Archbishop Burke: No Communion or Church Funeral for Pro-Choice Catholics
james g. keegan jr.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Archbishop-Burke-No-Commu-by-Thomas-Farr
ell-091109-296.html
November 13, 2009
Archbishop Burke: No Communion or Church Funeral for Pro-Choice Catholics
By Thomas Farrell
<Duluth, MN (OpEdNews) November 9, 2009 � Is the Roman Catholic Church
un-American? Does it presume to deny political free speech to American
Catholics � not just to Catholic voters but also to Catholic
politicians? Or is it just a minority view of certain Catholics that
pro-choice Catholic politicians and voters should be excommunicated and
denied a church funeral?
The November 16th issue of Time magazine calls attention to the views of
Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke, an expert in canon law, and his fans. At
the present time, he holds a Vatican post. His official title is Prefect
of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. In effect, he is the
chief justice of the high-ranking judicial body. In the past, he served
as archbishop of St. Louis and as bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin.
In St. Louis, Burke gained notoriety for his outspoken views regarding
the outspoken views of American Catholics who had dared to endorse
pro-choice political views, which are contrary to the official views of
the Roman Catholic Church on abortion. His basic argument centers on the
charge of scandal � the supposed scandal to other American Catholics of
endorsing views that are different from the official views of the Roman
Catholic Church.
According to Burke, American Catholics who are pro choice are giving
scandal to Catholics who are against abortion when the pro-choice
Catholics make their views known in public, so that antiabortion
Catholics come to know about their pro-choice views. Naughty, naughty
pro-choice Catholics. According to Burke, they should be punished. For
example, pro-choice American Catholic politicians should be denied
communion at Mass and also be denied a church funeral when they die.
Yes, Burke is on record as saying that Senator Ted Kennedy should have
been denied a church funeral. Burke is quoted in Time as saying at a
September 18th dinner in Washington that �neither Holy Communion nor
funeral rites should be administered to [pro-choice] politicians� (p.
36). Other than the late Senator Kennedy, other pro-choice Catholic
politicians include Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi, among
others.
But wait! What exactly is the binding status of the Catholic Church's
views on abortion? No pope has ever spoken ex cathedra about abortion.
In short, the ban on abortion has not been defined ex cathedra as
binding in conscience on all Catholics everywhere. In plain English, the
ban on abortion is debatable. As a result, the Catholic Church's ban on
abortion is circumscribed, not absolute. Therefore, Burke's argument
about supposed scandal is a bogus argument at best, because the ban has
not been dined as universally binding.
Moreover, the Catholic Church's ban on abortion is based on dubious
moral reasoning. The underlying premise behind the ban was set forth in
Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical �Humanae Vitae� in which he reaffirmed
the Catholic Church's dubious ban against all forms of artificial
contraception. The basic argument for banning artificial contraception
is that the act of conjugal intercourse should be open to God's possible
creative act of conception. In short, nothing should close off this
possibility. But we may wonder why not. Shouldn't the woman have the
right to say �yes� or �no� to God's possible initiative in bringing
about conception through natural means? But if the woman has no choice
in the matter, isn't her conception tantamount to rape by God against
her free consent to conception?
But the argument for leaving the conjugal act open to God's initiative
makes the process of conception smack of fate, a pre-Christian view of
life. Over against the idea of fate, the Christian tradition of thought
has for centuries emphasized the idea of free choice in any given set of
circumstances. In light of the paramount importance of free choice in
determining culpability, on the one hand, and, on the other, moral
merit, the reasoning of the encyclical �Humanae Vitae� should be
expunged from the record and replaced by the idea that the woman should
have free choice in whether or not to accept conception. It's her body.
So it should be her call.
Next, we need to consider the infrahuman lifeform that emerges at the
moment of conception, the zygote. Not all zygotes that come into
existence go on to become embryos embedded in a woman's womb. Natural
processes regularly lead to the destruction of some zygotes and embryos,
just as natural processes can later lead to the destruction of a fetus.
However, in addition to natural processes that can lead to the
destruction of these infrahuman lifeforms, there are also processes
initiated through deliberate human agency that can lead to the
destruction of these infrahuman lifeforms during the first trimester of
the pregnancy. By definition, the destruction of these infrahuman
lifeforms during the first trimester involves abortion, the aborting of
infrahuman lifeforms.
