Duke sez aborted fetuses don't go to heaven.

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

On Mar 29, 10:10 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:37:29 -0400, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
> >Robert, none of the chicken-shit forced-birthers will give me a straight
> >answer to a very simple question.
>
> I've tried for years to help you there. If you don'tknow by now, you won't get
> it from now.
>
> > They insist that "murdering the fetus"
> >is a Bad Thing. However, before a fetus is born, it cannot have committed
> >a sin, and therefore should go straight to Heaven if it dies.
>
> No, it does not. Without baptism which removes the guilt of original sin,
> heaven is not reachable. All we can do is assume that God has a way that will
> one day allow unbaptized life to achieve the kingdom somehow.
>
> > Once born,
> >it inherits the Original Sin
>
> Nope, at conception.
>
> >, and has to be saved by Jesus and all that,
> >or it will go to Hell. So, how is being "murdered in the womb" a Bad
> >Thing for the fetus?
>
> It's human live being murdered for mommie's comfort and convenience. And that
> relegates mommie to the eternal fires BUT the fetus to hopefully be elevated one
> day. The fetus has a chance, mommie virtually none.

So how do you know these aborted fetuses haven't gone to heaven
already? Maybe god had a change of policy in the last 2000 years and
neglected to tell you about it? Do you expect and demand god to keep
you informed of every little change of mind he has?

Be careful when you get to heaven, Duke. That nasty squish/crunch
under your foot is you accidentally stepping on an aborted fetus.

[duke]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:28:33 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>On Mar 29, 10:10 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:37:29 -0400, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>> >Robert, none of the chicken-shit forced-birthers will give me a straight
>> >answer to a very simple question.
>>
>> I've tried for years to help you there. If you don'tknow by now, you won't get
>> it from now.
>>
>> > They insist that "murdering the fetus"
>> >is a Bad Thing. However, before a fetus is born, it cannot have committed
>> >a sin, and therefore should go straight to Heaven if it dies.
>>
>> No, it does not. Without baptism which removes the guilt of original sin,
>> heaven is not reachable. All we can do is assume that God has a way that will
>> one day allow unbaptized life to achieve the kingdom somehow.
>>
>> > Once born,
>> >it inherits the Original Sin
>>
>> Nope, at conception.
>>
>> >, and has to be saved by Jesus and all that,
>> >or it will go to Hell. So, how is being "murdered in the womb" a Bad
>> >Thing for the fetus?
>>
>> It's human live being murdered for mommie's comfort and convenience. And that
>> relegates mommie to the eternal fires BUT the fetus to hopefully be elevated one
>> day. The fetus has a chance, mommie virtually none.

>So how do you know these aborted fetuses haven't gone to heaven
>already?

God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom of God.

>Maybe god had a change of policy in the last 2000 years and
>neglected to tell you about it? Do you expect and demand god to keep
>you informed of every little change of mind he has?

Dogma never changes.

>Be careful when you get to heaven, Duke. That nasty squish/crunch
>under your foot is you accidentally stepping on an aborted fetus.

So how do you know? Heeheehee.

The dukester, American - American

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

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

On Apr 1, 9:29 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

How would you know what god says? Are you saying that god is incapable
of changing the rules, his own rules, so that these poor fetuses
(fetii?) can go to heaven? Or is god forced to follow rules made up by
the catholic church?

> >Maybe god had a change of policy in the last 2000 years and
> >neglected to tell you about it? Do  you expect and demand god to keep
> >you informed of every little change of mind he has?
>
> Dogma never changes.

What, even faulty unfair stupid dogma like this we're discussing?

>
> >Be careful when you get to heaven, Duke. That nasty squish/crunch
> >under your foot is you accidentally stepping on an aborted fetus.
>
> So how do you know?  Heeheehee.

Hey, it was a joke, Stupid.

[duke]

The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.

>> >Maybe god had a change of policy in the last 2000 years and
>> >neglected to tell you about it? Do  you expect and demand god to keep
>> >you informed of every little change of mind he has?
>>
>> Dogma never changes.

>What, even faulty unfair stupid dogma like this we're discussing?

You need to talk to God about that.

>> >Be careful when you get to heaven, Duke. That nasty squish/crunch
>> >under your foot is you accidentally stepping on an aborted fetus.
>> So how do you know?  Heeheehee.

>Hey, it was a joke, Stupid.

Jokes tend to turn around and bite you.

[Patrick]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:29:35 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>On Apr 1, 9:29�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

>> God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom of God.
>
>How would you know what god says? Are you saying that god is incapable
>of changing the rules, his own rules, so that these poor fetuses
>(fetii?) can go to heaven? Or is god forced to follow rules made up by
>the catholic church?

God speaks through the prophets.
Would you like specific references?

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.

Except the no boy butt sex truth.

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

[duke]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 04:15:19 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.
>
>Except the no boy butt sex truth.

The RCC didn't that. People like you did those things.

[MarkA]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 06:09:17 -0500, duke wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:29:35 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>

>>On Apr 1, 9:29�ｿｽpm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:28:33 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>> >On Mar 29, 10:10 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> >> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:37:29 -0400, MarkA
>>> >> <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>>> >> >Robert, none of the chicken-shit forced-birthers will give me a
>>> >> >straight answer to a very simple question.
>>>

>>> >> I've tried for years to help you there. �ｿｽIf you don'tknow by now,

>>> >> you won't get it from now.
>>>

>>> >> > �ｿｽThey insist that "murdering the fetus"
>>> >> >is a Bad Thing. �ｿｽHowever, before a fetus is born, it cannot have

>>> >> >committed a sin, and therefore should go straight to Heaven if it
>>> >> >dies.
>>>

>>> >> No, it does not. �ｿｽWithout baptism which removes the guilt of
>>> >> original sin, heaven is not reachable. �ｿｽAll we can do is assume

>>> >> that God has a way that will one day allow unbaptized life to
>>> >> achieve the kingdom somehow.
>>>
>>> >> > Once born,
>>> >> >it inherits the Original Sin
>>>
>>> >> Nope, at conception.
>>>
>>> >> >, and has to be saved by Jesus and all that, or it will go to Hell.

>>> >> >�ｿｽSo, how is being "murdered in the womb" a Bad Thing for the

>>> >> >fetus?
>>>
>>> >> It's human live being murdered for mommie's comfort and convenience.

>>> >> �ｿｽAnd that relegates mommie to the eternal fires BUT the fetus to
>>> >> hopefully be elevated one day. �ｿｽThe fetus has a chance, mommie

>>> >> virtually none.
>>> >So how do you know these aborted fetuses haven't gone to heaven
>>> >already?
>
>>> God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom of God.
>
>>How would you know what god says? Are you saying that god is incapable of
>>changing the rules, his own rules, so that these poor fetuses (fetii?)
>>can go to heaven? Or is god forced to follow rules made up by the
>>catholic church?
>
> The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.
>

Is that why the majority of Christians have left the Catholic Church?
Because they recognize that the RCC's opinion of the "truths of God" is so
monstrous?

