mite overzealously
applied. I do it too. I love beer.

But sharing physical intimacy (or doing sick disgusting things) with
someone you admire and respect will always transcend the love of beer,
music, fishing, sailing, kayaking, motorcycling, etc....

I didn't know what love was until I met my wife, and can't help but
wonder if part of what we have, is in part due to the sexual
repression we both encountered being raised Catholic.

Wine women and song - a religion worth believing in. (if you happen
to be a heterosexual male or lesbian)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love

Definition of LOVE
1
a (1) : strong affection for another arising out of kinship or
personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2) : attraction based on
sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3) :
affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love
for his old schoolmates>
b : an assurance of affection <give her my love>
2 : warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea>
3 a : the object of attachment, devotion, or admiration <baseball was
his first love>
b (1) : a beloved person : darling —often used as a term of endearment
(2) British —used as an informal term of address

[linuxgal]

default wrote:
> Wine women and song - a religion worth believing in. (if you happen
> to be a heterosexual male or lesbian)

And if your doctor tells you to give up wine, women, and song, tell him
you're going to really miss song.

[duke]

>I have long suspected that the priestly tradition of wearing those
>flowing robes originated from purely practical reasons.

Flowing robes??? Haahaahaa.

[Alex W]

The all too frequent misapprehensions we tend to make when
(mis)identifying love would support your assertion. How
many of us mistake "love" for "in love" or even "in lust",
and how ften do we do so....

As for loving a supernatural being, I wonder how many
actually do love their deities. How many can really love
someone who is unfathomable, unpredictable, with a proven
track record of narcissism, viciousness, pettiness and a
vast capacity for indiscriminate violence and carrying a
grudge until the end of time? It may simply be that having
invested so much in the belief itself, they will grasp at
any straws to rationalise their attachment and justify it to
themselves as much as others.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <1q7m63t5zvw0v.y...@40tude.net>, Alex W

• a reasonable analysis. congrats. Eternal punishment could only come
from a beserko, There are at least 3 people on this Newsgroup who have
too much invested in RCism to be able to see the writing on the wall. .

[Dreamer In Colore]

Dammit. You just described my cat.

>It may simply be that having
>invested so much in the belief itself, they will grasp at
>any straws to rationalise their attachment and justify it to
>themselves as much as others.

Well yeah! I know it's loony to love that cat after what she's done,
but there you have it. Love is blind.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Alex W]

I like cats.
They are excellent for dropkick practice.

>
>>It may simply be that having
>>invested so much in the belief itself, they will grasp at
>>any straws to rationalise their attachment and justify it to
>>themselves as much as others.
>
> Well yeah! I know it's loony to love that cat after what she's done,
> but there you have it. Love is blind.

And on top, when times really get tough you can always turn
her into a Chinese stir-fry....

[duke]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:41:11 -0400, Dreamer In Colore

John 13:34 (New International Version)
34 鄭 new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you
must love one another.

[duke]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 00:10:17 +0100, Alex W <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> I'm not so sure about that. I think love requires suspension of reason
>> to a great degree. That's why people say they can love a supernatural
>> entity.

>The all too frequent misapprehensions we tend to make when
>(mis)identifying love would support your assertion. How
>many of us mistake "love" for "in love" or even "in lust",
>and how ften do we do so....

Adults don't.

>As for loving a supernatural being, I wonder how many
>actually do love their deities.

Most of us. We are not "in love" with God, but instead love him. If you were a
Christian, you'd understand that.

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

On May 19, 3:38 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >I have long suspected that the priestly tradition of wearing those
> >flowing robes originated from purely practical reasons.
>
> Flowing robes???  Haahaahaa.
>

So why do they dress up?

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

On May 19, 4:17 am, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 07:48:48 -0500, Mitchell Holman

> <nomailverizon.net> in alt.abortion with message-id

>
> <XnsA1C24E94BA147nomailverizon...@216.196.121.131> wrote:
> >Someone Inside The Vatican Really Likes Illegally Downloading Porn Movies

> >April 9th, 2013

>
> > Among the 800 or so residents in Vatican City, there
> >apparently lives at least one soul who enjoys illegally
> >downloading heterosexual and transsexual pornography.
>

> The Vatican has the largest porno collection in the world.

They make their own. That's why there's so few of em downloading it.

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

On May 19, 9:26 am, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> In article <1q7m63t5zvw0v.yncgcfks3rrp....@40tude.net>, Alex W

> <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:41:11 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>

> > > On Sat, 18 May 2013 07:45:31 -0400, default <n...@noname.net> wrote:
>
> > >>On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:39:36 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com>

> > >>wrote:
>
> > >>>Dakota wrote:
> > >>>> On 5/16/2013 11:06 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:

> > >>>>> In article <kn44t9$dd...@dont-email.me>,

Yes. What he said.

My take on it is that most religio-bots love their god in the same way
that North Koreans love Kim Il or Kim Un Whatsisname. Very sad. Very,
very sad.

> Eternal punishment could only come
> from a beserko,

Fear != lurv.

> There are at least 3 people on this Newsgroup who have
> too much invested in RCism to be able to see the writing on the wall.  .

So true.

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

On May 19, 11:44 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 00:10:17 +0100, Alex W <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> I'm not so sure about that. I think love requires suspension of reason
> >> to a great degree. That's why people say they can love a supernatural
> >> entity.
> >The all too frequent misapprehensions we tend to make when
> >(mis)identifying love would support your assertion.  How
> >many of us mistake "love" for "in love" or even "in lust",
> >and how ften do we do so....
>
> Adults don't.
>
> >As for loving a supernatural being, I wonder how many
> >actually do love their deities.
>
> Most of us.  We are not "in love" with God, but instead love him.  If you were a
> Christian, you'd understand that.

You probably love god as much as you love your fellow man. Which is to
say, falsely and not very much.

[duke]

Options:
Me: win, no win.
You: lose, no win.

Thank you. <smile>

[•RLMeasures]

In article <69ohp8l4brubegoa9...@4ax.com>, duke

• ____

[duke]

You blind turn to "probably" is pretty clear that you are clueless.

