info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Church’s total ban on contraception cannot be changed by Pope Francis or anyone else
54 views
Skip to first unread message
Who could it be now?
Feb 1, 2023, 11:18:43 PM2/1/23
to
If sexual intercourse is positively prevented from being ordered toward
children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
pope, can undo.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-churchs-total-ban-on-contraception-cannot-be-changed-by-pope-francis-or-anyone-else/?utm_source=news&utm_campaign=usa
< article follows >
children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
pope, can undo.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-churchs-total-ban-on-contraception-cannot-be-changed-by-pope-francis-or-anyone-else/?utm_source=news&utm_campaign=usa
< article follows >
David Dalton
Feb 2, 2023, 12:31:12 AM2/2/23
to
On Feb 2, 2023, Who could it be now? wrote
(in article <trfdiu$ngc9$1...@dont-email.me>):
> If sexual intercourse is positively prevented from being ordered toward
> children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
> moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
> primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
> pope, can undo.
However God, who is concerned about the size of the
global population, certainly can and has undone it.
If procreation was the only goal of sex then we would
just have “heat” periods like dogs. But we have
continuous sexuality, and the primary purpose of that
is to foster love/bonding between the partners.
--
David Dalton dal...@nfld.com https://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
https://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"I gave my love a golden feather/I gave my love a heart of stone/and when you
find a golden feather/it means you'll never lose your way back home." (R.R.)
(in article <trfdiu$ngc9$1...@dont-email.me>):
> If sexual intercourse is positively prevented from being ordered toward
> children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
> moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
> primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
> pope, can undo.
global population, certainly can and has undone it.
If procreation was the only goal of sex then we would
just have “heat” periods like dogs. But we have
continuous sexuality, and the primary purpose of that
is to foster love/bonding between the partners.
--
David Dalton dal...@nfld.com https://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
https://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"I gave my love a golden feather/I gave my love a heart of stone/and when you
find a golden feather/it means you'll never lose your way back home." (R.R.)
Message has been deleted
John Baker
Feb 2, 2023, 6:14:08 AM2/2/23
to
On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 23:18:38 -0500, Who could it be now?
<looseain't...@this.com> wrote:
>If sexual intercourse is positively prevented from being ordered toward
>children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
>moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
>primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
>pope, can undo.
Found the 40-year-old virgin.
<looseain't...@this.com> wrote:
>If sexual intercourse is positively prevented from being ordered toward
>children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
>moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
>primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
>pope, can undo.
>
>
>https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-churchs-total-ban-on-contraception-cannot-be-changed-by-pope-francis-or-anyone-else/?utm_source=news&utm_campaign=usa
>
> < article follows >
Lie Site News?
<snarf>
AA #1898
Giver of No Fucks
Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 2, 2023, 7:54:19 AM2/2/23
to
rOn Thu, 02 Feb 2023 06:14:03 -0500, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 23:18:38 -0500, Who could it be now?
><looseain't...@this.com> wrote:
>
>>If sexual intercourse is positively prevented from being ordered toward
>>children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
>>moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
>>primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
>>pope, can undo.
>
>Found the 40-year-old virgin.
So the Pope orders a brand new, accurate translation of the NT by
genuine linguists...
Afterwards, he's in tears.
The younget cardinal asks him, "why are you so disconsolate, your
holiness?"
"We've been wrong all this time, it says 'celebrate', not 'celibate'"
wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 23:18:38 -0500, Who could it be now?
><looseain't...@this.com> wrote:
>
>>If sexual intercourse is positively prevented from being ordered toward
>>children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
>>moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
>>primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
>>pope, can undo.
>
>Found the 40-year-old virgin.
genuine linguists...
Afterwards, he's in tears.
The younget cardinal asks him, "why are you so disconsolate, your
holiness?"
"We've been wrong all this time, it says 'celebrate', not 'celibate'"
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 3, 2023, 9:15:48 AM2/3/23
to
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 11:55:27 -0800 (PST), Tim <cyfur...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 8:07:18 AM UTC-5, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The bible does not ban contraceptives.
>
>Nor does it ban postpartum abortion. In fact, it pretty much condones it.
Mad Joe knows I never mention contraception. He invents points that
weren't made, to attack them and the poster.
But for what it's worth. he's WRONG....
<https://www.salon.com/2014/01/05/biblical_birth_control_the_surprisingly_contraception_friendly_old_testament/>
https://tinyurl.com/2b85tnur
wrote:
>On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 8:07:18 AM UTC-5, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>Nor does it ban postpartum abortion. In fact, it pretty much condones it.
Mad Joe knows I never mention contraception. He invents points that
weren't made, to attack them and the poster.
But for what it's worth. he's WRONG....
<https://www.salon.com/2014/01/05/biblical_birth_control_the_surprisingly_contraception_friendly_old_testament/>
https://tinyurl.com/2b85tnur
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Tim
Feb 3, 2023, 6:42:06 PM2/3/23
to
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:10:45 PM UTC-5, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
1 Samuel 15:3-4
You can not read, moron.
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 11:55:29 AM UTC-8, Tim wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 8:07:18 AM UTC-5, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 4:54:19 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 8:07:18 AM UTC-5, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 4:54:19 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > > The bible does not ban contraceptives.
> > Nor does it ban postpartum abortion. In fact, it pretty much condones it.
> HORSECRAP
> > Nor does it ban postpartum abortion. In fact, it pretty much condones it.
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
1 Samuel 15:3-4
You can not read, moron.
Message has been deleted
Viktor Tandofsky
Feb 3, 2023, 7:03:01 PM2/3/23
to
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
P+Barker
Feb 6, 2023, 8:44:41 AM2/6/23
to
00, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>If sexual intercourse is positively prevented from being ordered toward
>>children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
>>moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
>>primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
>>pope, can undo.
>>
>Nonsense. This is simply a tool used to control the masses.
>>If sexual intercourse is positively prevented from being ordered toward
>>children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
>>moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
>>primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
>>pope, can undo.
>>
>Historically common practice for silly superstitions since
>control means power.
Catholic teachings on abortion have changed over time. Many past and
present Catholic theologians have said abortion can be a moral choice.
Others disagree.