But is it murder to destroy infrahuman lifeforms through deliberate
human agency during the first trimester, as certain Catholic
antiabortion subversives claim? No, it is not. Let me explain why not.
By definition, murder involves the deliberate taking of an innocent
human life through human agency. In accord with this definition, the
state's use of capital punishment is not murder because the life that is
deliberately taken is not an innocent human life. The executed person
has been found guilt through the due processes of the law of crimes that
are punishable by capital punishment. This puts an enormous burden of
proof on the state. In recent years we have seen a number of death-row
convictions overturned through DNA evidence. As those cases show, the
death penalty should arguably be used sparingly. Life sentences without
the possibility of parole might be used instead. But the infrahuman
lifeform during the first trimester can be presumed to be innocent of
any crimes that would be punishable by the death penalty.
The 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized about during the first
trimester was revolutionary in granting to women the legal right to
deliberately terminate their pregnancies during the first trimester.
This ruling was based on the idea that it is her body, so it is her
choice to carry the pregnancy to term, or to terminate it during the
first trimester. Moreover, the ruling legalized abortion in the first
trimester on the presupposition that the infrahuman lifeform is not a
fully human lifeform. To repeat, the deliberate destruction of a fully
human lifeform through human agency is by definition murder. But the
ruling did not legalize murder, because the infrahuman lifeform that is
destroyed during the first trimester is not a fully human lifeform.
http://www.opednews.com/populum/print_friendly.php?p=Archbishop-Burke-No-
Commu-by-Thomas-Farrell-091109-296.html
x
> Original Content at
> http://www.opednews.com/articles/Archbishop-Burke-No-Commu-by-Thomas-Farrell-091109-296.html
The author of that piece makes so many crude errors it's laughable.
[snip]
>
> But wait! What exactly is the binding status of the Catholic Church's
> views on abortion? No pope has ever spoken ex cathedra about abortion.
> In short, the ban on abortion has not been defined ex cathedra as
> binding in conscience on all Catholics everywhere.
True but misleading. The penalty for abortion in the code of canon law
is automatic (but unpublicised) excommunication.
> In plain English, the
> ban on abortion is debatable. As a result, the Catholic Church's ban on
> abortion is circumscribed, not absolute. Therefore, Burke's argument
> about supposed scandal is a bogus argument at best, because the ban has
> not been dined as universally binding.
Burke is objecting to people who have been excommunicated flying the
Catholic flag in order to gain Catholic votes. It's false advertising.
>
> Moreover, the Catholic Church's ban on abortion is based on dubious
> moral reasoning. The underlying premise behind the ban was set forth in
> Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical �Humanae Vitae� in which he reaffirmed
> the Catholic Church's dubious ban against all forms of artificial
> contraception. The basic argument for banning artificial contraception
> is that the act of conjugal intercourse should be open to God's possible
> creative act of conception. In short, nothing should close off this
> possibility. But we may wonder why not. Shouldn't the woman have the
> right to say �yes� or �no� to God's possible initiative in bringing
> about conception through natural means? But if the woman has no choice
> in the matter, isn't her conception tantamount to rape by God against
> her free consent to conception?
Wrong again. Humane Vitae argued against contraception. The argument
abortion is the "it's murder" argument.
>
> Next, we need to consider the infrahuman lifeform that emerges at the
> moment of conception, the zygote.
It's not infrahuman. If it were, a new organism would have to arise
between syngamy and birth -- but it doesn't.
[rest of stupid pro-"choice" propanda flushed]
The Chief Instigator
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>> Original Content at
>> http://www.opednews.com/articles/Archbishop-Burke-No-Commu-by-Thomas-Farrell-091109-296.html
>
> The author of that piece makes so many crude errors it's laughable.
Just a coincidence that you fit that description far better than anyone
you'll ever encounter in person, wot?
> [snip]
>>
>> But wait! What exactly is the binding status of the Catholic Church's
>> views on abortion? No pope has ever spoken ex cathedra about abortion.
>> In short, the ban on abortion has not been defined ex cathedra as
>> binding in conscience on all Catholics everywhere.