[SkyEyes]

On May 19, 6:13 am, Alex W <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 01:02:59 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 May 2013 00:10:17 +0100, Alex W <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:41:11 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>

> >>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 07:45:31 -0400, default <n...@noname.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:39:36 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com>

> >>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>Dakota wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/16/2013 11:06 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:

> >>>>>>> In article <kn44t9$dd...@dont-email.me>,

NOT funny.

I adopted a cat that was used for drop-kick practice by the S.O. of
the previous owner. She's a long-haired cat, so they didn't know
until they shaved her to do an ovo0hystorectomy that she'd been kicked
in the abdomen so hard that her internal organs had all prolapsed.
Instead of doing a one-inch incision and a quick spay, they had to
open her from breastbone to pubes and spend a couple of hours finding
the right places to put all her internal organs back where they
belong. It's a miracle that she lived.

If you don't like cats, fine, don't have one. It's your loss. But
don't make jokes about mistreating them, since there are plenty of
people out there who need no encouragement to do the type of thing
you're joking about.

-
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
-

[Andrew W]

>"duke" wrote in message news:mllhp856irun7nicf...@4ax.com...

> 34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so

> you
>must love one another.
>

If you "must" love someone then it can't come naturally.
Commanded love is not love. Its a form of mental slavery.
Which proves that the RCC propagates distortions of truths for the purpose
of control.


--
Forcing someone to either worship or burn is called tyranny.
My motto: Never follow any leader who gives lifelong (or eternal) torture in
a fire as one of your 'free' choices, because that is a despot.

Religions breed hypocrisy, ignorance and self-righteousness.

[Alex W]

For the record, I like cats ... and because I am allergic to
cats, they *love* me.

And while I would shoot a cat without hesitation if I saw
one out in the fields because feline depredation of small
rodents and birds is a major problem on our small isand with
its fragile ecosystem, I would never hurt this or any other
animal intentionally, let alone for fun. People who harm
animals for kicks are, as far as I am concerned, in the same
category as paedophiles.

[SkyEyes]

If you walk in a room with a cat in it, you leave the cat alone,
right? Only to find the cat ends up in your lap. Easy to explain.
Cat etiquette dictates that the cat make the first move. Most humans
who like cats, upon seeing one, will go right up to it, and
consequently, the cat runs away. But because you don't do that, the
cat thinks, "What a nice person, and he has such lovely manners! I
must get to know him!" If you want to change that, approach the cat
before he approaches you. He'll think you're rude and threatening and
stay away from you. (My oldest and best friend has very bad cat
allergies and has exactly the problem you describe. I can't get her
to understand that she has to make the first move to keep the cat away
from her.)

And for what it's worth, I have cat allergies, too. I figure that's
what the FSM made allergy medicine for. I take 5 different allergy
pills a day, but I have my kitties. Call me crazy. :)

>
> And while I would shoot a cat without hesitation if I saw
> one out in the fields because feline depredation of small
> rodents and birds is a major problem on our small isand with
> its fragile ecosystem, I would never hurt this or any other
> animal intentionally, let alone for fun.  People who harm
> animals for kicks are, as far as I am concerned, in the same
> category as paedophiles.

Okay. You're forgiven.

Brenda

[duke]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:28:22 +1000, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>>>I'm not so sure about that. I think love requires suspension of reason
>>>to a great degree. That's why people say they can love a supernatural
>>>entity.

>>John 13:34 (New International Version)

>> 34 鄭 new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so

>> you must love one another.

>If you "must" love someone then it can't come naturally.

If it doesn't come naturally to a Christian, you're not a Christian.

>Commanded love is not love. Its a form of mental slavery.
>Which proves that the RCC propagates distortions of truths for the purpose
>of control.

It's not command love. It's what a Christian is all about.

[duke]

Church tradition, leadership wise, goes back to the early days of Christianity
and following the Roman tradition. There's nothing magic about the vestments,
and there are no "flowing robes".

[�RLMeasures]

In article <8n5kp8tj29iphpu2j...@4ax.com>, duke

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

> On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:28:22 +1000, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >>>I'm not so sure about that. I think love requires suspension of reason
> >>>to a great degree. That's why people say they can love a supernatural
> >>>entity.
>
> >>John 13:34 (New International Version)

> >> 34 �A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so

> >> you must love one another.
>
> >If you "must" love someone then it can't come naturally.
>
> If it doesn't come naturally to a Christian, you're not a Christian.
>
> >Commanded love is not love. Its a form of mental slavery.
> >Which proves that the RCC propagates distortions of truths for the purpose
> >of control.
>
> It's not command love. It's what a Christian is all about.
>

� Christianity is all about love for an easy shortcut to the advice
Jesus gives in his Sermon on the Mount -- i.e., that we are forgiven by
our Creator if we forgive those who sin against us.

[Andrew W]

>"duke" wrote in message news:8n5kp8tj29iphpu2j...@4ax.com...

>
>On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:28:22 +1000, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>>>I'm not so sure about that. I think love requires suspension of reason
>>>>to a great degree. That's why people say they can love a supernatural
>>>>entity.
>
>>>John 13:34 (New International Version)

>>> 34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you,

>>> so
>>> you must love one another.
>
>>If you "must" love someone then it can't come naturally.
>
>If it doesn't come naturally to a Christian, you're not a Christian.
>

I see and hear of many church going Christians with plenty of problems with
love. Present company included.
Christians aren't magically able to love any better than other humans.

>
>>Commanded love is not love. Its a form of mental slavery.
>>Which proves that the RCC propagates distortions of truths for the purpose
>>of control.
>
>It's not command love. It's what a Christian is all about.
>

Is that why the verse says “A new command I give you:"?
No use trying to back-pedal now, duke.

And what about the commands in the Bible to love the Christian god (with all
our hearts, minds etc.)?