St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, both Doctors of the Church,
believed that the fetus did not become a person (or become “ensouled”)
until later in the pregnancy. For much of the church’s history,
Catholic popes made a clear distinction between ensouled and
un-ensouled fetuses. The Vatican’s total ban on abortion was not
codified until 1917. Even today, although the Vatican does not condone
abortion, it has said definitively that it does not know when a
developing life becomes a person. This history demonstrates that the
Catholic tradition includes more than the teachings written down by
popes and theologians. Catholicism is based on a deep respect for
conscience, which each person must follow above all else when making a
moral decision.
P+Barker
Feb 6, 2023, 5:27:09 PM2/6/23
to
On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 09:06:12 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 08:44:36 -0500, P+Barker
><PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>still control and power.
How do they use this control and power when they don't have civil
punishment authority?
>
>>
>>St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, both Doctors of the Church,
>>believed that the fetus did not become a person (or become “ensouled”)
>>until later in the pregnancy. For much of the church’s history,
>>Catholic popes made a clear distinction between ensouled and
>>un-ensouled fetuses. The Vatican’s total ban on abortion was not
>>codified until 1917. Even today, although the Vatican does not condone
>>abortion, it has said definitively that it does not know when a
>>developing life becomes a person. This history demonstrates that the
>>Catholic tradition includes more than the teachings written down by
>>popes and theologians. Catholicism is based on a deep respect for
>>conscience, which each person must follow above all else when making a
>>moral decision.
>
>As is said it is all just an attempt by silly superstitions
>to control behavior because control is power and power means
>wealth and status for anyone who has it.
And you are jealous that we have it, and.... you don't.
wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 08:44:36 -0500, P+Barker
><PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
><9112uhthfemv4cln2...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>00, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>If sexual intercourse is positively prevented from being ordered toward
>>>>children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
>>>>moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
>>>>primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
>>>>pope, can undo.
>>>>
>>>Nonsense. This is simply a tool used to control the masses.
>>>Historically common practice for silly superstitions since
>>>control means power.
>>
>>Catholic teachings on abortion have changed over time. Many past and
>>present Catholic theologians have said abortion can be a moral choice.
>>Others disagree.
>
>It doesn't matter. Whatever the details the subject is
>
>>00, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>If sexual intercourse is positively prevented from being ordered toward
>>>>children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
>>>>moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
>>>>primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
>>>>pope, can undo.
>>>>
>>>Nonsense. This is simply a tool used to control the masses.
>>>Historically common practice for silly superstitions since
>>>control means power.
>>
>>Catholic teachings on abortion have changed over time. Many past and
>>present Catholic theologians have said abortion can be a moral choice.
>>Others disagree.
>
>still control and power.
How do they use this control and power when they don't have civil
punishment authority?
>
>>
>>St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, both Doctors of the Church,
>>believed that the fetus did not become a person (or become “ensouled”)
>>until later in the pregnancy. For much of the church’s history,
>>Catholic popes made a clear distinction between ensouled and
>>un-ensouled fetuses. The Vatican’s total ban on abortion was not
>>codified until 1917. Even today, although the Vatican does not condone
>>abortion, it has said definitively that it does not know when a
>>developing life becomes a person. This history demonstrates that the
>>Catholic tradition includes more than the teachings written down by
>>popes and theologians. Catholicism is based on a deep respect for
>>conscience, which each person must follow above all else when making a
>>moral decision.
>
>to control behavior because control is power and power means
>wealth and status for anyone who has it.
And you are jealous that we have it, and.... you don't.
tesla sTinker
Feb 6, 2023, 8:29:38 PM2/6/23
to
On 2/1/2023 8:18 PM, Who could it be now? scribbled:
> If sexual intercourse is positively prevented from being ordered toward
> children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
> moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
> primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
> pope, can undo.
>
>
> https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-churchs-total-ban-on-contraception-cannot-be-changed-by-pope-francis-or-anyone-else/?utm_source=news&utm_campaign=usa
> children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
> moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
> primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
> pope, can undo.
>
>
>
>
> < article follows >
First of all, only the true catholic church can give correct answer.
God made the order of this precept "be fruitful and multiply."
He also wants marriage, or, Jesus would not of come.
Contraception is for all those that do not trust in Him. Of course
He knows as soon as you do such.
His order is for you to have children,
that is the purpose of this act of life. If not married, it is
fornication, which is a sinful act. The child is born in sin then. Same
as the contraception does this with no child as the result. However, it
is possible you cannot do His Holy Will even without contraception.
Which is not sinful the not having of Children.
That is not the sin to try. It is a sin, if your not married in either
case. Fornication.... To have masterbation to avoid the sin is not
sinful. So, it has nothing to do with power, because either or can
happen of. Sinful or not. To posses your vessel in sanctification is
such of what is said above here. God knows how He made you. And he
knows the ways to do it. But if you sin,
you can be certain of, He does not listen to you for awhile or hear your
prayers at all. At all.
So do not sin or error, in the truth.
So, the natural end is not always the same. Sinful or not...
Either contraception or no contraception the same is possible.
Making what some people believe is a power, it really is not. It is an
illusion for it is only a blessing from God to have children. A gift
of sanctification. Of the marriage.
P+Barker
Feb 7, 2023, 6:58:48 AM2/7/23
to
On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 18:51:14 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 17:27:06 -0500, P+Barker
ok.
sO YOU ARE SPEAKING OF THE PAST.
OK then.
How long ago?
100 years? 1000 years?
>>>As is said it is all just an attempt by silly superstitions
>>>to control behavior because control is power and power means
>>>wealth and status for anyone who has it.
>>
>>And you are jealous that we have it, and.... you don't.
>
>It seems you have a low tolerance for anyone who doesn't
>drink your particular flavor. That is based on the threats
>I constantly get.
Maybe I'm speaking of the past............ like you.
>What would be the result if I "got it" - but it was not your
>particular brand of silly superstition?
Then you might stop criticizing anything Catholic, and you might find
peace in the world.
Any more questions?
wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 17:27:06 -0500, P+Barker
><PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
><kjv2uhd2e1v5tbb4c...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 09:06:12 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 08:44:36 -0500, P+Barker
>>><PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>><9112uhthfemv4cln2...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>00, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>If sexual intercourse is positively prevented from being ordered toward
>>>>>>children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
>>>>>>moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
>>>>>>primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
>>>>>>pope, can undo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Nonsense. This is simply a tool used to control the masses.