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[Rockinghorse Winner]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:43:45 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 06:09:17 -0500, duke wrote:


> > On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:29:35 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
> >
> >>On Apr 1, 9:29 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:28:33 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
> >>> >On Mar 29, 10:10 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> >> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:37:29 -0400, MarkA
> >>> >> <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
> >>> >> >Robert, none of the chicken-shit forced-birthers will give
me a
> >>> >> >straight answer to a very simple question.
> >>>

> >>> >> I've tried for years to help you there.  If you don'tknow by

now,
> >>> >> you won't get it from now.
> >>>

> >>> >> >  They insist that "murdering the fetus"

> >>> >> >is a Bad Thing.  However, before a fetus is born, it cannot

have
> >>> >> >committed a sin, and therefore should go straight to Heaven
if it
> >>> >> >dies.
> >>>

> >>> >> No, it does not.  Without baptism which removes the guilt of
> >>> >> original sin, heaven is not reachable.  All we can do is

assume
> >>> >> that God has a way that will one day allow unbaptized life to
> >>> >> achieve the kingdom somehow.
> >>>
> >>> >> > Once born,
> >>> >> >it inherits the Original Sin
> >>>
> >>> >> Nope, at conception.
> >>>
> >>> >> >, and has to be saved by Jesus and all that, or it will go
to Hell.

> >>> >> > So, how is being "murdered in the womb" a Bad Thing for the
> >>> >> >fetus?
> >>>
> >>> >> It's human live being murdered for mommie's comfort and
convenience.

> >>> >>  And that relegates mommie to the eternal fires BUT the
fetus to

> >>> >> hopefully be elevated one day.  The fetus has a chance,

mommie
> >>> >> virtually none.
> >>> >So how do you know these aborted fetuses haven't gone to heaven
> >>> >already?
> >
> >>> God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom of God.
> >
> >>How would you know what god says? Are you saying that god is
incapable of
> >>changing the rules, his own rules, so that these poor fetuses
(fetii?)
> >>can go to heaven? Or is god forced to follow rules made up by the
> >>catholic church?
> >
> > The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.
> >


> Is that why the majority of Christians have left the Catholic
Church?
> Because they recognize that the RCC's opinion of the "truths of
God" is so
> monstrous?


> --
> MarkA
> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
> About eight o'clock

The overwhelming majority of Christians in the world are Orthodox,
incl. Roman Catholics. The Catholic Church's object is not to be the
most popular Church in the world. That is obvious from her social
positions on many issues.

The Catholic churches mission is to spread the message of Jesus,
which is that God loves and forgives all humanity, and wants to be a
Father
to a united human family. This is the 'Truth' which the church wishes
to be known.

--
Terry

[Rockinghorse Winner]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:43:45 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 06:09:17 -0500, duke wrote:


> > On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:29:35 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
> >
> >>On Apr 1, 9:29 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:28:33 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
> >>> >On Mar 29, 10:10 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> >> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:37:29 -0400, MarkA
> >>> >> <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
> >>> >> >Robert, none of the chicken-shit forced-birthers will give
me a
> >>> >> >straight answer to a very simple question.
> >>>

> >>> >> I've tried for years to help you there.  If you don'tknow by

now,
> >>> >> you won't get it from now.
> >>>

> >>> >> >  They insist that "murdering the fetus"

> >>> >> >is a Bad Thing.  However, before a fetus is born, it cannot

have
> >>> >> >committed a sin, and therefore should go straight to Heaven
if it
> >>> >> >dies.
> >>>

> >>> >> No, it does not.  Without baptism which removes the guilt of
> >>> >> original sin, heaven is not reachable.  All we can do is

assume
> >>> >> that God has a way that will one day allow unbaptized life to
> >>> >> achieve the kingdom somehow.
> >>>
> >>> >> > Once born,
> >>> >> >it inherits the Original Sin
> >>>
> >>> >> Nope, at conception.
> >>>
> >>> >> >, and has to be saved by Jesus and all that, or it will go
to Hell.

> >>> >> > So, how is being "murdered in the womb" a Bad Thing for the
> >>> >> >fetus?
> >>>
> >>> >> It's human live being murdered for mommie's comfort and
convenience.

> >>> >>  And that relegates mommie to the eternal fires BUT the
fetus to

> >>> >> hopefully be elevated one day.  The fetus has a chance,

mommie
> >>> >> virtually none.
> >>> >So how do you know these aborted fetuses haven't gone to heaven
> >>> >already?
> >
> >>> God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom of God.
> >
> >>How would you know what god says? Are you saying that god is
incapable of
> >>changing the rules, his own rules, so that these poor fetuses
(fetii?)
> >>can go to heaven? Or is god forced to follow rules made up by the
> >>catholic church?
> >
> > The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.
> >


> Is that why the majority of Christians have left the Catholic
Church?
> Because they recognize that the RCC's opinion of the "truths of
God" is so
> monstrous?


> --
> MarkA
> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
> About eight o'clock

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 07:10:56 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:


>The overwhelming majority of Christians in the world are Orthodox,
>incl. Roman Catholics.

So what?

> The Catholic Church's object is not to be the
>most popular Church in the world. That is obvious from her social
>positions on many issues.

Which are none of its business.

>The Catholic churches mission is to spread the message of Jesus,

It has no "message of Jesus" to spread.

But if it did, it should be prepared to demonstrate that there
actually was such a person even to have such a message before rudely
and stupidly presuming it.

It should also find out whether or not people are even interested
before insisting on telling them.

>which is that God

Somebody else's religious belief the rest of the world wouldn't give a
flying fuck about it if you sociopaths had the commonsense and
courtesy to keep where it belongs.

And something it should FIRST demonstrate instead of arrogantly,
stupidly and rudely talking down at people as if everybody already
believed it.

Which has been explained to you over and over again ever since you
first crashed the atheist newsgroups several years ago.

> loves and forgives all humanity, and wants to be a
>Father to a united human family. This is the 'Truth' which the church wishes
>to be known.

More arrogantly rude question-begging stupidity.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <2sell8p9hksjq071j...@4ax.com>, duke

� The RCC has a history of creating it's own "Traditions" and attempting
to pass them off as from God Himself.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <v4adnZhyA81DIMfM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

> duke wrote:
> > The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.
>
> Except the no boy butt sex truth.

� and That is the fly in the pie.

[MarkA]

Interesting, considering that insistence on particular doctrines, with no
external standard for reference, virtually guarantees that there will
never be a "united human family". They, like all religions, are saying,
"We would love it if everyone became Catholic. But, WE aren't changing!"

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:46:49 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

>Interesting, considering that insistence on particular doctrines, with no
>external standard for reference, virtually guarantees that there will
>never be a "united human family". They, like all religions, are saying,
>"We would love it if everyone became Catholic. But, WE aren't changing!"

Whenever a Pope visits another country he talks about reuniting the
local church with the Catholics, but it's always under him with the
replacement of the local doctrines with the Vatican's.

Which won't happen.

[Patrick]

MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

>>> Is that why the majority of Christians have left the Catholic
>> Church?
>>> Because they recognize that the RCC's opinion of the "truths of
>> God" is so
>>> monstrous?

The majority of "christians" who left the Catholic Church... left
because there was one or more doctrines that they could not accept.
Some left because they are pro-abortion. Some were pro-gay. Some
don't think a pope could be infallible. Others left because they were
lazy. And finally, others left because they had a particular sin that
they refused to accept was considered grievous to the Lord.