[Alex W.]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 00:46:48 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes wrote:

>>> the previous owner. 锟絊he's a long-haired cat, so they didn't know

>>> until they shaved her to do an ovo0hystorectomy that she'd been kicked
>>> in the abdomen so hard that her internal organs had all prolapsed.
>>> Instead of doing a one-inch incision and a quick spay, they had to
>>> open her from breastbone to pubes and spend a couple of hours finding
>>> the right places to put all her internal organs back where they

>>> belong. 锟絀t's a miracle that she lived.
>>
>>> If you don't like cats, fine, don't have one. 锟絀t's your loss. 锟紹ut

>>> don't make jokes about mistreating them, since there are plenty of
>>> people out there who need no encouragement to do the type of thing
>>> you're joking about.
>>
>> For the record, I like cats ... and because I am allergic to
>> cats, they *love* me.
>
> If you walk in a room with a cat in it, you leave the cat alone,
> right? Only to find the cat ends up in your lap. Easy to explain.
> Cat etiquette dictates that the cat make the first move. Most humans
> who like cats, upon seeing one, will go right up to it, and
> consequently, the cat runs away. But because you don't do that, the
> cat thinks, "What a nice person, and he has such lovely manners! I
> must get to know him!" If you want to change that, approach the cat
> before he approaches you. He'll think you're rude and threatening and
> stay away from you. (My oldest and best friend has very bad cat
> allergies and has exactly the problem you describe. I can't get her
> to understand that she has to make the first move to keep the cat away
> from her.)

That sounds plausible, except it's not what I do. As a
primarily doggie person, I will always go up to an animal
and try to introduce myself; it's only good manners, after
all. I wasn't aware that I should not do this with cats.

>
> And for what it's worth, I have cat allergies, too. I figure that's
> what the FSM made allergy medicine for. I take 5 different allergy
> pills a day, but I have my kitties. Call me crazy. :)

OK, Crazy Cat Lady, whatever you say!

http://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIlpqJpROzYA5hR2BQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBrc3VyamVwBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQD?p=crazy+cat+lady&vid=942b17e8f8bdb7a43bb09d9d25a99002&l=00%3A31&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DV.4552464507800301%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dk2-15mYWpmA&tit=The+Cat+Lady&c=3&sigr=11a4d1ss9&age=0&fr=yfp-t-702-s&tt=b

[duke]

But he specifically advised that sins against HIM are handled differently. It's
called "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit".

Matthew 12:31
"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but
blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven" (Matt. 12:31). What is
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Why is this an unpardonable sin?

The person who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, however, places himself
beyond the reach of forgiveness. This is true because the Holy Spirit is the
agent in the revelation of divine truth (2 Sam. 23:2; John 15:26; 16:13; Eph.
6:17; 2 Pet. 1:21). It is only through the work of the Spirit that we come to
know of God, our sins, the atonement provided through Christ, and our need for
repentance and obedience. Blasphemy against the Spirit is unforgivable because
its source is a heart of malice, selfish preference of wrong over right and evil
over good, and a willful refusal to believe. The Pharisees had revealed that
their hearts were evil, and Jesus called them a "brood of vipers" (Matt. 12:34).
Such a perverse spirit consciously and deliberately rejects the truth and thus
the salvation it brings. "Either in this age, or in the age to come"
(Matt.12:32) simply means "never." In Mark's account, Jesus called it an
"eternal sin" (3:29). As long as a person persists in this state, genuine
repentance is impossible. There is no room in this person's heart for penitence,
which is a prerequisite for forgiveness. His sin is unpardonable simply because
he is unwilling to travel the road that leads to pardon. The only sin that God
is unable to forgive is the unwillingness to accept forgiveness.

And so we go to confession and ask to come back. John 20:22-23. The last
sentence is a bombshell.

[duke]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 08:10:22 +1000, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>>"duke" wrote in message news:8n5kp8tj29iphpu2j...@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:28:22 +1000, "Andrew W"
>><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>I'm not so sure about that. I think love requires suspension of reason
>>>>>to a great degree. That's why people say they can love a supernatural
>>>>>entity.
>>
>>>>John 13:34 (New International Version)

>>>> 34 鄭 new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you,

>>>> so
>>>> you must love one another.
>>
>>>If you "must" love someone then it can't come naturally.
>>
>>If it doesn't come naturally to a Christian, you're not a Christian.

>I see and hear of many church going Christians with plenty of problems with
>love. Present company included.

You're just upset because I try to tell you your vision of God is wrong.

>Christians aren't magically able to love any better than other humans.

Magic is not the issue. Specifically knowing that God set the standard and that
we must obey or lose God is the issue.

>>>Commanded love is not love. Its a form of mental slavery.
>>>Which proves that the RCC propagates distortions of truths for the purpose
>>>of control.

>>It's not command love. It's what a Christian is all about.

>Is that why the verse says 鄭 new command I give you:"?

>No use trying to back-pedal now, duke.

He gave us 10 commandments as man came out of paganism into Judaism, and then a
new command for a new way to bring man into Christianity from Judaism..

>And what about the commands in the Bible to love the Christian god (with all
>our hearts, minds etc.)?

[duke]

Poor dumb guy.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <kcnmp89048i868u0r...@4ax.com>, duke

• Saul of Tarsus was not chosen by anyone other than himself.

> It is only through the work of the Spirit that we come to
> know of God, our sins, the atonement provided through Christ,

• Jesus said we are forgiven as we forgive others.

> and our need for
> repentance and obedience.

• Duke's obedience fettish reappears.

>...

[duke]

Then why did he convert?

>> It is only through the work of the Spirit that we come to
>> know of God, our sins, the atonement provided through Christ,

>• Jesus said we are forgiven as we forgive others.

But not for sins against God.

>> and our need for
>> repentance and obedience.
>
>• Duke's obedience fettish reappears.
>
>>...

[•RLMeasures]

In article <af7np85cps7jvdp8d...@4ax.com>, duke

• Catholic shame and guilt raises its ugly head again. Better run to
the nearest RC Confessional before that damned ol' Devil Devil gets you
boys and girls.
>...

[Andrew W]

>"duke" wrote in message news:af7np85cps7jvdp8d...@4ax.com...

The above is the most insidiously stupid old fear based twaddle ever written
by men.

>
>>• Saul of Tarsus was not chosen by anyone other than himself.
>
>Then why did he convert?
>

Fear. He was ambushed on his way to Damascus.

>
>>> It is only through the work of the Spirit that we come to
>>> know of God, our sins, the atonement provided through Christ,
>
>>• Jesus said we are forgiven as we forgive others.
>
>But not for sins against God.
>

What other kinds of sins are there?

[Andrew W]

>"duke" wrote in message news:p2omp8ttqs69penrv...@4ax.com...