>>>>>Historically common practice for silly superstitions since
>>>>>control means power.
>>>>
>>>>Catholic teachings on abortion have changed over time. Many past and
>>>>present Catholic theologians have said abortion can be a moral choice.
>>>>Others disagree.
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter. Whatever the details the subject is
>>>still control and power.
>>
>>How do they use this control and power when they don't have civil
>>punishment authority?
>
>In the past they did.
>
>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 09:06:12 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 08:44:36 -0500, P+Barker
>>><PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>><9112uhthfemv4cln2...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>00, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>If sexual intercourse is positively prevented from being ordered toward
>>>>>>children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
>>>>>>moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
>>>>>>primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
>>>>>>pope, can undo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Nonsense. This is simply a tool used to control the masses.
>>>>>Historically common practice for silly superstitions since
>>>>>control means power.
>>>>
>>>>Catholic teachings on abortion have changed over time. Many past and
>>>>present Catholic theologians have said abortion can be a moral choice.
>>>>Others disagree.
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter. Whatever the details the subject is
>>>still control and power.
>>
>>How do they use this control and power when they don't have civil
>>punishment authority?
>
ok.
sO YOU ARE SPEAKING OF THE PAST.
OK then.
How long ago?
100 years? 1000 years?
>>>As is said it is all just an attempt by silly superstitions
>>>to control behavior because control is power and power means
>>>wealth and status for anyone who has it.
>>
>>And you are jealous that we have it, and.... you don't.
>
>drink your particular flavor. That is based on the threats
>I constantly get.
Maybe I'm speaking of the past............ like you.
>What would be the result if I "got it" - but it was not your
>particular brand of silly superstition?
Then you might stop criticizing anything Catholic, and you might find
peace in the world.
Any more questions?
P+Barker
Feb 7, 2023, 1:16:44 PM2/7/23
to
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 12:43:18 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 06:58:44 -0500, P+Barker
>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>their particular superstition?
When did they start?
>>>>>As is said it is all just an attempt by silly superstitions
>>>>>to control behavior because control is power and power means
>>>>>wealth and status for anyone who has it.
>>>>
>>>>And you are jealous that we have it, and.... you don't.
>>>
>>>It seems you have a low tolerance for anyone who doesn't
>>>drink your particular flavor. That is based on the threats
>>>I constantly get.
>>
>>Maybe I'm speaking of the past............ like you.
>
>The past is prolog.
past
/past/
adjective
gone by in time and no longer existing.
>>>What would be the result if I "got it" - but it was not your
>>>particular brand of silly superstition?
>>
>>Then you might stop criticizing anything Catholic, and you might find
>>peace in the world.
>
>I don't pick out any particular flavor. I feel the same
>about any of the silly superstitions. There are simply too
>many to keep trying to name them and I don't wish to leave
>anyone out.
It must suck to be you.
Who made you "judge" og other people's beliefs?
>>Any more questions?
>
>Do you consider any particular superstition as being factual
>and not just a belief?
I don't have any superstitions.
What is a superstition easy definition?
a belief or way of behaving that is based on fear of the unknown and
faith in magic or luck
a belief that certain events or things will bring good or bad luck.
wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 06:58:44 -0500, P+Barker
><PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>their particular superstition?
When did they start?
>>>>>As is said it is all just an attempt by silly superstitions
>>>>>to control behavior because control is power and power means
>>>>>wealth and status for anyone who has it.
>>>>
>>>>And you are jealous that we have it, and.... you don't.
>>>
>>>It seems you have a low tolerance for anyone who doesn't
>>>drink your particular flavor. That is based on the threats
>>>I constantly get.
>>
>>Maybe I'm speaking of the past............ like you.
>
past
/past/
adjective
gone by in time and no longer existing.
>>>What would be the result if I "got it" - but it was not your
>>>particular brand of silly superstition?
>>
>>Then you might stop criticizing anything Catholic, and you might find
>>peace in the world.
>
>about any of the silly superstitions. There are simply too
>many to keep trying to name them and I don't wish to leave
>anyone out.
It must suck to be you.
Who made you "judge" og other people's beliefs?
>>Any more questions?
>
>Do you consider any particular superstition as being factual
>and not just a belief?
I don't have any superstitions.
What is a superstition easy definition?
a belief or way of behaving that is based on fear of the unknown and
faith in magic or luck
a belief that certain events or things will bring good or bad luck.
Mitchell Holman
Feb 7, 2023, 1:48:01 PM2/7/23
to
P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:j555uh56598u390hh...@4ax.com:
Meatless Fridays, doing penance,
worshipping relics, making pilgramages,
last rights, papal infaliblity, the
blessing of ships, the burning of witches -
not Catholic superstitions?
`
news:j555uh56598u390hh...@4ax.com:
worshipping relics, making pilgramages,
last rights, papal infaliblity, the
blessing of ships, the burning of witches -
not Catholic superstitions?
`
P+Barker
Feb 7, 2023, 3:47:00 PM2/7/23
to
Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizon.net> wrote:
>P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> I don't have any superstitions.
>> What is a superstition easy definition?
>> a belief or way of behaving that is based on fear of the unknown and
>> faith in magic or luck
>
>
> Meatless Fridays, doing penance,
>worshipping relics, making pilgramages,
>last rights, papal infaliblity, the
>blessing of ships, the burning of witches -
>not Catholic superstitions?
Nope.
>P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> I don't have any superstitions.
>> What is a superstition easy definition?
>> a belief or way of behaving that is based on fear of the unknown and
>> faith in magic or luck
>
>
> Meatless Fridays, doing penance,
>worshipping relics, making pilgramages,
>last rights, papal infaliblity, the
>blessing of ships, the burning of witches -
>not Catholic superstitions?
P+Barker
Feb 7, 2023, 3:51:05 PM2/7/23
to
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:16:39 -0500, P+Barker
>>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>their particular superstition?
>>
>>When did they start?
>
>I have no idea. Probably with the first shaman.
What is a shaman?
Is that some sort of witch?
>Do you always answer a question with a question?
Only when the question is stupid and makes no sense.
>The past starts an instant ago. I constantly get threats
>that I should obey some superstitious nonsense or when I die
>some kind of retribution will occur.
OK then.
Do you believe in superstitions?
>>It must suck to be you.
>
>Not at all.