>>> --
>>> MarkA
>>> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before About eight
>>> o'clock
>>
>> The overwhelming majority of Christians in the world are Orthodox, incl.
>> Roman Catholics. The Catholic Church's object is not to be the most
>> popular Church in the world. That is obvious from her social positions on
>> many issues.
>>
>> The Catholic churches mission is to spread the message of Jesus, which is
>> that God loves and forgives all humanity, and wants to be a Father
>> to a united human family. This is the 'Truth' which the church wishes to
>> be known.
>
>Interesting, considering that insistence on particular doctrines, with no
>external standard for reference, virtually guarantees that there will
>never be a "united human family". They, like all religions, are saying,
>"We would love it if everyone became Catholic. But, WE aren't changing!"

I don't know what "standard" you are looking for.
We have standards, doctrines, dogma.
We have the Bible the CCC, and the Magisterium.
We also have tradition.

[Rockinghorse Winner]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:46:49 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>

In spite of the insistence that the Church speaks the truth of God
(which claim derives from the identical claim of its founder, Jesus
Christ), the Catholic Church recognizes and respects the variety of
religious expression, and is tin the forefront of the ecumenical
movement.

Ecumenism makes no claims on the doctrines of other faiths other than
the one which says that all people are children of God, hence
brothers and sisters, and that God desires us to live peaceably with
each other.

--
Terry

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:25:03 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:


>In spite of the insistence that the Church speaks the truth of God
>(which claim derives from the identical claim of its founder, Jesus
>Christ), the Catholic Church recognizes and respects the variety of
>religious expression, and is tin the forefront of the ecumenical
>movement.

All of which is complete and utter bullshit until you prove this
hypothetical God and the equally hypothetical Jesus.

>Ecumenism makes no claims on the doctrines of other faiths other than
>the one which says that all people are children of God, hence
>brothers and sisters, and that God desires us to live peaceably with
>each other.

Which is worthless bullshit UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE THIS HYPOTHETICAL
GOD, imbecile.

[Patrick]

What local doctrines?

[Father Haskell]

On Apr 2, 7:15 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> duke wrote:
> > The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.
>
> Except the no boy butt sex truth.

Where in that great compendium of virtue, the holey
buybull, is pedophilia prohibited?

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

On Apr 2, 9:15 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

Please just explain to me (*in your own words*) why god infuses a soul
into a cell (or 2 or 4 cells) when he, being god, knows that this
fetus is destined to be aborted by a doctor? Does your god continually
and deliberately create souls that he knows will be unbaptized, hence
will never get to heaven? Is that what you claim?

And tell me (also *in your own words*) why he also puts souls into
fetuses that he, being god, knows are going to miscarry, hence another
unbaptized soul that can't get to heaven?

You and I know that an omnipotent all-knowing "god" is not going to do
any such thing. Which leads us to the conclusion that any of your
"prophets" who claim otherwise are false prophets.

Please do not (yet again) post pages and pages of cut-n-paste
unfounded religion-inspired rambling which I never read and which you
probably don't read or understand either. It's your own words and your
own train of logic (as such) that I'm interested in here.

[MarkA]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:56:27 -0400, Patrick wrote:

> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> Is that why the majority of Christians have left the Catholic
>>> Church?
>>>> Because they recognize that the RCC's opinion of the "truths of
>>> God" is so
>>>> monstrous?
>
> The majority of "christians" who left the Catholic Church... left because
> there was one or more doctrines that they could not accept. Some left
> because they are pro-abortion. Some were pro-gay. Some don't think a
> pope could be infallible. Others left because they were lazy. And
> finally, others left because they had a particular sin that they refused
> to accept was considered grievous to the Lord.
>

IOW, they found a different religion that offered them a God that was more
in line with what they want their god to be like. That is how religions
evolve. Sadly, it also gives rise to inter-denominational resentment.

Always remember, no matter what you believe, the other guy is just as
sincere in his beliefs as you are in yours.

[Dreamer In Colore]

dang.

I wish I'd said that. This has got my vote for "bitch-slapping" of the
month so far.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Patrick]

Luke 17:2 -
It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone
tied ... It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around
his neck and he were cast ...
Matthew 18:6
It were better for him that a millstone ... - Mills .... by an ass
(????). Here Jesus says an ass-millstone; or, as Rev., a great
millstone; Wyc., millstone of asses.
Mark 9:42 -
"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in
me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were
hung around their neck and ...

[Patrick]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:36:30 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:56:27 -0400, Patrick wrote:
>
>> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Is that why the majority of Christians have left the Catholic
>>>> Church?
>>>>> Because they recognize that the RCC's opinion of the "truths of
>>>> God" is so
>>>>> monstrous?
>>
>> The majority of "christians" who left the Catholic Church... left because
>> there was one or more doctrines that they could not accept. Some left
>> because they are pro-abortion. Some were pro-gay. Some don't think a
>> pope could be infallible. Others left because they were lazy. And
>> finally, others left because they had a particular sin that they refused
>> to accept was considered grievous to the Lord.
>>
>
>IOW, they found a different religion that offered them a God that was more
>in line with what they want their god to be like. That is how religions
>evolve. Sadly, it also gives rise to inter-denominational resentment.

Absolutely.

>
>Always remember, no matter what you believe, the other guy is just as
>sincere in his beliefs as you are in yours.

That is his story.

[Father Haskell]

On Apr 2, 6:00 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:29:05 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
>

Nope.

[Patrick]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:16:14 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>On Apr 2, 9:15�pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:29:35 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> >On Apr 1, 9:29�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom of God.
>>
>> >How would you know what god says? Are you saying that god is incapable
>> >of changing the rules, his own rules, so that these poor fetuses
>> >(fetii?) can go to heaven? Or is god forced to follow rules made up by
>> >the catholic church?
>>
>> God speaks through the prophets.
>> Would you like specific references?
>
>Please just explain to me (*in your own words*) why god

I do not speak for God.
I do not pretend to speak for God.
I don't pretend to know what God does.

> infuses a soul
>into a cell (or 2 or 4 cells) when he, being god, knows that this
>fetus is destined to be aborted by a doctor? Does your god continually
>and deliberately create souls that he knows will be unbaptized, hence
>will never get to heaven? Is that what you claim?

I do not speak for God.
I do not pretend to speak for God.
I don't pretend to know what God does.

>And tell me (also *in your own words*) why he also puts souls into
>fetuses that he, being god, knows are going to miscarry, hence another
>unbaptized soul that can't get to heaven?

Why do you build a strawman?
WHy do you ask questions that have no meaning?

>You and I know that an omnipotent all-knowing "god" is not going to do
>any such thing. Which leads us to the conclusion that any of your
>"prophets" who claim otherwise are false prophets.

Which prophets have ever made your silly claims?
In your own words, please.

>Please do not (yet again) post pages and pages of cut-n-paste
>unfounded religion-inspired rambling which I never read and which you
>probably don't read or understand either. It's your own words and your
>own train of logic (as such) that I'm interested in here.

Of course I don't read all the crap I post.
It is for you loozers.

[Patrick]

Why do you make ignorant claims about a God you don't even believe in?
Does your mother enjoy your stupid posts?