>
>On Tue, 21 May 2013 08:10:22 +1000, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>>"duke" wrote in message
>>>news:8n5kp8tj29iphpu2j...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:28:22 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>I'm not so sure about that. I think love requires suspension of reason
>>>>>>to a great degree. That's why people say they can love a supernatural
>>>>>>entity.
>>>
>>>>>John 13:34 (New International Version)

>>>>> 34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you,

>>>>> so
>>>>> you must love one another.
>>>
>>>>If you "must" love someone then it can't come naturally.
>>>
>>>If it doesn't come naturally to a Christian, you're not a Christian.
>
>>I see and hear of many church going Christians with plenty of problems
>>with
>>love. Present company included.
>
>You're just upset because I try to tell you your vision of God is wrong.
>

1/ I have nothing to be upset about.
2/ Its your vision of God that's wrong.

>
>>Christians aren't magically able to love any better than other humans.
>
>Magic is not the issue. Specifically knowing that God set the standard and
>that
>we must obey or lose God is the issue.
>

We can't lose God. And the true Creator source does not just want obedient
robots. That's a human doctrine/distortion designed to control the masses.
How many times do you have to be told this?

>
>>>>Commanded love is not love. Its a form of mental slavery.
>>>>Which proves that the RCC propagates distortions of truths for the
>>>>purpose
>>>>of control.
>
>>>It's not command love. It's what a Christian is all about.
>

>>Is that why the verse says “A new command I give you:"?

>>No use trying to back-pedal now, duke.
>
>He gave us 10 commandments as man came out of paganism into Judaism, and
>then a
>new command for a new way to bring man into Christianity from Judaism..
>

The ten commandments are largely obsolete. The latter is insufficient to
change present society.
And there's no evidence either were uttered by the true Creator source.

Your pathetic behaviour in these groups is testament to the insidiousness
and ineffectiveness of the teachings.

[Dakota]

Who or what do you mean by "the true Creator source"? How do you know
what he/she/it wants?

[duke]

Yes, you better. People with intelligence well know that Jesus specifically
assigned the Apostles, as MEN, to forgive/retain sins on earth to be held so in
heaven.

John 20:21-23 (New International Version)
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am
sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy
Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not
forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Remember, it's your funeral, not mine.

[duke]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:36:25 +1000, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>

Satan's minions promote the twaddle of this statement. And satan smiles as he
prepares his bbq with you as the main course.

[duke]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:09:45 +1000, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>>"duke" wrote in message news:p2omp8ttqs69penrv...@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 08:10:22 +1000, "Andrew W"
>><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>"duke" wrote in message
>>>>news:8n5kp8tj29iphpu2j...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:28:22 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not so sure about that. I think love requires suspension of reason
>>>>>>>to a great degree. That's why people say they can love a supernatural
>>>>>>>entity.
>>>>
>>>>>>John 13:34 (New International Version)

>>>>>> 34 鄭 new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you,

>>>>>> so
>>>>>> you must love one another.
>>>>
>>>>>If you "must" love someone then it can't come naturally.
>>>>
>>>>If it doesn't come naturally to a Christian, you're not a Christian.
>>
>>>I see and hear of many church going Christians with plenty of problems
>>>with
>>>love. Present company included.
>>
>>You're just upset because I try to tell you your vision of God is wrong.

>1/ I have nothing to be upset about.
>2/ Its your vision of God that's wrong.

Satan's minion speaks.

>>>Christians aren't magically able to love any better than other humans.
>>
>>Magic is not the issue. Specifically knowing that God set the standard and
>>that
>>we must obey or lose God is the issue.

>We can't lose God. And the true Creator source does not just want obedient
>robots. That's a human doctrine/distortion designed to control the masses.
>How many times do you have to be told this?

Ah, he actually thinks he can sin against God and be rewarded for it.

[duke]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 05:33:01 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/22/2013 4:09 AM, Andrew W wrote:
>>> "duke" wrote in message
>>> news:p2omp8ttqs69penrv...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 08:10:22 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "duke" wrote in message
>>>>> news:8n5kp8tj29iphpu2j...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:28:22 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>>> <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not so sure about that. I think love requires suspension of
>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>> to a great degree. That's why people say they can love a
>>>>>>>> supernatural
>>>>>>>> entity.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> John 13:34 (New International Version)

>>>>>>> 34 鄭 new command I give you: Love one another. As I have

>>>> Is that why the verse says 鄭 new command I give you:"?

>>>> No use trying to back-pedal now, duke.
>>>
>>> He gave us 10 commandments as man came out of paganism into Judaism,
>>> and then a
>>> new command for a new way to bring man into Christianity from Judaism..
>>>
>>
>> The ten commandments are largely obsolete. The latter is insufficient
>> to change present society.
>> And there's no evidence either were uttered by the true Creator source.
>>
>> Your pathetic behaviour in these groups is testament to the
>> insidiousness and ineffectiveness of the teachings.

>Who or what do you mean by "the true Creator source"? How do you know
>what he/she/it wants?

He personally decided which parts of the bible he will follow and which parts he
won't.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <nnapp8ta9vfdh1okb...@4ax.com>, duke

• neither the disciples or the BVM was authorized to forgive sin. The
end of the push to make Mary a co-redemptrix came at Vatican 2 when the
bishops voted to put Mary into the body of believers. I find this
amazing since there is no evidence that Mary abandoned Judaism and was
baptised in the Roman Catholic Church.

>
> John 20:21-23 (New International Version)
> 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am
> sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy
> Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you
do not
> forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
>
> Remember, it's your funeral, not mine.
>

• I already arranged to have no funeral Duke. Scatering my ashes in my
garden works.

[duke]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 07:08:08 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

>> >> >• Jesus said we are forgiven as we forgive others.

>> >> But not for sins against God.
>> >>• Catholic shame and guilt raises its ugly head again. Better run to
>> >the nearest RC Confessional before that damned ol' Devil Devil gets you
>> >boys and girls.

>> Yes, you better. People with intelligence well know that Jesus specifically
>> assigned the Apostles, as MEN, to forgive/retain sins on earth to be
>held so in heaven.

>• neither the disciples or the BVM was authorized to forgive sin.

NOt in their name for sure, but in the name of God, ohhhhhh yesssssssss. John
20:21-23

>The
>end of the push to make Mary a co-redemptrix came at Vatican 2

Never agreed to.