>without limit. The problem arises when he asserts his
>belief is factual and not just a belief - which basically is
>nothing more than an unsupported opinion. That assertion
>can be direct or strongly implied.
And you feel that people want to hear your stupid beliefs?
>On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:16:39 -0500, P+Barker
>>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>their particular superstition?
>>
>>When did they start?
>
What is a shaman?
Is that some sort of witch?
>Do you always answer a question with a question?
Only when the question is stupid and makes no sense.
>The past starts an instant ago. I constantly get threats
>that I should obey some superstitious nonsense or when I die
>some kind of retribution will occur.
OK then.
Do you believe in superstitions?
>>It must suck to be you.
>
>
>>Who made you "judge" og other people's beliefs?
>
>No one. Anyone is free to have any kind of belief he likes
>>Who made you "judge" og other people's beliefs?
>
>without limit. The problem arises when he asserts his
>belief is factual and not just a belief - which basically is
>nothing more than an unsupported opinion. That assertion
>can be direct or strongly implied.
And you feel that people want to hear your stupid beliefs?
P+Barker
Feb 8, 2023, 7:38:54 AM2/8/23
to
On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 17:04:07 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 15:50:57 -0500, P+Barker
>noun
>: shaman; plural noun: shamans
>a person regarded as having access to, and influence in, the
>world of good and evil spirits, especially among some
>peoples of northern Asia and North America. Typically such
>people enter a trance state during a ritual, and practice
>divination and healing.
>generally taught to children under 10.
I guess one of us is confused.
You stated that catholics started burning witches - probably with the
first shaman. (northern Asia and North America)
Are you going to stick with this statement?
>>>Do you always answer a question with a question?
>>
>>Only when the question is stupid and makes no sense.
>
>Or you do not like the answer needed.
There usually is no answer to a stupid question that makes no sense.
And why does your stupid question need to be answered?
>>>The past starts an instant ago. I constantly get threats
>>>that I should obey some superstitious nonsense or when I die
>>>some kind of retribution will occur.
>>
>>OK then.
>>Do you believe in superstitions?
>
>Nope.
OK. That is what you claim as of an instant ago.
How about now?
>>And you feel that people want to hear your stupid beliefs?
>
>Such as what? All I do is ask questions and point out where
>some statements must lead.
Kinda like me asking you what you mean by your stupid questions.
>Can you give a specific reference to where I have posted a
>belief? I have been accused of this many times over the
>years but somehow no one ever seems to be able to prove it
>with a direct link.
No. Why should I?
I don't live in the past.
Feb 6: You said: "Somehow a person or place connected with some
religion is considered as something special when neither is
true."
Do you know the definition of "special?"
Perhaps in your little sphere on non-influence, there are no special
people. Perhaps you should ask ANYONE else on earth if they hold some
other person as special. My mom (Catholic) was very special.
Many people think Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul, the Dalia Lama, and
many others as special. Many people think Lourdes, Fatima, the
Vatican, etc are special. Some people even thought the "Devil's
Tower" was special.
There are "special" people and places on earth, much to your chagrin.
There's loads of people who have exceptional talent in various areas.
Most would consider such people as “special” People like Stephen
Hawking, for example, he was widely accepted as very special, not only
for his scientific genius, but also for overcoming his disability, and
his determination to not let said disability stop him from living his
life to the fullest.
Perhaps you think you are special. Delusion of grandeur refers to a
person's false belief that they are someone other than who they truly
are — typically someone powerful or important. Delusions may be a sign
of a mental health disorder.
>Somehow I can say "I have yet to see any valid evidence
>supporting the existence of any god." and have someone
>demand I prove there is no god.
OK.
To one who "believes" in God, no evidence is required.
TO one who doesn't, no evidence is acceptable.
wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 15:50:57 -0500, P+Barker
><PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
><h6e5uh5l36ke7fgdc...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:16:39 -0500, P+Barker
>>
>>
>>>>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>>>their particular superstition?
>>>>
>>>>When did they start?
>>>
>>>I have no idea. Probably with the first shaman.
>>
>>What is a shaman?
>
>sha·man
>
>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 13:16:39 -0500, P+Barker
>>
>>
>>>>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>>>their particular superstition?
>>>>
>>>>When did they start?
>>>
>>>I have no idea. Probably with the first shaman.
>>
>>What is a shaman?
>
>noun
>: shaman; plural noun: shamans
>a person regarded as having access to, and influence in, the
>world of good and evil spirits, especially among some
>peoples of northern Asia and North America. Typically such
>people enter a trance state during a ritual, and practice
>divination and healing.
>
>>Is that some sort of witch?
>
>Are you unable to look up a definition? The word is
>>Is that some sort of witch?
>
>generally taught to children under 10.
I guess one of us is confused.
You stated that catholics started burning witches - probably with the
first shaman. (northern Asia and North America)
Are you going to stick with this statement?
>>>Do you always answer a question with a question?
>>
>>Only when the question is stupid and makes no sense.
>
There usually is no answer to a stupid question that makes no sense.
And why does your stupid question need to be answered?
>>>The past starts an instant ago. I constantly get threats
>>>that I should obey some superstitious nonsense or when I die
>>>some kind of retribution will occur.
>>
>>OK then.
>>Do you believe in superstitions?
>
OK. That is what you claim as of an instant ago.
How about now?
>>And you feel that people want to hear your stupid beliefs?
>
>some statements must lead.
Kinda like me asking you what you mean by your stupid questions.
>Can you give a specific reference to where I have posted a
>belief? I have been accused of this many times over the
>years but somehow no one ever seems to be able to prove it
>with a direct link.
No. Why should I?
I don't live in the past.
Feb 6: You said: "Somehow a person or place connected with some
religion is considered as something special when neither is
true."
Do you know the definition of "special?"
Perhaps in your little sphere on non-influence, there are no special
people. Perhaps you should ask ANYONE else on earth if they hold some
other person as special. My mom (Catholic) was very special.
Many people think Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul, the Dalia Lama, and
many others as special. Many people think Lourdes, Fatima, the
Vatican, etc are special. Some people even thought the "Devil's
Tower" was special.
There are "special" people and places on earth, much to your chagrin.
There's loads of people who have exceptional talent in various areas.
Most would consider such people as “special” People like Stephen
Hawking, for example, he was widely accepted as very special, not only
for his scientific genius, but also for overcoming his disability, and
his determination to not let said disability stop him from living his
life to the fullest.