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

On Apr 3, 8:08 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:56:35 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Is this another occasion where you believe you have "kicked butt",
Paddy? Does your mother know you try to "kick butt"? What else do you
like to do to other people's butts?

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:08:20 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

Awww. You still think I'm the one making the claims.

I'm not the one claiming his existence.

You didn't even answer the important parts that Alan brought up.

Stop trying to duck and run for cover.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:07:09 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

You don't read what you post?

And you expect to be taken seriously?

You're a moron.

Which might be an insult to most morons.

You have appointed yourself to speak for God, just as all the other
people who wrote the Gospels. You don't have to pretend to speak for
him... you do it right here, multiple times every day. And you
certainly pretend to know what God does, because you preach it
constantly, as if repetition will somehow make it stick.

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

On Apr 3, 8:07 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:16:14 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Apr 2, 9:15 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:29:35 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> >On Apr 1, 9:29 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom of God.
>
> >> >How would you know what god says? Are you saying that god is incapable
> >> >of changing the rules, his own rules, so that these poor fetuses
> >> >(fetii?) can go to heaven? Or is god forced to follow rules made up by
> >> >the catholic church?
>
> >> God speaks through the prophets.
> >> Would you like specific references?
>
> >Please just explain to me (*in your own words*) why god
>
> I do not speak for God.
> I do not pretend to speak for God.
> I don't pretend to know what God does.
>
> > infuses a soul
> >into a cell (or 2 or 4 cells) when he, being god, knows that this
> >fetus is destined to be aborted by a doctor? Does your god continually
> >and deliberately create souls that he knows will be unbaptized, hence
> >will never get to heaven? Is that what you claim?
>
> I do not speak for God.
> I do not pretend to speak for God.
> I don't pretend to know what God does.

Stop *lying*, Patrick. For godsake, STOP lying!

You and your church do *nothing but* pretend to speak for god!

You and your church do *nothing but* pretend to know what god wants,
what god thinks, what god does, and why he does it!! Even if it goes
against the bible, even if it's not in the bible. That's what your
church does.

Stop your lying now.

> >And tell me (also *in your own words*) why he also puts souls into
> >fetuses that he, being god, knows are going to miscarry, hence another
> >unbaptized soul that can't get to heaven?
>
> Why do you build a strawman?

You and duke need to look up the meaning of the word "strawman". You
are both equally ignorant of this.

> WHy do you ask questions that have no meaning?

The question has no meaning only if we assume that there is no
omnipotent all-knowing loving god.

However, *you* assume there *is* an omnipotent all-knowing loving god,
so therefore to you the question is *not* meaningless.

Why won't you answer it?

> >You and I know that an omnipotent all-knowing "god" is not going to do
> >any such thing. Which leads us to the conclusion that any of your
> >"prophets" who claim otherwise are false prophets.
>
> Which prophets have ever made your silly claims?
> In your own words, please.

You and Duke believe that a loving god puts souls into fetuses knowing
that they will not get to heaven. You and Duke blindly believe what
your "prophets" say, preferring not to think for yourselves. It
therefore follows that there are some individuals accepted by the RCC
as prophets who have declared that a loving god puts souls into
fetuses knowing that they will not get to heaven.

If the above is incorrect, please advise me as to how you and Duke
came to the conclusion that a loving god puts souls into fetuses
knowing that those souls will never get to heaven.

> >Please do not (yet again) post pages and pages of cut-n-paste
> >unfounded religion-inspired rambling which I never read and which you
> >probably don't read or understand either. It's your own words and your
> >own train of logic (as such) that I'm interested in here.

> Of course I don't read all the crap I post.

I know you don't, and neither do I, Paddy.

I mainly just read the most idiotic parts (that is, the parts you
actually type in yourself), and I generally try to confine my comments
to only those.

> It is for you loozers.

Something tells me you have much personal knowledge as to what a
"loozer" will most enjoy and appreciate. :)

[linuxgal]

Russian Orthos make the Sign of the Cross right to left (the heathens!)
not left to right like Jesus did.

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

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 04:15:19 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.
>>
>> Except the no boy butt sex truth.
>

> The RCC didn't that. People like you did those things.

I plead not guilty to boy butt sex. In fact, when I heard it was going
on in Holy Mother Church, I took my money and left.

[duke]

Actually the "fly in the pie-hole" is one of your favorite subjects. Best clean
off your wings. Heeheehee.

The dukester, American - American

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

[duke]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:43:45 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 06:09:17 -0500, duke wrote:

>
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:29:35 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 1, 9:29 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>> God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom of God.
>>
>>>How would you know what god says? Are you saying that god is incapable of
>>>changing the rules, his own rules, so that these poor fetuses (fetii?)
>>>can go to heaven? Or is god forced to follow rules made up by the
>>>catholic church?
>>

>> The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.

>Is that why the majority of Christians have left the Catholic Church?

I don't know. Lastest US statistics have us growing at 10% in the last 10
years.

>Because they recognize that the RCC's opinion of the "truths of God" is so
>monstrous?

How can love and obey God and love and serve our fellow man in need be
monstrous?

[duke]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 07:10:56 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:

>The overwhelming majority of Christians in the world are Orthodox,
>incl. Roman Catholics. The Catholic Church's object is not to be the
>most popular Church in the world. That is obvious from her social
>positions on many issues.

>The Catholic churches mission is to spread the message of Jesus,
>which is that God loves and forgives all humanity, and wants to be a
>Father
>to a united human family. This is the 'Truth' which the church wishes
>to be known.

All that is way over mark's head.

[duke]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 08:41:17 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <2sell8p9hksjq071j...@4ax.com>, duke

>• The RCC has a history of creating it's own "Traditions" and attempting
>to pass them off as from God Himself.

Name 1.

[duke]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:16:14 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>On Apr 2, 9:15 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:29:35 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> >On Apr 1, 9:29 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom of God.
>>
>> >How would you know what god says? Are you saying that god is incapable
>> >of changing the rules, his own rules, so that these poor fetuses
>> >(fetii?) can go to heaven? Or is god forced to follow rules made up by
>> >the catholic church?
>>
>> God speaks through the prophets.
>> Would you like specific references?
>
>Please just explain to me (*in your own words*) why god infuses a soul
>into a cell (or 2 or 4 cells) when he, being god, knows that this
>fetus is destined to be aborted by a doctor? Does your god continually
>and deliberately create souls that he knows will be unbaptized, hence
>will never get to heaven? Is that what you claim?

>And tell me (also *in your own words*) why he also puts souls into
>fetuses that he, being god, knows are going to miscarry, hence another
>unbaptized soul that can't get to heaven?

Simple. We also believe that God, in his infinite wisdom, will cleanse and
elevate the unbaptized fetus, thru no fault of it's own, into heaven anyway in
the end.

Dummies like you don't have the common sense that God calls us to the baptismal
cleansing as a highly desirable act in free decision.

Woe be the baptized that turns to atheism. Now that's a dead end at the door to
the fires of hell.

>You and I know that an omnipotent all-knowing "god" is not going to do
>any such thing. Which leads us to the conclusion that any of your
>"prophets" who claim otherwise are false prophets.

>Please do not (yet again) post pages and pages of cut-n-paste
>unfounded religion-inspired rambling which I never read

But many others do, especially ones that are on the edge in decision.