>> John 20:21-23 (New International Version)
>> 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am
>> sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy
>> Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you
>do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
>>
>> Remember, it's your funeral, not mine.
>• I already arranged to have no funeral Duke. Scatering my ashes in my
>garden works.

Not good for anything.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <ilopp81s86dc9v3fs...@4ax.com>, duke

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

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 07:08:08 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >> >> >• Jesus said we are forgiven as we forgive others.
>
> >> >> But not for sins against God.
> >> >>• Catholic shame and guilt raises its ugly head again. Better run to
> >> >the nearest RC Confessional before that damned ol' Devil Devil gets you
> >> >boys and girls.
>
> >> Yes, you better. People with intelligence well know that Jesus
specifically
> >> assigned the Apostles, as MEN, to forgive/retain sins on earth to be
> >held so in heaven.
>
> >• neither the disciples or the BVM was authorized to forgive sin.
>
> NOt in their name for sure, but in the name of God, ohhhhhh yesssssssss. John
> 20:21-23
>
> >The
> >end of the push to make Mary a co-redemptrix came at Vatican 2
>
> Never agreed to.
>
> >> John 20:21-23 (New International Version)

• This is not evident in the King James translation.

>
> >> 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am
> >> sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive
the Holy
> >> Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you
> >do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
> >>
> >> Remember, it's your funeral, not mine.
> >• I already arranged to have no funeral Duke. Scatering my ashes in my
> >garden works.
>
> Not good for anything.
>

• Tomatos, avocados and squash are not good for anything?

[duke]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:20:14 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <ilopp81s86dc9v3fs...@4ax.com>, duke
><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 07:08:08 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >• Jesus said we are forgiven as we forgive others.
>>
>> >> >> But not for sins against God.
>> >> >>• Catholic shame and guilt raises its ugly head again. Better run to
>> >> >the nearest RC Confessional before that damned ol' Devil Devil gets you
>> >> >boys and girls.
>>
>> >> Yes, you better. People with intelligence well know that Jesus
>specifically
>> >> assigned the Apostles, as MEN, to forgive/retain sins on earth to be
>> >held so in heaven.
>>
>> >• neither the disciples or the BVM was authorized to forgive sin.
>>
>> NOt in their name for sure, but in the name of God, ohhhhhh yesssssssss. John
>> 20:21-23
>>
>> >The
>> >end of the push to make Mary a co-redemptrix came at Vatican 2
>>
>> Never agreed to.

>> >> John 20:21-23 (New International Version)
>• This is not evident in the King James translation.

Regards what?

>> >> 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am
>> >> sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive
>the Holy
>> >> Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you
>> >do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
>> >>
>> >> Remember, it's your funeral, not mine.
>> >• I already arranged to have no funeral Duke. Scatering my ashes in my
>> >garden works.
>>
>> Not good for anything.

>• Tomatos, avocados and squash are not good for anything?

Your ashes.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <3uhqp81s47t09bn1g...@4ax.com>, duke

• Humans being authorized to forgive sins.

>
>
> >> >> 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent
me, I am
> >> >> sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive
> >the Holy
> >> >> Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you
> >> >do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
> >> >>
> >> >> Remember, it's your funeral, not mine.
> >> >• I already arranged to have no funeral Duke. Scatering my ashes in my
> >> >garden works.
> >>
> >> Not good for anything.
>
> >• Tomatos, avocados and squash are not good for anything?
>
> Your ashes.
>

• ashes provide nutrients for plants.

[Andrew W]

>"duke" wrote in message news:9sapp89c44ehokd0f...@4ax.com...

Chortle
When are you going to give up your silly fiction talk?
We saw through it ages ago.
Zombie.

[Andrew W]

>"Dakota" wrote in message news:kni6l6$27a$1...@dont-email.me...

Its just the universal consciousness.

>
> How do you know what he/she/it wants?
>

It doesn't want anything. Its just our source.
Google it.
Its the direction many new scientists are starting to go.
Some call it dark matter, or the theory if everything.

[Andrew W]

>"duke" wrote in message news:e1bpp8t6adi2k0vmi...@4ax.com...

>
>On Wed, 22 May 2013 05:33:01 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 5/22/2013 4:09 AM, Andrew W wrote:
>>>> "duke" wrote in message
>>>> news:p2omp8ttqs69penrv...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 08:10:22 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>> <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "duke" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:8n5kp8tj29iphpu2j...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:28:22 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>>>> <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not so sure about that. I think love requires suspension of
>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>> to a great degree. That's why people say they can love a
>>>>>>>>> supernatural
>>>>>>>>> entity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John 13:34 (New International Version)

>>>>>>>> 34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have

>>>>> Is that why the verse says “A new command I give you:"?

>>>>> No use trying to back-pedal now, duke.
>>>>
>>>> He gave us 10 commandments as man came out of paganism into Judaism,
>>>> and then a
>>>> new command for a new way to bring man into Christianity from Judaism..
>>>>
>>>
>>> The ten commandments are largely obsolete. The latter is insufficient
>>> to change present society.
>>> And there's no evidence either were uttered by the true Creator source.
>>>
>>> Your pathetic behaviour in these groups is testament to the
>>> insidiousness and ineffectiveness of the teachings.
>
>>Who or what do you mean by "the true Creator source"? How do you know
>>what he/she/it wants?
>
>He personally decided which parts of the bible he will follow and which
>parts he
>won't.
>

You and others do the same, but you're not aware of it, obviously.

Its necessary, since the Bible is such a confused mess.

[Andrew W]

>"duke" wrote in message news:quapp8hm2snrgtqgt...@4ax.com...

>
>On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:09:45 +1000, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>>"duke" wrote in message
>>>news:p2omp8ttqs69penrv...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 08:10:22 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>"duke" wrote in message
>>>>>news:8n5kp8tj29iphpu2j...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:28:22 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>>><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm not so sure about that. I think love requires suspension of
>>>>>>>>reason
>>>>>>>>to a great degree. That's why people say they can love a
>>>>>>>>supernatural
>>>>>>>>entity.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>John 13:34 (New International Version)

>>>>>>> 34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved

>>>>>>> you,
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> you must love one another.
>>>>>
>>>>>>If you "must" love someone then it can't come naturally.
>>>>>
>>>>>If it doesn't come naturally to a Christian, you're not a Christian.
>>>
>>>>I see and hear of many church going Christians with plenty of problems
>>>>with
>>>>love. Present company included.
>>>
>>>You're just upset because I try to tell you your vision of God is wrong.
>
>>1/ I have nothing to be upset about.
>>2/ Its your vision of God that's wrong.
>
>Satan's minion speaks.
>

chortle
Only if seeking the real truth is satanic.
Obviously you think it is.
This is how your church has totally twisted your dumb little narrow mind.