>
> True but misleading. The penalty for abortion in the code of canon law
> is automatic (but unpublicised) excommunication.
...and the other six billion of us who aren't subject to the Cathoholic
Church should obey because?
>> In plain English, the ban on abortion is debatable. As a result, the
>> Catholic Church's ban on abortion is circumscribed, not absolute.
>> Therefore, Burke's argument about supposed scandal is a bogus argument at
>> best, because the ban has not been dined as universally binding.
>
> Burke is objecting to people who have been excommunicated flying the
> Catholic flag in order to gain Catholic votes. It's false advertising.
>
>> Moreover, the Catholic Church's ban on abortion is based on dubious moral
>> reasoning. The underlying premise behind the ban was set forth in Pope
>> Paul VI's 1968 encyclical ?Humanae Vitae? in which he reaffirmed the
>> Catholic Church's dubious ban against all forms of artificial
>> contraception. The basic argument for banning artificial contraception
>> is that the act of conjugal intercourse should be open to God's possible
>> creative act of conception. In short, nothing should close off this
>> possibility. But we may wonder why not. Shouldn't the woman have the
>> right to say ?yes? or ?no? to God's possible initiative in bringing
>> about conception through natural means? But if the woman has no choice
>> in the matter, isn't her conception tantamount to rape by God against her
>> free consent to conception?
>
> Wrong again. Humane Vitae argued against contraception. The argument
> abortion is the "it's murder" argument.
...and the hypocritical assholes who have been addicted to complete power
for twenty centuries keep getting their asses slapped back into rationality.
>> Next, we need to consider the infrahuman lifeform that emerges at the
>> moment of conception, the zygote.
>
> It's not infrahuman. If it were, a new organism would have to arise
> between syngamy and birth -- but it doesn't.
>
> [rest of stupid pro-"choice" propanda flushed]
Enjoy your fantasy, as reality will impartially destroy your obsession.
Your day came and went a few centuries before you were hatched. That's your
luck of the draw.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 6, Lake Erie 0 (November 13)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, November 14 at Lake Erie, 12:05
bam
"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote
>
> ...and the other six billion of us who aren't subject to the Cathoholic
> Church should obey because?
Because the Pope is the Viceroy.
The Vicar of Christ - Jesus Christ, the King of Kings.
BAM
The Chief Instigator
No church gets to abuse its power, Busted Bryan. Go back to ramming your
head against a brick wall, as you've not much left to damage up there. (I'm
guaranteed to have been a participant in far fewer abortions than you...my
count is zero. Choke on that and make the world a bit saner for your
absence.)
bam
"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhftf4s....@eris.io.com...
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:54:03 -0500, bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> "The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote
>>
>>>
>>> ...and the other six billion of us who aren't subject to the Cathoholic
>>> Church should obey because?
>>
>> Because the Pope is the Viceroy.
>>
>> The Vicar of Christ - Jesus Christ, the King of Kings.
>>
>> BAM
>
> No church gets to abuse its power, Busted Bryan. Go back to ramming your
> head against a brick wall, as you've not much left to damage up there.
> (I'm
> guaranteed to have been a participant in far fewer abortions than you...my
> count is zero. Choke on that and make the world a bit saner for your
> absence.)
Do you have anything coherent to say? I am happy to know that you have not
been a partner to abortion, for two reasons. 1. It's a good thing in itself
not to have particpated, and 2) there's an implicit acknowledgement that you
believe it to be wrong.
BAM
Ray Fischer
>> ...and the other six billion of us who aren't subject to the Cathoholic
>> Church should obey because?
>
>Because the Pope is the Viceroy.
Self-proclaimed.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
bam
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4afee08c$0$1581$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote
>
>>> ...and the other six billion of us who aren't subject to the Cathoholic
>>> Church should obey because?
>>
>>Because the Pope is the Viceroy.
>
> Self-proclaimed.
No Ray. He was elected by the College of Cardinals. Try again.
Ray Fischer
>>>> ...and the other six billion of us who aren't subject to the Cathoholic
>>>> Church should obey because?
>>>
>>>Because the Pope is the Viceroy.
>>
>> Self-proclaimed.
>
>No Ray. He was elected by the College of Cardinals.