Perhaps you think you are special. Delusion of grandeur refers to a
person's false belief that they are someone other than who they truly
are — typically someone powerful or important. Delusions may be a sign
of a mental health disorder.
>Somehow I can say "I have yet to see any valid evidence
>supporting the existence of any god." and have someone
>demand I prove there is no god.
OK.
To one who "believes" in God, no evidence is required.
TO one who doesn't, no evidence is acceptable.
P+Barker
Feb 8, 2023, 4:19:23 PM2/8/23
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 11:26:15 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 07:38:48 -0500, P+Barker
>I was not limiting my comment to any particular flavor. I
>address the entire subject of silly superstitions.
OK.
Now you claim it was not Catholics who started burning witches or
shamans. And you don't know when they stopped burning witches.
Now I gotcha.
>>>>>Do you always answer a question with a question?
>>>>
>>>>Only when the question is stupid and makes no sense.
>>>
>>>Or you do not like the answer needed.
>>
>>There usually is no answer to a stupid question that makes no sense.
>>And why does your stupid question need to be answered?
>
>It seems apparent you did not know what a shaman was. After
>all, that is what you asked.
I was confused as to why you tried to relate Catholics burning witches
and also shamans. That seemed a little odd to me. I know you like to
embellish your stupid claims, and I was just trying to figure out how
you were doing it here.
>You started this when you ignored my question about when
>burning witches was stopped.
Stupid question deserves a stupid answer.
How aBOUT IF i GIVE YOU EXAMPLE:
How did your mother punish you for rummaging through her bra drawer?
Did your dad whup you when you tortured your siblings?
>>>>>The past starts an instant ago. I constantly get threats
>>>>>that I should obey some superstitious nonsense or when I die
>>>>>some kind of retribution will occur.
>>>>
>>>>OK then.
>>>>Do you believe in superstitions?
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>
>>OK. That is what you claim as of an instant ago.
>>How about now?
>
>Still no, smart ass.
Just following your reasoning, bobbo.
>>>>And you feel that people want to hear your stupid beliefs?
>>>
>>>Such as what? All I do is ask questions and point out where
>>>some statements must lead.
>>
>>Kinda like me asking you what you mean by your stupid questions.
>
>What I mean is hardly a secret.
Then I believe you should be more direct, instead of asking stupid
questions.
>Superstitious based
>nonsense is constantly being posted here as if it actual
>fact yet it appears no one doing this can provide any
>independent and unrelated verification for what is said.
And so now you feel you have the responsibility to accuse and insult
anyone who believes differently than you? How special.
>It
>seems these people think making assertions of fact based
>upon their superstitious dogma is to be accepted without
>question.
And you would be wrong.
Every person with religious beliefs is always asking himself if what
he spouts is actually what he believes. That is what normal people
do.
>I question.
>Also this is an atheist group posing superstitious
>propaganda is frowned upon. Not that any of the pests seem
>to give a damn.
Then get out of the Roman Catholic newsgroup.
You are not welcome here.
You come here merely to insult us.
Get out. Go away.
And you will never hear from me again.
>>>Can you give a specific reference to where I have posted a
>>>belief? I have been accused of this many times over the
>>>years but somehow no one ever seems to be able to prove it
>>>with a direct link.
>>
>>No. Why should I?
>>I don't live in the past.
>
>Another case of an accusation without any evidence what you
>accuse me of ever occurred. Perhaps you just lie a lot.
Read the next para, bobbo.
>>Feb 6: You said: "Somehow a person or place connected with some
>>religion is considered as something special when neither is
>>true."
>>Do you know the definition of "special?"
>
>"better, greater, or otherwise different from what is
>usual."
You don't have special parents?
>>Perhaps in your little sphere on non-influence, there are no special
>>people. Perhaps you should ask ANYONE else on earth if they hold some
>>other person as special. My mom (Catholic) was very special.
>
>Do you make claims about them?
My mom was a very special person. I claim this.
>>Many people think Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul, the Dalia Lama, and
>>many others as special.
>
>Others don't. I don't.
What makes you think anyone cares what you think?
Do you think you are special?
>> Many people think Lourdes, Fatima, the
>>Vatican, etc are special. Some people even thought the "Devil's
>>Tower" was special.
>
>Superstitious nonsense.
according to the atheist dip shit.
>>There are "special" people and places on earth, much to your chagrin.
>>There's loads of people who have exceptional talent in various areas.
>>Most would consider such people as “special” People like Stephen
>>Hawking, for example, he was widely accepted as very special, not only
>>for his scientific genius, but also for overcoming his disability, and
>>his determination to not let said disability stop him from living his
>>life to the fullest.
>>
>>Perhaps you think you are special. Delusion of grandeur refers to a
>>person's false belief that they are someone other than who they truly
>>are — typically someone powerful or important. Delusions may be a sign
>>of a mental health disorder.
>
>So you can ramble on and on about things you consider
>special. So what?
Well then. I am special. And you are not.
>I was talking about people who post their superstitious
>nonsense and feel they do not need to support it with
>unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence but
>demand it be accepted just because they think it is true.
Why do you go to a Roman Catholic newsgroup to read such things?
Stay away. Go away.
>If I claimed to own a flying hamster how many people do you
>think would believe me without supporting evidence?
You won't find any catholics to believe you.
Perhaps you could go pound sand.
>>>Somehow I can say "I have yet to see any valid evidence
>>>supporting the existence of any god." and have someone
>>>demand I prove there is no god.
>>
>>OK.
>>To one who "believes" in God, no evidence is required.
>
>That does not give them the right to expect the same
>reaction from everyone, nor the right to assert their belief
>as if is fact without being challenged.
And you feel you are the one to challenge them?
Are you "special?"
>>TO one who doesn't, no evidence is acceptable.
>
>That statement is about as useless a threats about what will
>happen after death if a particular flavor of silly
>superstition is not followed. That is a safe threat because
>since death is one way there is no possible way to determine
>whether such threats are correct or complete bullshit.
So why come here and bother us?
wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 07:38:48 -0500, P+Barker
><PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>address the entire subject of silly superstitions.
OK.
Now you claim it was not Catholics who started burning witches or
shamans. And you don't know when they stopped burning witches.
Now I gotcha.
>>>>>Do you always answer a question with a question?