>
>>>>Christians aren't magically able to love any better than other humans.
>>>
>>>Magic is not the issue. Specifically knowing that God set the standard
>>>and
>>>that
>>>we must obey or lose God is the issue.
>
>>We can't lose God. And the true Creator source does not just want obedient
>>robots. That's a human doctrine/distortion designed to control the masses.
>>How many times do you have to be told this?
>
>Ah, he actually thinks he can sin against God and be rewarded for it.
>

Sin is a dumb lie that your church and its predecessors made up.
God cannot be hurt by petty human misdemeanours. As if.
Gullible zombie.

[duke]

John 20:21-23 (King James Version)
21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me,
even so send I you.
22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive
ye the Holy Ghost:
23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever
sins ye retain, they are retained.

You're lying aren't you.

>> >> >> 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent
>me, I am
>> >> >> sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive
>> >the Holy
>> >> >> Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you
>> >> >do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Remember, it's your funeral, not mine.
>> >> >• I already arranged to have no funeral Duke. Scatering my ashes in my
>> >> >garden works.
>> >>
>> >> Not good for anything.
>>
>> >• Tomatos, avocados and squash are not good for anything?
>>
>> Your ashes.
>>
>• ashes provide nutrients for plants.

Not from cremation.

[duke]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:52:38 +1000, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>Sin is a dumb lie that your church and its predecessors made up.
>God cannot be hurt by petty human misdemeanours. As if.
>Gullible zombie.

Sad.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <55urp89ep3n5msj57...@4ax.com>, duke

• Humans and plants are made from the same elements Duke. Ashes to
ashes. Human feces are some good shit too.

[duke]

Ba Guh, 23 Znl 2013 06:46:55 -0700, e...@fbzvf.bet (•EYZrnfherf) jebgr:

>> >> >• Tomatos, avocados and squash are not good for anything?
>> >> Your ashes.
>> >• ashes provide nutrients for plants.
>> Not from cremation.

>• Humans and plants are made from the same elements Duke. Ashes to
>ashes. Human feces are some good shit too.

True, but the heating value is reduced to zero. No food for plants.

[duke]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:37:54 +1000, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>>>Who or what do you mean by "the true Creator source"? How do you know
>>>what he/she/it wants?
>>
>>He personally decided which parts of the bible he will follow and which
>>parts he
>>won't.

>You and others do the same, but you're not aware of it, obviously.

I'm aware that I don't.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <rhmsp85gtlvhb2huo...@4ax.com>, duke

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

> Ba Guh, 23 Znl 2013 06:46:55 -0700, e...@fbzvf.bet (•EYZrnfherf) jebgr:
>
>
> >> >> >• Tomatos, avocados and squash are not good for anything?
> >> >> Your ashes.
> >> >• ashes provide nutrients for plants.
> >> Not from cremation.
>
> >• Humans and plants are made from the same elements Duke. Ashes to
> >ashes. Human feces are some good shit too.
>
> True, but the heating value is reduced to zero. No food for plants.
>

• nada

[Smiler]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:09:12 -0500, duke wrote:

> On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:52:38 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Sin is a dumb lie that your church and its predecessors made up. God
>>cannot be hurt by petty human misdemeanours. As if. Gullible zombie.
>
> Sad.

It's very sad that you still believe you have an unevidenced, invisible
superfriend.

>
> The dukester, Repellent Wannabe - Christian
>
> ******** You simply can't fix puke's stupid.
> ********************************************

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

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

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Andrew W]

>"duke" wrote in message news:3mmsp8hu3cttrjt8h...@4ax.com...

>
>On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:37:54 +1000, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>>>Who or what do you mean by "the true Creator source"? How do you know
>>>>what he/she/it wants?
>>>
>>>He personally decided which parts of the bible he will follow and which
>>>parts he
>>>won't.
>
>>You and others do the same, but you're not aware of it, obviously.
>
>I'm aware that I don't.
>

You're only aware of what you're aware of. Nothing else.
Of course you imagine that to be a lot.
Ignorance is notoriously difficult for the individual to detect while
sitting in their armchair, or church.

[Andrew W]

>"Smiler" wrote in message
>news:pan.2013.05.23....@JoeKing.com...

>
>On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:09:12 -0500, duke wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:52:38 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>Sin is a dumb lie that your church and its predecessors made up. God
>>>cannot be hurt by petty human misdemeanours. As if. Gullible zombie.
>>
>> Sad.
>
>It's very sad that you still believe you have an unevidenced, invisible
>superfriend.
>

And an angry one.
So angry that it prepared a fireplace for its loved children to burn.
Lol!

[duke]

What is the heating value of burned out bone?

[duke]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:46:43 +1000, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>>"duke" wrote in message news:3mmsp8hu3cttrjt8h...@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:37:54 +1000, "Andrew W"
>><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>Who or what do you mean by "the true Creator source"? How do you know
>>>>>what he/she/it wants?
>>>>
>>>>He personally decided which parts of the bible he will follow and which
>>>>parts he
>>>>won't.
>>
>>>You and others do the same, but you're not aware of it, obviously.
>>I'm aware that I don't.

>You're only aware of what you're aware of. Nothing else.

Then I can't be wrong.

>Of course you imagine that to be a lot.
>Ignorance is notoriously difficult for the individual to detect while
>sitting in their armchair, or church.

[duke]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:12:01 +0100, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:09:12 -0500, duke wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:52:38 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>Sin is a dumb lie that your church and its predecessors made up. God
>>>cannot be hurt by petty human misdemeanours. As if. Gullible zombie.
>>
>> Sad.

>It's very sad that you still believe you have an unevidenced, invisible
>superfriend.

Looking out at the night sky at all the points of light, even cavemen understood
something greater than them is at work.