> and which you
>probably don't read or understand either. It's your own words and your
>own train of logic (as such) that I'm interested in here.

[duke]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:56:35 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yep, old numbnuts alanp gets it again.
>
>Cheers,
>Dreamer
>AA 2306

[duke]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:08:20 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

Rumor has it that his mother was a sea turtle.

[duke]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:52:14 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>Is this another occasion where you believe you have "kicked butt",
>Paddy? Does your mother know you try to "kick butt"? What else do you
>like to do to other people's butts?

Turn them over to satan.

[duke]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 19:26:45 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Whoa, the Grik dirt bag that complained that I wasn't being nice to him is now
mr. grump in his filthy language.

>Which might be an insult to most morons.
>
>You have appointed yourself to speak for God, just as all the other
>people who wrote the Gospels. You don't have to pretend to speak for
>him... you do it right here, multiple times every day. And you
>certainly pretend to know what God does, because you preach it
>constantly, as if repetition will somehow make it stick.

[duke]

Noooooo, we don't speak for God. We only repeat what God taught.

[duke]

Jesus made the sign of the cross??????????

[duke]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:07:09 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:16:14 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
>>On Apr 2, 9:15 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:29:35 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>> >On Apr 1, 9:29 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> >> God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom of God.
>>>
>>> >How would you know what god says? Are you saying that god is incapable
>>> >of changing the rules, his own rules, so that these poor fetuses
>>> >(fetii?) can go to heaven? Or is god forced to follow rules made up by
>>> >the catholic church?
>>>
>>> God speaks through the prophets.
>>> Would you like specific references?
>>
>>Please just explain to me (*in your own words*) why god
>
>I do not speak for God.
>I do not pretend to speak for God.
>I don't pretend to know what God does.
>
>
>> infuses a soul
>>into a cell (or 2 or 4 cells) when he, being god, knows that this
>>fetus is destined to be aborted by a doctor? Does your god continually
>>and deliberately create souls that he knows will be unbaptized, hence
>>will never get to heaven? Is that what you claim?
>
>I do not speak for God.
>I do not pretend to speak for God.
>I don't pretend to know what God does.

Good grief, Patrick. What did you do to get these dumb asses like alanp and
dreamer so riled up?

[duke]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:29:05 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
<father...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Apr 2, 7:15 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>> duke wrote:

>> > The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.
>>

>> Except the no boy butt sex truth.
>

>Where in that great compendium of virtue, the holey
>buybull, is pedophilia prohibited?

Romans 1:24 works well.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:36:49 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

Greek Orthodoxers do that too.

I just think of it like this... "Spectacles, Testicles, Wallet and
Watch".

Cheers,
Dreamer

[BJ]

On 3/04/2013 9:44 PM, duke wrote:
>
> Woe be the baptized that turns to atheism. Now that's a dead end at the door to
> the fires of hell.

Listen, Puke, if you don't stop threatening me with hell, I'm gonna get
some of my Buddhist mates to come around and punch you right in the
aura, and hire a psychic to kick your spirit guide sqaure in the nuts.

[arjay]

douche <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:055ol8923oevtknd7...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:16:14 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>On Apr 2, 9:15 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:29:35 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>> >On Apr 1, 9:29 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> >> God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom of God.
>>>
>>> >How would you know what god says? Are you saying that god is incapable
>>> >of changing the rules, his own rules, so that these poor fetuses
>>> >(fetii?) can go to heaven? Or is god forced to follow rules made up by
>>> >the catholic church?
>>>
>>> God speaks through the prophets.
>>> Would you like specific references?
>>
>>Please just explain to me (*in your own words*) why god infuses a soul
>>into a cell (or 2 or 4 cells) when he, being god, knows that this
>>fetus is destined to be aborted by a doctor? Does your god continually
>>and deliberately create souls that he knows will be unbaptized, hence
>>will never get to heaven? Is that what you claim?
>
>>And tell me (also *in your own words*) why he also puts souls into
>>fetuses that he, being god, knows are going to miscarry, hence another
>>unbaptized soul that can't get to heaven?
>
> Simple. We also believe that God, in his infinite wisdom, will cleanse
> and
> elevate the unbaptized fetus, thru no fault of it's own, into heaven
> anyway in
> the end.

Who is "we" -- you & Barker, you and your houseboy, or the whole of the RCC?
And what is the basis for that belief? Chapter and verse.

Next you can reconcile the statement you've just made with this statement
from your post of 1 April, this thread -- "God said baptism is necessary to

achieve the kingdom of God."

> earl weber, German - American
>
> ********************************************

[MarkA]

I know, it seems incredible, doesn't it? Yet, the RCC has been working on
it for almost 2,000 years.

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[Patrick]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:06:44 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
<father...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Apr 2, 6:00 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:29:05 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
>>

>> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 2, 7:15 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>> >> duke wrote:

>> >> > The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.
>>

>> >> Except the no boy butt sex truth.
>>
>> >Where in that great compendium of virtue, the holey
>> >buybull, is pedophilia prohibited?
>>

>> Luke 17:2 -
>> It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone
>> tied ... It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around
>> his neck and he were cast ...
>> Matthew 18:6
>> It were better for him that a millstone ... - Mills .... by an ass
>> (????). Here Jesus says an ass-millstone; or, as Rev., a great
>> millstone; Wyc., millstone of asses.
>> Mark 9:42 -
>> "If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in
>> me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were
>> hung around their neck and ...
>
>Nope.

Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer.

[Patrick]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:36:49 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

ooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
And they are told they can't do this anymore?
Perhaps you have a reference for your bull shit?
Or....... perhaps not.

[Patrick]

Stop asking stupid questions.
Did your mom ever punish you for what you did to your pet?
Yes or no...........
No further answers are necessary, butt-wipe.

[Patrick]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 19:26:41 -0400, Dreamer In Colore

Did you have a question?
Or are you merely high-fiving some jerk-off for his silly comments?

[Patrick]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 19:26:45 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

yup

>
>And you expect to be taken seriously?

nope - you are too stupid to understand my words.

>
>You're a moron.

jo mama... How is our discussion going so far?

>Which might be an insult to most morons.

I am sure you feel insulted.

>
>You have appointed yourself to speak for God,

and there we go AGAIN.

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

On Apr 3, 9:44 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:16:14 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Apr 2, 9:15 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:29:35 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> >On Apr 1, 9:29 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom of God.
>
> >> >How would you know what god says? Are you saying that god is incapable
> >> >of changing the rules, his own rules, so that these poor fetuses
> >> >(fetii?) can go to heaven? Or is god forced to follow rules made up by
> >> >the catholic church?
>
> >> God speaks through the prophets.
> >> Would you like specific references?
>
> >Please just explain to me (*in your own words*) why god infuses a soul
> >into a cell (or 2 or 4 cells) when he, being god, knows that this
> >fetus is destined to be aborted by a doctor? Does your god continually
> >and deliberately create souls that he knows will be unbaptized, hence
> >will never get to heaven? Is that what you claim?
> >And tell me (also *in your own words*) why he also puts souls into
> >fetuses that he, being god, knows are going to miscarry, hence another
> >unbaptized soul that can't get to heaven?
>
> Simple.  We also believe that God, in his infinite wisdom, will cleanse and
> elevate the unbaptized fetus, thru no fault of it's own, into heaven anyway in
> the end.