>>>>
>>>>Only when the question is stupid and makes no sense.
>>>
>>>Or you do not like the answer needed.
>>
>>There usually is no answer to a stupid question that makes no sense.
>>And why does your stupid question need to be answered?
>
>all, that is what you asked.
I was confused as to why you tried to relate Catholics burning witches
and also shamans. That seemed a little odd to me. I know you like to
embellish your stupid claims, and I was just trying to figure out how
you were doing it here.
>You started this when you ignored my question about when
>burning witches was stopped.
Stupid question deserves a stupid answer.
How aBOUT IF i GIVE YOU EXAMPLE:
How did your mother punish you for rummaging through her bra drawer?
Did your dad whup you when you tortured your siblings?
>>>>>The past starts an instant ago. I constantly get threats
>>>>>that I should obey some superstitious nonsense or when I die
>>>>>some kind of retribution will occur.
>>>>
>>>>OK then.
>>>>Do you believe in superstitions?
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>
>>OK. That is what you claim as of an instant ago.
>>How about now?
>
Just following your reasoning, bobbo.
>>>>And you feel that people want to hear your stupid beliefs?
>>>
>>>Such as what? All I do is ask questions and point out where
>>>some statements must lead.
>>
>>Kinda like me asking you what you mean by your stupid questions.
>
Then I believe you should be more direct, instead of asking stupid
questions.
>Superstitious based
>nonsense is constantly being posted here as if it actual
>fact yet it appears no one doing this can provide any
>independent and unrelated verification for what is said.
And so now you feel you have the responsibility to accuse and insult
anyone who believes differently than you? How special.
>It
>seems these people think making assertions of fact based
>upon their superstitious dogma is to be accepted without
>question.
And you would be wrong.
Every person with religious beliefs is always asking himself if what
he spouts is actually what he believes. That is what normal people
do.
>I question.
>Also this is an atheist group posing superstitious
>propaganda is frowned upon. Not that any of the pests seem
>to give a damn.
Then get out of the Roman Catholic newsgroup.
You are not welcome here.
You come here merely to insult us.
Get out. Go away.
And you will never hear from me again.
>>>Can you give a specific reference to where I have posted a
>>>belief? I have been accused of this many times over the
>>>years but somehow no one ever seems to be able to prove it
>>>with a direct link.
>>
>>No. Why should I?
>>I don't live in the past.
>
>accuse me of ever occurred. Perhaps you just lie a lot.
Read the next para, bobbo.
>>Feb 6: You said: "Somehow a person or place connected with some
>>religion is considered as something special when neither is
>>true."
>>Do you know the definition of "special?"
>
>usual."
You don't have special parents?
>>Perhaps in your little sphere on non-influence, there are no special
>>people. Perhaps you should ask ANYONE else on earth if they hold some
>>other person as special. My mom (Catholic) was very special.
>
My mom was a very special person. I claim this.
>>Many people think Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul, the Dalia Lama, and
>>many others as special.
>
What makes you think anyone cares what you think?
Do you think you are special?
>> Many people think Lourdes, Fatima, the
>>Vatican, etc are special. Some people even thought the "Devil's
>>Tower" was special.
>
according to the atheist dip shit.
>>There are "special" people and places on earth, much to your chagrin.
>>There's loads of people who have exceptional talent in various areas.
>>Most would consider such people as “special” People like Stephen
>>Hawking, for example, he was widely accepted as very special, not only
>>for his scientific genius, but also for overcoming his disability, and
>>his determination to not let said disability stop him from living his
>>life to the fullest.
>>
>>Perhaps you think you are special. Delusion of grandeur refers to a
>>person's false belief that they are someone other than who they truly
>>are — typically someone powerful or important. Delusions may be a sign
>>of a mental health disorder.
>
>special. So what?
Well then. I am special. And you are not.
>I was talking about people who post their superstitious
>nonsense and feel they do not need to support it with
>unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence but
>demand it be accepted just because they think it is true.
Why do you go to a Roman Catholic newsgroup to read such things?
Stay away. Go away.
>If I claimed to own a flying hamster how many people do you
>think would believe me without supporting evidence?
You won't find any catholics to believe you.
Perhaps you could go pound sand.
>>>Somehow I can say "I have yet to see any valid evidence
>>>supporting the existence of any god." and have someone
>>>demand I prove there is no god.
>>
>>OK.
>>To one who "believes" in God, no evidence is required.
>
>reaction from everyone, nor the right to assert their belief
>as if is fact without being challenged.
And you feel you are the one to challenge them?
Are you "special?"
>>TO one who doesn't, no evidence is acceptable.
>
>happen after death if a particular flavor of silly
>superstition is not followed. That is a safe threat because
>since death is one way there is no possible way to determine
>whether such threats are correct or complete bullshit.
So why come here and bother us?
P+Barker
Feb 9, 2023, 8:04:50 AM2/9/23
to
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 16:19:17 -0500, P+Barker
>>>>>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>>>>>>>their particular superstition?
>to use small words. Use Google to look un any of them you
>do not understand.
>
>I said my comments were not addressed to any particular
>silly superstition.
Yet, you asked when catholics stopped burning witches.
OK then. You just asked a stupid question pertaining to no particular
superstition.
Although, I must say that burning witches wasn't much of a
superstition. Perhaps you are confused again.
> I see little difference between any of
>them and what is said about one will generally fit any of
>the others. Since catholics are the largest organized group
>and have had more widespread influence what I say may (or
>may not) fit them more than any other.
So when protestants burned witches, you just automatically claim that
the catholics also did.
You do know that there is a difference between various religions, I
hope. Perhaps you would like a lesson. Just let me know.
>I have no idea who started burning witches and care even
>less. The prior conversation has been trimmed so I don't
>know what led to this but my comment about burning witches
>was to point out some of the methods used by superstitions
>to try to make people obey them.
You brought up burning witches when we were discussing Catholicism.
I didn't bring it up.
>>>It seems apparent you did not know what a shaman was. After
>>>all, that is what you asked.
>>
>>I was confused as to why you tried to relate Catholics burning witches
>>and also shamans. That seemed a little odd to me. I know you like to
>>embellish your stupid claims, and I was just trying to figure out how
>>you were doing it here.
>
>My comment was a generalized comment meant to include any
>and all silly superstitions. I seldom single out one for
>attention unless it is the particular subject of a comment I
>am challenging.