The dukester, American - American

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

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

[•RLMeasures]

In article <v4jup8pm33h9j86u6...@4ax.com>, duke

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

> On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:19:26 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <rhmsp85gtlvhb2huo...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Ba Guh, 23 Znl 2013 06:46:55 -0700, e...@fbzvf.bet (•EYZrnfherf) jebgr:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> >• Tomatos, avocados and squash are not good for anything?
> >> >> >> Your ashes.
> >> >> >• ashes provide nutrients for plants.
> >> >> Not from cremation.
> >>
> >> >• Humans and plants are made from the same elements Duke. Ashes to
> >> >ashes. Human feces are some good shit too.
> >>
> >> True, but the heating value is reduced to zero. No food for plants.
> >>
> >• nada
>
> What is the heating value of burned out bone?
>

• If heat was all that was needed for plant growth, Hell would be a
verdant jungle. One element that plants need is calcium. This is why
knowledgeable gardeners buy bags of bone meal at Green Thumb nurseries.
Also, high-quality potting soils contain bone meal in addition to bat shit
and ground up fish parts. If you want to grow good flavored tomatoes,
ground up fish parts and bat shit is definitely it.

cheers Duke.

[Smiler]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 06:21:32 -0500, duke wrote:

> On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:12:01 +0100, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:09:12 -0500, duke wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:52:38 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sin is a dumb lie that your church and its predecessors made up. God
>>>>cannot be hurt by petty human misdemeanours. As if. Gullible zombie.
>>>
>>> Sad.
>
>>It's very sad that you still believe you have an unevidenced, invisible
>>superfriend.
>
> Looking out at the night sky at all the points of light, even cavemen
> understood something greater than them is at work.

Yep. It's called the universe.

[Andrew W]

>"duke" wrote in message news:77jup8hesqjj4dn5d...@4ax.com...

>
>On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:46:43 +1000, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>>"duke" wrote in message
>>>news:3mmsp8hu3cttrjt8h...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:37:54 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Who or what do you mean by "the true Creator source"? How do you know
>>>>>>what he/she/it wants?
>>>>>
>>>>>He personally decided which parts of the bible he will follow and which
>>>>>parts he
>>>>>won't.
>>>
>>>>You and others do the same, but you're not aware of it, obviously.
>>>I'm aware that I don't.
>
>>You're only aware of what you're aware of. Nothing else.
>
>Then I can't be wrong.
>

Lol. That is the exact attitude of a self deluded ignoramus.

Intelligent people are humble and have nowhere near the hubris you have.

Are you surprised how people treat/deal with you in these groups?
Thick as.

[duke]

Don't forget the solubilizer for cremated human bones. Mix well with the ashes.

>cheers Duke.

[duke]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:13:25 +1000, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>>>You're only aware of what you're aware of. Nothing else.
>>Then I can't be wrong.
>Lol. That is the exact attitude of a self deluded ignoramus.

Can you be aware of something that you're not aware of?

[duke]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:29:19 +0100, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 May 2013 06:21:32 -0500, duke wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:12:01 +0100, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:09:12 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:52:38 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>> <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Sin is a dumb lie that your church and its predecessors made up. God
>>>>>cannot be hurt by petty human misdemeanours. As if. Gullible zombie.
>>>>
>>>> Sad.
>>
>>>It's very sad that you still believe you have an unevidenced, invisible
>>>superfriend.
>>
>> Looking out at the night sky at all the points of light, even cavemen
>> understood something greater than them is at work.
>
>Yep. It's called the universe.

Yep, thanks to God willing it into existence. To exist mandates creation.

The dukester, American - American

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

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

[•RLMeasures]

In article <h691q85ham060tc2r...@4ax.com>, duke

• tnx

[Smiler]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 06:56:37 -0500, duke wrote:

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:29:19 +0100, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 May 2013 06:21:32 -0500, duke wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:12:01 +0100, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:09:12 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:52:38 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>>> <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sin is a dumb lie that your church and its predecessors made up. God
>>>>>>cannot be hurt by petty human misdemeanours. As if. Gullible zombie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sad.
>>>
>>>>It's very sad that you still believe you have an unevidenced, invisible
>>>>superfriend.
>>>
>>> Looking out at the night sky at all the points of light, even cavemen
>>> understood something greater than them is at work.
>>
>>Yep. It's called the universe.
>
> Yep, thanks to God willing it into existence.

Sorry, puke, but that's just your unevidenced belief.
No gods are needed for the universe to exist.

> The dukester, Repellent Wannabe-Christian

[Andrew W]

>"duke" wrote in message news:ai91q8drk062hmanq...@4ax.com...

>
>On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:13:25 +1000, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>>>You're only aware of what you're aware of. Nothing else.
>>>Then I can't be wrong.
>>Lol. That is the exact attitude of a self deluded ignoramus.
>
>Can you be aware of something that you're not aware of?
>

Of course not.
So why do you believe you can't be wrong, if a human cannot be aware of
everything?
You might be wrong and not aware of it.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <knrdkn$ol1$1...@dont-email.me>, "Andrew W"

<spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> >"duke" wrote in message news:ai91q8drk062hmanq...@4ax.com...
> >
> >On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:13:25 +1000, "Andrew W"
> ><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>>You're only aware of what you're aware of. Nothing else.
> >>>Then I can't be wrong.
> >>Lol. That is the exact attitude of a self deluded ignoramus.
> >
> >Can you be aware of something that you're not aware of?
> >
>
> Of course not.
> So why do you believe you can't be wrong, if a human cannot be aware of
> everything?
> You might be wrong and not aware of it.

• Therein is the beauty of RC inculcation Andrew.

"In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly
submit to the decisions of the Holy Church."
(page 77, *A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion*, Fr. Joseph De
Harbe, S.J.. )

[Andrew W]

>"•RLMeasures" wrote in message news:r-2505131...@10.0.1.3...

>
>In article <knrdkn$ol1$1...@dont-email.me>, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> >"duke" wrote in message
>> >news:ai91q8drk062hmanq...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:13:25 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> ><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>You're only aware of what you're aware of. Nothing else.
>> >>>Then I can't be wrong.
>> >>Lol. That is the exact attitude of a self deluded ignoramus.
>> >
>> >Can you be aware of something that you're not aware of?
>> >
>>
>> Of course not.
>> So why do you believe you can't be wrong, if a human cannot be aware of
>> everything?
>> You might be wrong and not aware of it.
>
>• Therein is the beauty of RC inculcation Andrew.
>

Yep. Anyone can be inculcated (when they want something badly enough or are
scared enough), but only fools cling to it doggedly for their whole lives.