So where do you get this belief from, Duke?

Is it in the bible?

Is it in the "traditions" of the RCC?

Or did you just make it up?

[Patrick]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:35:06 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>On Apr 3, 8:07 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>> >> >How would you know what god says? Are you saying that god is incapable
>> >> >of changing the rules, his own rules, so that these poor fetuses
>> >> >(fetii?) can go to heaven? Or is god forced to follow rules made up by
>> >> >the catholic church?
>>
>> >> God speaks through the prophets.
>> >> Would you like specific references?
>>
>> >Please just explain to me (*in your own words*) why god
>>

>> I do not speak for God.
>> I do not pretend to speak for God.
>> I don't pretend to know what God does.
>>

>> > infuses a soul
>> >into a cell (or 2 or 4 cells) when he, being god, knows that this
>> >fetus is destined to be aborted by a doctor? Does your god continually
>> >and deliberately create souls that he knows will be unbaptized, hence
>> >will never get to heaven? Is that what you claim?
>>

>> I do not speak for God.
>> I do not pretend to speak for God.
>> I don't pretend to know what God does.
>

>Stop *lying*, Patrick. For godsake, STOP lying!
>You and your church do *nothing but* pretend to speak for god!

>You and your church do *nothing but* pretend to know what god wants,
>what god thinks, what god does, and why he does it!! Even if it goes
>against the bible, even if it's not in the bible. That's what your
>church does.
>Stop your lying now.

Now you have changed your tune.....
You asked me if God was capable of changing the rules.
My answer is that I don't speak for God.
You may ask Him. Then you asked:
Is God forced to follow the rules of the church?
Another stupid question.
And, I refuse to answer such a stupid question.

>> WHy do you ask questions that have no meaning?
>

>The question has no meaning only if we assume that there is no
>omnipotent all-knowing loving god.
>However, *you* assume there *is* an omnipotent all-knowing loving god,
>so therefore to you the question is *not* meaningless.

And that is the logic you have decided to use at this time?


>Why won't you answer it?

I don't answer stupid questions from stupid people.
Come back and ask an intelligent question.
Ask it nicely.
And perhaps you will get an answer that you may accept.
(I'm not holding my breath.)

[Patrick]

Actually, that is my plan every time I prepare for a long vacation. I
get them all wound up, pissing and moaning, and then I leave for a few
weeks. I do have to apologize for leaving them to you... but I know
you can handle a bunch of 3-year old punks. I'll be here a few more
days, so rest up.

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

On Apr 3, 11:55 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 06:52:59 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:07:09 -0400, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

Looks like things are getting too hot for Paddy and he has to beat a
hasty retreat :)

You are so pwned, Paddy. LOL!

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

On Apr 3, 11:13 pm, "arjay" <ar...@hobbiton.net> wrote:
> douche <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message

Ah, another lie from Dukie. I missed that one, well there are so many
of them.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <t6lml81gpjf9cehcv...@4ax.com>, Patrick

<pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:29:05 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell

> <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 2, 7:15 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >> duke wrote:
> >> > The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.
> >>
> >> Except the no boy butt sex truth.
> >
> >Where in that great compendium of virtue, the holey
> >buybull, is pedophilia prohibited?
>

• Why? . . gay altar boys relish it, hetero altar-boys don't.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <bcadnTtNcfdqPsbM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

> Patrick wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:07:39 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
> > <chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:46:49 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Interesting, considering that insistence on particular doctrines, with no
> >>> external standard for reference, virtually guarantees that there will
> >>> never be a "united human family". They, like all religions, are saying,
> >>> "We would love it if everyone became Catholic. But, WE aren't changing!"
> >>
> >> Whenever a Pope visits another country he talks about reuniting the
> >> local church with the Catholics, but it's always under him with the
> >> replacement of the local doctrines with the Vatican's.
> >> Which won't happen.
> >
> > What local doctrines?
>
> Russian Orthos make the Sign of the Cross right to left (the heathens!)
> not left to right like Jesus did.

• chortle

[•RLMeasures]

In article <9l4ol89m0ak68uet6...@4ax.com>, duke
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 08:43:14 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <v4adnZhyA81DIMfM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

> ><linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >
> >> duke wrote:
> >> > The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.
> >>
> >> Except the no boy butt sex truth.
> >

> >• and That is the fly in the pie.
>
> Actually the "fly in the pie-hole" is one of your favorite subjects.
Best clean
> off your wings. Heeheehee.
>
• what's a "fly in the pie hole"? I see a hole in bagles but not pies.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <is4ol8hff2q3gqqqv...@4ax.com>, duke
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 08:41:17 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <2sell8p9hksjq071j...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> >
> >> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:29:35 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Apr 1, 9:29 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> >> >> God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom of God.
> >>
> >> >How would you know what god says? Are you saying that god is incapable
> >> >of changing the rules, his own rules, so that these poor fetuses
> >> >(fetii?) can go to heaven? Or is god forced to follow rules made up by
> >> >the catholic church?
> >>

> >> The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.
>

> >• The RCC has a history of creating it's own "Traditions" and attempting
> >to pass them off as from God Himself.
>
> Name 1.
>
• the Confessional (1215)

[Patrick]

I've had this cruise scheduled for over a year. I have another one
scheduled for next February.

[duke]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 04:25:16 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:

>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 04:15:19 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:

>>>> The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.
>>>

>>> Except the no boy butt sex truth.
>>

>> The RCC didn't that. People like you did those things.
>
>I plead not guilty to boy butt sex. In fact, when I heard it was going
>on in Holy Mother Church, I took my money and left.

Women abused boys too. Where will you go now?

The dukester, American - American

[duke]

<sigh>

[duke]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:43:45 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 06:09:17 -0500, duke wrote:

>
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:29:35 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 1, 9:29�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>> God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom of God.
>>
>>>How would you know what god says? Are you saying that god is incapable of
>>>changing the rules, his own rules, so that these poor fetuses (fetii?)
>>>can go to heaven? Or is god forced to follow rules made up by the
>>>catholic church?
>>

>> The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.

>Is that why the majority of Christians have left the Catholic Church?

Why is the US Catholic population us 10% in 10 years?

>Because they recognize that the RCC's opinion of the "truths of God" is so
>monstrous?

The real truth is love and obey God and love and serve your neighbor. Maybe you
live in a sewage pit.

[duke]

And will continue to promote it until hell freezes over.

[duke]

The Jews had the day of atonement (still do) and Jesus instituted the sacrament
of Confession in John 20:22-23.

RL - the man whose brains leaked out his ears. You really are nothing but a
continuous bullshit artist, you know that.

[duke]

They have to get past my 12 gauge loaded with bird shot first

[duke]

No, we people of God.

>Next you can reconcile the statement you've just made with this statement
>from your post of 1 April, this thread -- "God said baptism is necessary to
>achieve the kingdom of God."

I repeat from above: "We also believe that God........".

[duke]

We believe in the infinite merits of God's love.