Yetyou were discussing Catholicism in a Roman Catholic newsgroup, and
you asked me (specifically) when did we stop burning witches. Since I
am a Catholic, and I didn't appreciate you lumping all killers into
the Catholic religion, I had to ask you to be more specific.
And now you claim you are unable to. You just like to make
generalized statements. How about if I do the same: There are only
two types of people in the world: Catholics and then you dip shits. Is
that how you wish to continue?
>>>You started this when you ignored my question about when
>>>burning witches was stopped.
>>
>>Stupid question deserves a stupid answer.
>>How aBOUT IF i GIVE YOU EXAMPLE:
>>How did your mother punish you for rummaging through her bra drawer?
>>Did your dad whup you when you tortured your siblings?
>Perhaps your silly superstition has not stopped.
Perhaps you missed my example.
And you are afraid to discuss your shortcomings.
>The intent
>of the question was to point out how superstitions try to
>control everyone and make them obey.
Why would you think I don't know about superstitions?
BTW, I owned a black cat for a while. He passed away back in 1973.
>I wonder if you knew that but did not wish to address the
>subject so you tried to change it
The subject was Catholics burning witches.
I embarrassed you by claiming you are a liar.
Therefore, you tried to change the subject matter.
Why do you post insults in the Catholic newsgroup?
>I have never claimed to believe in any silly
>superstitions.
Actually, I don't know of anyone who believes in "SILLY"
superstitions. And, I certainly don't think that burning a witch is a
superstition. How do you compute this?
Use small words if you think it will help.
>>>>>>And you feel that people want to hear your stupid beliefs?
>>>>>
>>>>>Such as what? All I do is ask questions and point out where
>>>>>some statements must lead.
>>>>
>>>>Kinda like me asking you what you mean by your stupid questions.
>>>
>>>What I mean is hardly a secret.
>>
>>Then I believe you should be more direct, instead of asking stupid
>>questions.
>
>Just how can I do that when pointing out assertions that
>require support is what I do?
How about if I ask you when did Catholics start burning witches.
Oh WAIT.......... I already asked for that support.
And then you changed the subject.
>I have noticed I seldom get actual answers but I get a lot
>of evasions, attempts to change the subject, derision, and
>attempts at ridicule. Or I am just ignored.
Kinda like you changing the subject when I asked you to provide an
actual answer to when Catholics started burning witches?
You really should try to stay on subject. We could get much further
in our conversations.
Perhaps you could select a superstition you believe that I have, and
then ask me about it. However, I will probably ask you to be very
specific, instead of some silly generalization.
>All of which encourages me to continue as time permits.
Usually dorks like you will eventually give up when they are defeated
in their stupid allegations and claim they don't have time.
I've seen it dozens of times here, bobbo.
You will soon give up.
>>>Superstitious based
>>>nonsense is constantly being posted here as if it actual
>>>fact yet it appears no one doing this can provide any
>>>independent and unrelated verification for what is said.
>>
>>And so now you feel you have the responsibility to accuse and insult
>>anyone who believes differently than you? How special.
>
>As I have said dozens of times anyone is free to believe
>anything he likes, no matter how obvious, radical,
>illogical, or impossible it is. No basis for a belief is
>ever required and no belief requires any justification or
>explanation.
If we are free to believe in something, why do you feel compelled to
insult us for that belief? Why don't you follow your own advice and
NOT require a basis for our beliefs? And if we do not require
justification, why do you demand it? Then why do you insult us?
You really speak out of both sides of your mouth.
Stop demanding justification for any religious belief.
Stop it, I say.
>However having a belief is not a valid basis for asserting
>that belief as if it is actuality and on the same acceptance
>level as facts supported by unambiguous, unrelated,
>verifiable and credible evidence.
No one demands you believe in our religious belief.
Unless you are generalizing and lumping Catholics in with terrorist
Islam fundamentalists.
You did claim you like to generalize.
Remember: There are only two types of people in the wolrd: Catholics
and you dorks.
>Many people seem to have difficulty understanding this. I
>understand many actually think anything asserted about their
>particular flavor should never be questioned especially if
>it is based upon their dogma.
You can question anything you like.
Why do you feel you must also insult us with lies?
>Tough.
If we are free to believe in something, why do you feel compelled to
insult us for that belief? Why don't you follow your own advice and
NOT require a basis for our beliefs? And if we do not require
justification, why do you demand it? Then why do you insult us?
You really speak out of both sides of your mouth.
Stop demanding justification for any religious belief.
Stop it, I say.
>I am not talking about believing. Ever. I am talking about
>what a person asserts as being true in the real world.
Why?
Who made you chief inquisitor?
Why can't you just live and let live?
>If someone says "I believe god is great" I have no problem
>with that. If he says "God is great" I say "prove it".
Ahhhhh. So you are nit-picking.
I see.
Why does this bother you?
Who made you chief inquisitor?
>>>I question.
>>>Also this is an atheist group posing superstitious
>>>propaganda is frowned upon. Not that any of the pests seem
>>>to give a damn.
>>
>>Then get out of the Roman Catholic newsgroup.
>
>When I respond I never change the groups unless they were
>altered to send my response into a dead end. Since I have
>no idea what group you are in I never trim so as to insure
>my response is properly directed.
Gosh. My exact response.
However, I only read and post to the Roman Catholic newgroup.
And you have invaded it with your silly superstitions and accusations.
>I am amused by how many people seem to be upset when my
>comments are available to be read in their particular
>stomping ground. I can't help but wonder if they are afraid
>I may get someone to start asking their own questions.
Well then.
I always wonder about people crossing the street deliberately to
insult, antagonize and be rude to someone they don't even know.
>>You are not welcome here.
>>You come here merely to insult us.
>
>By asking questions?
By asking stupid questions.
We have gone over this before.
You claimed people don't NEED to show justification.
Yet, here you are, invading this newsgroup, and demanding answers.
Methinks you are a liar and a troll.
There..... I've said it.
>>Get out. Go away.
>>And you will never hear from me again.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>>Can you give a specific reference to where I have posted a
>>>>>belief? I have been accused of this many times over the
>>>>>years but somehow no one ever seems to be able to prove it
>>>>>with a direct link.
>>>>
>>>>No. Why should I?
>>>>I don't live in the past.
>>>
>>>Another case of an accusation without any evidence what you
>>>accuse me of ever occurred. Perhaps you just lie a lot.