Not by God.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
x
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:49:35 GMT, x <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>>> Original Content at
>>> http://www.opednews.com/articles/Archbishop-Burke-No-Commu-by-Thomas-Farrell-091109-296.html
>> The author of that piece makes so many crude errors it's laughable.
>
> Just a coincidence that you fit that description far better than anyone
> you'll ever encounter in person, wot?
Specifically how?
>> [snip]
>>> But wait! What exactly is the binding status of the Catholic Church's
>>> views on abortion? No pope has ever spoken ex cathedra about abortion.
>>> In short, the ban on abortion has not been defined ex cathedra as
>>> binding in conscience on all Catholics everywhere.
>> True but misleading. The penalty for abortion in the code of canon law
>> is automatic (but unpublicised) excommunication.
>
> ...and the other six billion of us who aren't subject to the Cathoholic
> Church should obey because?
Who said they should obey? What's that got to do with it.
>>> In plain English, the ban on abortion is debatable. As a result, the
>>> Catholic Church's ban on abortion is circumscribed, not absolute.
>>> Therefore, Burke's argument about supposed scandal is a bogus argument at
>>> best, because the ban has not been dined as universally binding.
>> Burke is objecting to people who have been excommunicated flying the
>> Catholic flag in order to gain Catholic votes. It's false advertising.
>>
>>> Moreover, the Catholic Church's ban on abortion is based on dubious moral
>>> reasoning. The underlying premise behind the ban was set forth in Pope
>>> Paul VI's 1968 encyclical ?Humanae Vitae? in which he reaffirmed the
>>> Catholic Church's dubious ban against all forms of artificial
>>> contraception. The basic argument for banning artificial contraception
>>> is that the act of conjugal intercourse should be open to God's possible
>>> creative act of conception. In short, nothing should close off this
>>> possibility. But we may wonder why not. Shouldn't the woman have the
>>> right to say ?yes? or ?no? to God's possible initiative in bringing
>>> about conception through natural means? But if the woman has no choice
>>> in the matter, isn't her conception tantamount to rape by God against her
>>> free consent to conception?
>> Wrong again. Humane Vitae argued against contraception. The argument
>> abortion is the "it's murder" argument.
>
> ...and the hypocritical assholes who have been addicted to complete power
> for twenty centuries keep getting their asses slapped back into rationality.
Their only real power was to inspire. That's why you attack them.
You are afraid they will inspire respect for human life in utero.
>>> Next, we need to consider the infrahuman lifeform that emerges at the
>>> moment of conception, the zygote.
>> It's not infrahuman. If it were, a new organism would have to arise
>> between syngamy and birth -- but it doesn't.
>>
>> [rest of stupid pro-"choice" propanda flushed]
>
> Enjoy your fantasy, as reality will impartially destroy your obsession.
> Your day came and went a few centuries before you were hatched. That's your
> luck of the draw.
>
I don't fear reality.
x
james g. keegan jr.
x <x...@y.com> wrote:
> The Chief Instigator wrote:
> > Enjoy your fantasy, as reality will impartially destroy your obsession.
> > Your day came and went a few centuries before you were hatched. That's
> > your
> > luck of the draw.
> >
>
> I don't fear reality.
which is why you post "Your bum smells" so often and are too ashamed to
post with your name. sure sonny.
The Chief Instigator
I don't believe it's wrong if the woman chooses to abort, in almost all
instances. It's her body, not yours, and you get no choice at all, as it's
obvious no normal woman would let you near her. You're the idiot way out
under that sliver at the left end of the bell curve.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Lake Erie 3, Houston 1 (November 14)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, November 15 vs. Chicago, 4:05
The Chief Instigator
...who have precisely zero authority over anyone who couldn't care less
about your (and their) idiot religion.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
The Chief Instigator
> The Chief Instigator wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:49:35 GMT, x <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>>>> Original Content at
>>>> http://www.opednews.com/articles/Archbishop-Burke-No-Commu-by-Thomas-Farrell-091109-296.html
>>> The author of that piece makes so many crude errors it's laughable.
>>
>> Just a coincidence that you fit that description far better than anyone
>> you'll ever encounter in person, wot?