>Is it in the "traditions" of the RCC?
>Or did you just make it up?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <1v4pl8t1smj51j0ai...@4ax.com>, duke

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

> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 07:25:36 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <9l4ol89m0ak68uet6...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 08:43:14 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <v4adnZhyA81DIMfM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> >> ><linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> duke wrote:
> >> >> > The Catholic Church follows the truths of God.
> >> >>
> >> >> Except the no boy butt sex truth.
> >> >
> >> >• and That is the fly in the pie.
> >>
> >> Actually the "fly in the pie-hole" is one of your favorite subjects.
> >Best clean
> >> off your wings. Heeheehee.
> >>
> >• what's a "fly in the pie hole"? I see a hole in bagles but not pies.
>
> <sigh>
>

• ____

[•RLMeasures]

In article <t45pl8pf6hijkubek...@4ax.com>, duke

• I know that Pope Innocent III introed it in 1215.

[duke]

That's right. I do remember your doing that in the past.

> I
>get them all wound up, pissing and moaning, and then I leave for a few
>weeks. I do have to apologize for leaving them to you.

Ah, they're nothing but a bunch of pushovers.

>.. but I know
>you can handle a bunch of 3-year old punks. I'll be here a few more
>days, so rest up.

Nah - warm up.

Have a good trip.

The dukester, American - American

[arjay]

douche <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:oc5pl8dem626hjfr4...@4ax.com...

And you "people of God" believe that without any basis in what is piously
called 'holy writ?'

>>Next you can reconcile the statement you've just made with this statement
>>from your post of 1 April, this thread -- "God said baptism is necessary
>>to
>>achieve the kingdom of God."
>
> I repeat from above: "We also believe that God........".

But according to Barker, "God speaks through the prophets."
And according to you, "God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom
of God."
So I'll re-phrase the question.
_Why_ do you "people of God" believe something which contradicts and
contravenes something else, that something else being based on something you
claim God said?

> earl weber, German - American
>
> ********************************************

[Rockinghorse Winner]

The necessity of Baptism is an official position of the RCC, can't
speak about other denominations which may have different beliefs.

There is no official position on the fate of unbaptized babies like
there is on baptism. However the overwhelming consensus in the Church
is that babies either 1)go directly to heaven or 2)go to limbo. Don't
ask me what limbo is, I don't know. :b

The reason is simple. Taking Christ's statement that from those who
have been given much, much will be expected, we can extrapolate that
for those who have been given less, less will be expected.

Finally, to those who haven given the least - babies - very little
will be expected. Hence we don't expect God will go down especially
hard on a 2 year old victim of fibromyalgia.

--
Terry

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:

> Jesus made the sign of the cross??????????

Yeah, but every time He did, His mother rolled her eyes and said, "Oi Vey!"

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

[Alex W]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 08:15:13 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:36:49 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Patrick wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:07:39 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
>>> <chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:46:49 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting, considering that insistence on particular doctrines, with no
>>>>> external standard for reference, virtually guarantees that there will
>>>>> never be a "united human family". They, like all religions, are saying,
>>>>> "We would love it if everyone became Catholic. But, WE aren't changing!"
>>>>
>>>> Whenever a Pope visits another country he talks about reuniting the
>>>> local church with the Catholics, but it's always under him with the
>>>> replacement of the local doctrines with the Vatican's.
>>>> Which won't happen.
>>>
>>> What local doctrines?
>>
>>Russian Orthos make the Sign of the Cross right to left (the heathens!)
>>not left to right like Jesus did.
>

> Greek Orthodoxers do that too.
>
> I just think of it like this... "Spectacles, Testicles, Wallet and
> Watch".

I would not object to being taught this by a girl in a
hands-on approach to religious education.

Well, not unless she were a nun.

[duke]

Makes sense.

[duke]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 08:15:13 -0400, Dreamer In Colore

<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:36:49 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Patrick wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:07:39 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
>>> <chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:46:49 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting, considering that insistence on particular doctrines, with no
>>>>> external standard for reference, virtually guarantees that there will
>>>>> never be a "united human family". They, like all religions, are saying,
>>>>> "We would love it if everyone became Catholic. But, WE aren't changing!"
>>>>
>>>> Whenever a Pope visits another country he talks about reuniting the
>>>> local church with the Catholics, but it's always under him with the
>>>> replacement of the local doctrines with the Vatican's.
>>>> Which won't happen.
>>>
>>> What local doctrines?
>>
>>Russian Orthos make the Sign of the Cross right to left (the heathens!)
>>not left to right like Jesus did.
>

>Greek Orthodoxers do that too.
>
>I just think of it like this... "Spectacles, Testicles, Wallet and
>Watch".

You carry your wallet in your right pocket?? That's unAmerican.

[duke]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:39:06 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:36:49 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Patrick wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:07:39 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
>>> <chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:46:49 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting, considering that insistence on particular doctrines, with no
>>>>> external standard for reference, virtually guarantees that there will
>>>>> never be a "united human family". They, like all religions, are saying,
>>>>> "We would love it if everyone became Catholic. But, WE aren't changing!"
>>>>
>>>> Whenever a Pope visits another country he talks about reuniting the
>>>> local church with the Catholics, but it's always under him with the
>>>> replacement of the local doctrines with the Vatican's.
>>>> Which won't happen.
>>>
>>> What local doctrines?
>>
>>Russian Orthos make the Sign of the Cross right to left (the heathens!)
>>not left to right like Jesus did.
>

>ooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
>And they are told they can't do this anymore?
>Perhaps you have a reference for your bull shit?
>Or....... perhaps not.

Sometimes lg falls completely off the cliff of common sense.

[duke]

He also urinated in 1215.

[duke]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 07:03:32 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>On Apr 3, 11:55 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 06:52:59 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:07:09 -0400, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:16:14 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> >>>On Apr 2, 9:15 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>> >>>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:29:35 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> >>>> >On Apr 1, 9:29 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>> >> God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom of God.
>>
>> >>>> >How would you know what god says? Are you saying that god is incapable
>> >>>> >of changing the rules, his own rules, so that these poor fetuses
>> >>>> >(fetii?) can go to heaven? Or is god forced to follow rules made up by
>> >>>> >the catholic church?
>>

>> >>>> God speaks through the prophets.
>> >>>> Would you like specific references?
>>
>> >>>Please just explain to me (*in your own words*) why god
>>

>> >>I do not speak for God.
>> >>I do not pretend to speak for God.
>> >>I don't pretend to know what God does.
>>

>> >>> infuses a soul
>> >>>into a cell (or 2 or 4 cells) when he, being god, knows that this
>> >>>fetus is destined to be aborted by a doctor? Does your god continually
>> >>>and deliberately create souls that he knows will be unbaptized, hence
>> >>>will never get to heaven? Is that what you claim?
>>

>> >>I do not speak for God.
>> >>I do not pretend to speak for God.
>> >>I don't pretend to know what God does.
>>
>> >Good grief, Patrick.  What did you do to get these dumb asses like alanp and
>> >dreamer so riled up?

>> >The dukester, American - American
>>

>> Actually, that is my plan every time I prepare for a long vacation.  I

>> get them all wound up, pissing and moaning, and then I leave for a few

>> weeks.  I do have to apologize for leaving them to you... but I know

>> you can handle a bunch of 3-year old punks.  I'll be here a few more
>> days, so rest up.