>
>"In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly
>submit to the decisions of the Holy Church."
>(page 77, *A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion*, Fr. Joseph De
>Harbe, S.J.. )
>

That says it all.
The church actually admits that people must obey it rather than God.
And no matter how many time we show and explain this, there are some here
who still just refuse to see or hear it.

[Andrew W]

>"duke" wrote in message news:tk91q8lamuqd0s23o...@4ax.com...

>
>On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:29:19 +0100, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 May 2013 06:21:32 -0500, duke wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:12:01 +0100, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:09:12 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:52:38 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>>>> <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sin is a dumb lie that your church and its predecessors made up. God
>>>>>>cannot be hurt by petty human misdemeanours. As if. Gullible zombie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sad.
>>>
>>>>It's very sad that you still believe you have an unevidenced, invisible
>>>>superfriend.
>>>
>>> Looking out at the night sky at all the points of light, even cavemen
>>> understood something greater than them is at work.
>>
>>Yep. It's called the universe.
>
>Yep, thanks to God willing it into existence. To exist mandates creation.
>

And the Bible (version of) 'God' is not that God, because an intolerant and
judgemental God would not be able to get that far.

Of course you will just say there is only one God, as usual.
That's wrong. There are countless versions.
The Bible God is just an ancient human version. And not a very good one.
Of course its good enough for you.

[Andrew W]

>"duke" wrote in message news:b8jup8t1ebb9kgv0c...@4ax.com...

>
>On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:12:01 +0100, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:09:12 -0500, duke wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:52:38 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sin is a dumb lie that your church and its predecessors made up. God
>>>>cannot be hurt by petty human misdemeanours. As if. Gullible zombie.
>>>
>>> Sad.
>
>>It's very sad that you still believe you have an unevidenced, invisible
>>superfriend.
>
>Looking out at the night sky at all the points of light, even cavemen
>understood
>something greater than them is at work.
>

And the Bible version of 'God' is the only possible explanation??
We have better explanations now.
Why are you so ignorant?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <tk91q8lamuqd0s23o...@4ax.com>,

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

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:29:19 +0100, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 24 May 2013 06:21:32 -0500, duke wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:12:01 +0100, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:09:12 -0500, duke wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:52:38 +1000, "Andrew W"
> >>>> <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Sin is a dumb lie that your church and its predecessors made up. God
> >>>>>cannot be hurt by petty human misdemeanours. As if. Gullible zombie.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sad.
> >>
> >>>It's very sad that you still believe you have an unevidenced, invisible
> >>>superfriend.
> >>
> >> Looking out at the night sky at all the points of light, even cavemen
> >> understood something greater than them is at work.
> >
> >Yep. It's called the universe.
>
> Yep, thanks to God willing it into existence. To exist mandates creation.

Why?

--

JD

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

[•RLMeasures]

In article <knrkvp$n4h$1...@dont-email.me>, "Andrew W"

<spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> >"•RLMeasures" wrote in message news:r-2505131...@10.0.1.3...
> >
> >In article <knrdkn$ol1$1...@dont-email.me>, "Andrew W"
> ><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> >"duke" wrote in message
> >> >news:ai91q8drk062hmanq...@4ax.com...
> >> >
> >> >On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:13:25 +1000, "Andrew W"
> >> ><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>>You're only aware of what you're aware of. Nothing else.
> >> >>>Then I can't be wrong.
> >> >>Lol. That is the exact attitude of a self deluded ignoramus.
> >> >
> >> >Can you be aware of something that you're not aware of?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Of course not.
> >> So why do you believe you can't be wrong, if a human cannot be aware of
> >> everything?
> >> You might be wrong and not aware of it.
> >
> >• Therein is the beauty of RC inculcation Andrew.
> >
>
> Yep. Anyone can be inculcated (when they want something badly enough or are
> scared enough), but only fools cling to it doggedly for their whole lives.
>

�€ Behold: The write once only memory.

> >
> >"In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly
> >submit to the decisions of the Holy Church."
> >(page 77, *A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion*, Fr. Joseph De
> >Harbe, S.J.. )
> >
>
> That says it all.
> The church actually admits that people must obey it rather than God.
> And no matter how many time we show and explain this, there are some here

�€ Puck was right.

[Andrew W]

>"•RLMeasures" wrote in message news:r-2505132...@10.0.1.3...

>
>In article <knrkvp$n4h$1...@dont-email.me>, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>

>> >"•RLMeasures" wrote in message news:r-2505131...@10.0.1.3...

>> >
>> >In article <knrdkn$ol1$1...@dont-email.me>, "Andrew W"
>> ><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >"duke" wrote in message
>> >> >news:ai91q8drk062hmanq...@4ax.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:13:25 +1000, "Andrew W"
>> >> ><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>>>You're only aware of what you're aware of. Nothing else.
>> >> >>>Then I can't be wrong.
>> >> >>Lol. That is the exact attitude of a self deluded ignoramus.
>> >> >
>> >> >Can you be aware of something that you're not aware of?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Of course not.
>> >> So why do you believe you can't be wrong, if a human cannot be aware
>> >> of
>> >> everything?
>> >> You might be wrong and not aware of it.
>> >

>> >• Therein is the beauty of RC inculcation Andrew.

>> >
>>
>> Yep. Anyone can be inculcated (when they want something badly enough or
>> are
>> scared enough), but only fools cling to it doggedly for their whole
>> lives.
>>
>€€ Behold: The write once only memory.
>> >
>> >"In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly
>> >submit to the decisions of the Holy Church."
>> >(page 77, *A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion*, Fr. Joseph De
>> >Harbe, S.J.. )
>> >
>>
>> That says it all.
>> The church actually admits that people must obey it rather than God.
>> And no matter how many time we show and explain this, there are some here
>
>€€ Puck was right.
>> who still just refuse to see or hear it.
>

I'm not sure who Puck is, but anyway.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <knsadt$4jd$1...@dont-email.me>, "Andrew W"

*** Puck was a character in a Shakespeare play.
"Lord, what fools these mortals be!" -- Puck.
--From A Midsummer Night's Dream (Act 3, scene 2)