>
> Specifically how?
>
>>> [snip]
>>>> But wait! What exactly is the binding status of the Catholic Church's
>>>> views on abortion? No pope has ever spoken ex cathedra about abortion.
>>>> In short, the ban on abortion has not been defined ex cathedra as
>>>> binding in conscience on all Catholics everywhere.
>>> True but misleading. The penalty for abortion in the code of canon law
>>> is automatic (but unpublicised) excommunication.
>>
>> ...and the other six billion of us who aren't subject to the Cathoholic
>> Church should obey because?
>
> Who said they should obey? What's that got to do with it.
So, you think there never was an Inquisition, or that the CrapLick Church
tried to silence Galileo? They're still assholes who want complete control
over all of humanity, reality be damned.
>>>> In plain English, the ban on abortion is debatable. As a result, the
>>>> Catholic Church's ban on abortion is circumscribed, not absolute.
>>>> Therefore, Burke's argument about supposed scandal is a bogus argument at
>>>> best, because the ban has not been dined as universally binding.
>>> Burke is objecting to people who have been excommunicated flying the
>>> Catholic flag in order to gain Catholic votes. It's false advertising.
>>>
>>>> Moreover, the Catholic Church's ban on abortion is based on dubious moral
>>>> reasoning. The underlying premise behind the ban was set forth in Pope
>>>> Paul VI's 1968 encyclical ?Humanae Vitae? in which he reaffirmed the
>>>> Catholic Church's dubious ban against all forms of artificial
>>>> contraception. The basic argument for banning artificial contraception
>>>> is that the act of conjugal intercourse should be open to God's possible
>>>> creative act of conception. In short, nothing should close off this
>>>> possibility. But we may wonder why not. Shouldn't the woman have the
>>>> right to say ?yes? or ?no? to God's possible initiative in bringing
>>>> about conception through natural means? But if the woman has no choice
>>>> in the matter, isn't her conception tantamount to rape by God against her
>>>> free consent to conception?
>>> Wrong again. Humane Vitae argued against contraception. The argument
>>> abortion is the "it's murder" argument.
>>
>> ...and the hypocritical assholes who have been addicted to complete power
>> for twenty centuries keep getting their asses slapped back into rationality.
>
> Their only real power was to inspire. That's why you attack them.
> You are afraid they will inspire respect for human life in utero.
You're still a malicious idiot, kid...there's enough respect for in-utero
life to the point we'll have seven billion people on this planet in the next
decade or two, without sufficient resources to keep them in good shape.
>>>> Next, we need to consider the infrahuman lifeform that emerges at the
>>>> moment of conception, the zygote.
>>> It's not infrahuman. If it were, a new organism would have to arise
>>> between syngamy and birth -- but it doesn't.
>>>
>>> [rest of stupid pro-"choice" propanda flushed]
>>
>> Enjoy your fantasy, as reality will impartially destroy your obsession.
>> Your day came and went a few centuries before you were hatched. That's your
>> luck of the draw.
>
> I don't fear reality.
It's just a coincidence that you are obsessed with forcing your on the rest
of us. You get no sale from me and mine. Get used to it.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
bam
Wow. What an intellect.
BAM
Mark Sebree
> "The Chief Instigator" <patr...@io.com> wrote
>
>
>
> > ...and the other six billion of us who aren't subject to the Cathoholic
> > Church should obey because?
>
> Because the Pope is the Viceroy.
>
> The Vicar of Christ - Jesus Christ, the King of Kings.
>
> BAM
Sorry, that is not sufficient reason for anyone to be subject to the
Catholic Church or its religious hierarchy, nor is it sufficient
reason for anyone to obey their dictates and opinions.
Mark Sebree
The Chief Instigator
You confirm my estimation of you, Babbling & Addled McClain.
bam
I'll be danged. This guy knows everything!
BAM
The Chief Instigator
You don't know much of anything outside of the toxic waste dump between your
ears. (I'm keeping it short because of your attention span.)
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Chicago 2, Houston 1 (November 15)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 18 vs. Peoria, 7:05
JohnN
>
>
>
> > ...and the other six billion of us who aren't subject to the Cathoholic
> > Church should obey because?
>
> Because the Pope is the Viceroy.