>Looks like things are getting too hot for Paddy and he has to beat a
>hasty retreat :)

>You are so pwned, Paddy. LOL!

What is "pwned"?

[duke]

100% of Holy Writ originated as Holy Tradition.

>>>Next you can reconcile the statement you've just made with this statement
>>>from your post of 1 April, this thread -- "God said baptism is necessary
>>>to
>>>achieve the kingdom of God."

>> I repeat from above: "We also believe that God........".

>But according to Barker, "God speaks through the prophets."

Exactly. God reveals to us in inspirations, reflections, dreams, etc, not his
mouth. Man thus used his mouth to real what God inspired.

>And according to you, "God said baptism is necessary to achieve the kingdom
>of God."

Yep.

>So I'll re-phrase the question.

>_Why_ do you "people of God" believe something which contradicts and
>contravenes something else, that something else being based on something you
>claim God said?

Where is the contradiction?

[duke]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 17:55:17 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:

>The necessity of Baptism is an official position of the RCC, can't
>speak about other denominations which may have different beliefs.

John 3:5-7 (New International Version)
5 Jesus answered, �Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God
unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but
the Spirit[a] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying,
�You[b] must be born again.�

>There is no official position on the fate of unbaptized babies like
>there is on baptism. However the overwhelming consensus in the Church
>is that babies either 1)go directly to heaven or 2)go to limbo. Don't
>ask me what limbo is, I don't know. :b

A small correction here. Nobody knows exactly how God handles the baby that
dies unbaptized. For the longest time, it was felt that God would not relegate
the baby to hell through no fault of it's own. Thus a "state" of limbo was
assumed. Lately, the Church simply admits that we don't know one way or the
other, so the thought is that God will lovingly take care of the situation some
day.

>The reason is simple. Taking Christ's statement that from those who
>have been given much, much will be expected, we can extrapolate that
>for those who have been given less, less will be expected.

>Finally, to those who haven given the least - babies - very little
>will be expected. Hence we don't expect God will go down especially
>hard on a 2 year old victim of fibromyalgia.

If baptized, he will achieve the kingdom of God. He's freed of the stain of
original sin in baptism and is too young to commit any actual sin on it's own.
Hence the reason we baptize infants at 8 weeks, and hospital staff will baptize
a dying new born if necessary. Any person including an atheist can baptize as
long as the/a proper method is used.

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

On Apr 4, 6:50 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

So it isn't in the bible.

> >Is it in the "traditions" of the RCC?

Well? Is it? It's not in the "traditions" either, is it?

> >Or did you just make it up?

You just made it up, didn't you?

Perhaps you think your loving god simply forgot about miscarriages and
abortions when he made the rule that only baptized souls get to
heaven.

Do you think god is forgetful?

[Syd M.]

On Apr 4, 7:47 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 17:55:17 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
>

Unsupported assertion.

PDW

[•RLMeasures]

In article <PradnSXQqo2mcMHM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

• I find it curious that his mom never renounced Judaism or was baptised
Catholic.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <buoql8927ia540ff8...@4ax.com>, duke

• He also ordered the murder of c. 100,000 in S. France.

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

On Apr 4, 11:26 pm, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> In article <PradnSXQqo2mcMHMnZ2dnUVZ_oudn...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> > duke wrote:
> > > On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:36:49 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com>

> wrote:
>
> > >> Patrick wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:07:39 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
> > >>> <chrislee95...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:46:49 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
> > >>>> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Interesting, considering that insistence on particular doctrines,
> with no
> > >>>>> external standard for reference, virtually guarantees that there will
> > >>>>> never be a "united human family".  They, like all religions, are saying,
> > >>>>> "We would love it if everyone became Catholic.  But, WE aren't
> changing!"
>
> > >>>> Whenever a Pope visits another country he talks about reuniting the
> > >>>> local church with the Catholics, but it's always under him with the
> > >>>> replacement of the local doctrines with the Vatican's.
> > >>>> Which won't happen.
>
> > >>> What local doctrines?
>
> > >> Russian Orthos make the Sign of the Cross right to left (the heathens!)
> > >> not left to right like Jesus did.
>
> > > Jesus made the sign of the cross??????????
>
> > Yeah, but every time He did, His mother rolled her eyes and said, "Oi Vey!"
>
>  I find it curious that his mom never renounced Judaism or was baptised
> Catholic.

Another good question for Paddy and Duke - did the unbaptized Mary get
to heaven?

[•RLMeasures]

In article
<7b792e61-c3a6-4ba3...@ky11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

> On Apr 4, 11:26=A0pm, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> > In article <PradnSXQqo2mcMHMnZ2dnUVZ_oudn...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> > > duke wrote:

> > > > On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:36:49 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com=

> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > >> Patrick wrote:
> > > >>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:07:39 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
> > > >>> <chrislee95...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:46:49 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> >
> > > >>>>> Interesting, considering that insistence on particular doctrines,
> > with no

> > > >>>>> external standard for reference, virtually guarantees that there =
> will
> > > >>>>> never be a "united human family". =A0They, like all religions, ar=
> e saying,
> > > >>>>> "We would love it if everyone became Catholic. =A0But, WE aren't
> > changing!"
> >
> > > >>>> Whenever a Pope visits another country he talks about reuniting th=
> e
> > > >>>> local church with the Catholics, but it's always under him with th=

> e
> > > >>>> replacement of the local doctrines with the Vatican's.
> > > >>>> Which won't happen.
> >
> > > >>> What local doctrines?
> >

> > > >> Russian Orthos make the Sign of the Cross right to left (the heathen=

> s!)
> > > >> not left to right like Jesus did.
> >
> > > > Jesus made the sign of the cross??????????
> >

> > > Yeah, but every time He did, His mother rolled her eyes and said, "Oi V=
> ey!"
> >
> > =A0I find it curious that his mom never renounced Judaism or was baptised

> > Catholic.
>
> Another good question for Paddy and Duke - did the unbaptized Mary get
> to heaven?

• Maybe that's why Pius XII had to infallibly promote the idea of a
retroactive Assumption in 1950?

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

On Apr 5, 1:01 am, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> In article

> <7b792e61-c3a6-4ba3-982d-1305e9cce...@ky11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Hmmmmm,,, tricky and cunning, these catlicks.

[duke]

How do you know?

[duke]

How do you know she wasn't baptized?

[duke]

Infallible statements must be based on solid truth from before.

[duke]

Black cats?

[duke]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 05:05:56 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>> >> Simple. We also believe that God, in his infinite wisdom, will cleanse and
>> >> elevate the unbaptized fetus, thru no fault of it's own, into heaven anyway in
>> >> the end.
>> >So where do you get this belief from, Duke?
>> >Is it in the bible?
>> We believe in the infinite merits of God's love.
>So it isn't in the bible.

His infinite love is.

>> >Is it in the "traditions" of the RCC?
>Well? Is it? It's not in the "traditions" either, is it?

What do you mean?

>> >Or did you just make it up?
>You just made it up, didn't you?

No.

>Perhaps you think your loving god simply forgot about miscarriages and
>abortions when he made the rule that only baptized souls get to
>heaven.

What isn't stated can only be assumed based on the big picture.

>Do you think god is forgetful?

Not a change.