>
> The Vicar of Christ - Jesus Christ, the King of Kings.
>
> BAM
The USA is a democratic republic. Kings need not be tolerated and
more so for a fantasy king of king.
JohnN
bam
.....and such a prince.......
BAM
bam
"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
news:3qj1g5p8uslmt3iga...@4ax.com...> in alt.abortion with message-id
God does not provide proof. You're being tested. Choose!
BAM
bam
"JohnN" <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd4dbe87-e6bb-4708...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Don't be naive. You couldn't sell your sacred vote for $10 on ebay.
BAM
The Chief Instigator
I chose long ago, and you're a brain-damaged Usenet baboon, Bryan. Some of
us don't bother with your phantasms.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
The Chief Instigator
I don't sell my vote, Babbling Bryan.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
bam
"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhg6ncj....@eris.io.com...
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:24:20 -0500, bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> "Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
>> news:3qj1g5p8uslmt3iga...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:54:03 -0500, "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
>>> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>> <hP-dnXJw3aDgK2PX...@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and the other six billion of us who aren't subject to the
>>>>> Cathoholic
>>>>> Church should obey because?
>>>>
>>>>Because the Pope is the Viceroy.
>>>>
>>>>The Vicar of Christ - Jesus Christ, the King of Kings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Prove any of that.
>>
>> God does not provide proof. You're being tested. Choose!
>
> I chose long ago, and you're a brain-damaged Usenet baboon, Bryan. Some
> of
> us don't bother with your phantasms.
If I'm right, you end up in Hell. If I'm wrong, we both end up in the dirt
and completely cease to exist. So you can't win. I can.
BAM
bam
"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhg6nfu....@eris.io.com...
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:25:07 -0500, bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> "JohnN" <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:cd4dbe87-e6bb-4708...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 14, 8:54 am, "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> "The Chief Instigator" <patr...@io.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > ...and the other six billion of us who aren't subject to the
>>> > Cathoholic
>>> > Church should obey because?
>>>
>>> Because the Pope is the Viceroy.
>>>
>>> The Vicar of Christ - Jesus Christ, the King of Kings.
>>>
>>> BAM
>>
>>>The USA is a democratic republic. Kings need not be tolerated and
>>>more so for a fantasy king of king.
>>
>> Don't be naive. You couldn't sell your sacred vote for $10 on ebay.
>
> I don't sell my vote, Babbling Bryan.
Your boy Obama buys them.
BAM
Ray Fischer
>"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>> bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
>>> God does not provide proof. You're being tested. Choose!
>>
>> I chose long ago, and you're a brain-damaged Usenet baboon, Bryan. Some
>> of
>> us don't bother with your phantasms.
>
>If I'm right, you end up in Hell. If I'm wrong, we both end up in the dirt
>and completely cease to exist. So you can't win. I can.
If you're wrong you both end up in hell.
What are the odds that you picked the right religion AND correctly
followed its tenets?
Nada.
Even your Bible says that you're a liar damned to hell.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Chief Instigator
Given your farce of a Usenet history, you couldn't win a race if you were
the only participant.
The Chief Instigator
I didn't vote for Obama, Bitch Bryan. (I don't vote for the two assholes
from the one party passing itself off as two.)
bam
"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:38:26 -0500, "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
> in alt.abortion with message-id
It's my life. Don't you at least believe in "live and let live?". Whoops, I
forgot - you're not a believer- you're a denier.
BAM
bam
> bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>>> bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
>
>>>> God does not provide proof. You're being tested. Choose!
>>>
>>> I chose long ago, and you're a brain-damaged Usenet baboon, Bryan. Some
>>> of
>>> us don't bother with your phantasms.
>>
>>If I'm right, you end up in Hell. If I'm wrong, we both end up in the dirt
>>and completely cease to exist. So you can't win. I can.
>
> If you're wrong you both end up in hell.
I'd ask you to explain that inane comment, Ray, but I'm afraid you'll
exhaust us all.
>
> What are the odds that you picked the right religion AND correctly
> followed its tenets?
>
> Nada.
I guess I don't get to answer that..........
> Even your Bible says that you're a liar damned to hell.
My Bible "says" nothing. It's a piece of paper with symbols on it.
BAM
bam
Correct. Without an opponent, there's no win possible.
BAM
bam
"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:24:20 -0500, "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
> in alt.abortion with message-id
Prove there's no God. (dis oughta be good!)
BAM
bam
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:39:17 -0500, bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> "The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnhg6nfu....@eris.io.com...
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:25:07 -0500, bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "JohnN" <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:cd4dbe87-e6bb-4708...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Nov 14, 8:54 am, "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> "The Chief Instigator" <patr...@io.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > ...and the other six billion of us who aren't subject to the
>>>>> > Cathoholic
>>>>> > Church should obey because?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the Pope is the Viceroy.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Vicar of Christ - Jesus Christ, the King of Kings.
>>>>>
>>>>> BAM
>>>>
>>>>>The USA is a democratic republic. Kings need not be tolerated and
>>>>>more so for a fantasy king of king.
>>>>
>>>> Don't be naive. You couldn't sell your sacred vote for $10 on ebay.
>>>
>>> I don't sell my vote, Babbling Bryan.
>>
>> Your boy Obama buys them.
>
> I didn't vote for Obama, Bitch Bryan. (I don't vote for the two assholes
> from the one party passing itself off as two.)
Touche ol' boy!
BAM
Mark Sebree
> "Attila" <<procho...@here.now> wrote in message
>
> news:v5j7g515hm5ognp6a...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:24:20 -0500, "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net>
> > in alt.abortion with message-id
> > <qKSdnUuNeclZ0Z7WnZ2dnUVZ_sedn...@giganews.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Attila" <<procho...@here.now> wrote in message
> >>news:3qj1g5p8uslmt3iga...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:54:03 -0500, "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net>
> >>> in alt.abortion with message-id
> >>> <hP-dnXJw3aDgK2PXnZ2dnUVZ_iydn...@giganews.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@io.com> wrote
>
> >>>>> ...and the other six billion of us who aren't subject to the
> >>>>> Cathoholic
> >>>>> Church should obey because?
>
> >>>>Because the Pope is the Viceroy.
>
> >>>>The Vicar of Christ - Jesus Christ, the King of Kings.
>
> >>> Prove any of that.
>
> >>God does not provide proof. You're being tested. Choose!
>
> > I see you can't provide any proof.
>
> Prove there's no God. (dis oughta be good!)
Logical fallacy on bam's part, shifting the burden of proof. In
logical arguments, it is the side that makes the positive assertion
that is responsible for supporting that assertion. The reason is that
it is far easier and more sensible to prove that something exists than
it is to prove that something does not exist. And this in turn is
because one cannot search the entirety of even the earth, much less
time, space, and the universe, in an exhaustive search which would
needed to determine that something does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#The_fallacy_of_demanding_negative_proof
Mark Sebree
>
> BAM
The Chief Instigator
I've only been aware of that since I was barely a teenager (as in, 41 years
ago).
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 1, Peoria 0 (November 18)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 20 vs. Milwaukee, 7:35
Ray Fischer
>>>and completely cease to exist. So you can't win. I can.
>>>
>> You have wasted a large part of your life worrying about it.
>
>It's my life. Don't you at least believe in "live and let live?".
You win the award for hypocrite of the month.
> Whoops, I
>forgot - you're not a believer- you're a denier.
You're not a believer - you're a liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>>>> bam <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
>>>>> God does not provide proof. You're being tested. Choose!
>>>>
>>>> I chose long ago, and you're a brain-damaged Usenet baboon, Bryan. Some
>>>> of
>>>> us don't bother with your phantasms.
>>>
>>>If I'm right, you end up in Hell. If I'm wrong, we both end up in the dirt
>>>and completely cease to exist. So you can't win. I can.
>>
>> If you're wrong you both end up in hell.
>
>I'd ask you to explain that inane comment, Ray, but I'm afraid you'll
>exhaust us all.
You worship a false god. You try to force people to stray from the
true path. For that you are surely damned.
>> What are the odds that you picked the right religion AND correctly
>> followed its tenets?
>>
>> Nada.
>
>I guess I don't get to answer that..........
You just did.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
JohnN
> "JohnN" <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Or yours for less in a theocracy.
JohnN