>>
>>Read the next para, bobbo.
>>
>>
>>>>Feb 6: You said: "Somehow a person or place connected with some
>>>>religion is considered as something special when neither is
>>>>true."
>>>>Do you know the definition of "special?"
>
>"better, greater, or otherwise different from what is
>usual."
Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Changing the definitions again, are we?
Have I embarrassed you, bobbo?
>Just what makes a comment about a silly superstition special
>and deserving of some outside the norm treatment or
>consideration?
You need to be specific.
Like burning witches.
But then, when you are specific, you change the subject.
Have I embarrassed you, bobbo?
Are you running out of time yet?
>>>"better, greater, or otherwise different from what is
>>>usual."
>>
>>You don't have special parents?
>
>They fit the definition of parents everywhere. They are
>special to me but I don't expect them to be special to
>anyone else or get special treatment because they are
>parents.
No one expects you to become something you don't wish to be.
I certainly don't need a troll speaking during my church services.
>>My mom was a very special person. I claim this.
>
>To you. She means about as much to me as my parents would
>to you.
>
>The difference is that some people think whatever they say
>about their particular silly superstition must be
>considered special by everyone because it is about their
>silly superstition and is never to be questioned.
Kinda like you demanding me to listen to your ramblings and give them
some credence?
>I notice every time you mention you mother you mention she
>was catholic. That may be something to you but why should
>it mean anything to anyone else?
She was also a female. She had six kids. She was a nurse.
I am posting in a Catholic newsgroup. I am Catholics. I merely
express that she was Catholic so you won't question me later on this.
That is what you trolls like to do.
>My uncle married an Italian girl from just outside of
>Chicago. Her father came from Italy, as did his wife. The
>entire family was old school Italian catholic. My uncle was
>not catholic but my aunt was (of course) and they raised
>their two girls as catholic.
Ok then.
Now we all know.
I have no intention of insulting them.
>I was surprised when I recently learned both girls left the
>catholic church for different reasons years ago. I never
>asked why but I never saw that coming. It was something
>about church rules and positions.
Ok then.
Now we all know.
I have no intention of insulting them.
Perhaps you should ask them why they left the church.
Maybe you will learn something.
>>>> Many people think Lourdes, Fatima, the
>>>>Vatican, etc are special. Some people even thought the "Devil's
>>>>Tower" was special.
>>>
>>>Superstitious nonsense.
>>
>>according to the atheist dip shit.
>
>According to my opinion. The Vatican is just a bunch of
>buildings, the remainder are simply unverified stories.
>
>The only Devil's Tower I know is the mountain out west.
Yes. Wyoming. And it has superstitious stories.
Doesn't mean I will insult the Lakota for some of their beliefs.
>>>>Perhaps you think you are special. Delusion of grandeur refers to a
>>>>person's false belief that they are someone other than who they truly
>>>>are — typically someone powerful or important. Delusions may be a sign
>>>>of a mental health disorder.
>>>
>>>So you can ramble on and on about things you consider
>>>special. So what?
>>
>>Well then. I am special. And you are not.
>
>As far as you are concerned you are correct. But I wonder
>how many would agree? But it really doesn't matter.
Yet, you asked.
Why?
>>>If I claimed to own a flying hamster how many people do you
>>>think would believe me without supporting evidence?
>>
>>You won't find any catholics to believe you.
>
>I wouldn't know. AFAIK I have never asked anyone what their
>religion is. It never occurs to me to even think about it.
Yet, you deliberately post to the Catholic newsgroup, and claim we
have superstitions, and then you insult us.
>I worked with a man named Dittman for a couple of years
>before I heard something someone else said to him and
>realized with that name he was probably Jewish. It is a
>subject that simply doesn't register in my consciousness.
Did you insult him with rantings about the "Torah?"
>>Perhaps you could go pound sand.
>
>I prefer asking questions so many seem to avoid answering.
Like when I asked you when Catholics started to burn witches?
>>>>>Somehow I can say "I have yet to see any valid evidence
>>>>>supporting the existence of any god." and have someone
>>>>>demand I prove there is no god.
>>>>
>>>>OK.
>>>>To one who "believes" in God, no evidence is required.
>>>
>>>That does not give them the right to expect the same
>>>reaction from everyone, nor the right to assert their belief
>>>as if is fact without being challenged.
>>
>>And you feel you are the one to challenge them?
>
>Why not?
>
>>Are you "special?"
>
>Nope. Simply inquisitive.
Who are you to insult people for twir beliefs. You claimed we need
not justify our own beliefs. But, you challenge us.
>>So why come here and bother us?
>
>I don't go anywhere to bother anyone. I simply question
>what people say and direct my questions so as to reach the
>person being questioned.
When did Catholics start to burn witches, as you claimed.
Be careful about your own claims and superstitions.
You may find that we like to challenge you trolls.
>On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 16:19:17 -0500, P+Barker
>>>>>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>>>>>>>their particular superstition?
>>>I was not limiting my comment to any particular flavor. I
>>>address the entire subject of silly superstitions.
>>
>>OK.
>>Now you claim it was not Catholics who started burning witches or
>>shamans. And you don't know when they stopped burning witches.
>>Now I gotcha.
>
>I see you have a reading comprehension problem. I will try
>>>address the entire subject of silly superstitions.
>>
>>OK.
>>Now you claim it was not Catholics who started burning witches or
>>shamans. And you don't know when they stopped burning witches.
>>Now I gotcha.
>
>to use small words. Use Google to look un any of them you
>do not understand.
>
>I said my comments were not addressed to any particular
>silly superstition.
Yet, you asked when catholics stopped burning witches.
OK then. You just asked a stupid question pertaining to no particular
superstition.
Although, I must say that burning witches wasn't much of a
superstition. Perhaps you are confused again.
> I see little difference between any of
>them and what is said about one will generally fit any of
>the others. Since catholics are the largest organized group
>and have had more widespread influence what I say may (or
>may not) fit them more than any other.
So when protestants burned witches, you just automatically claim that
the catholics also did.
You do know that there is a difference between various religions, I
hope. Perhaps you would like a lesson. Just let me know.
>I have no idea who started burning witches and care even
>less. The prior conversation has been trimmed so I don't
>know what led to this but my comment about burning witches
>was to point out some of the methods used by superstitions
>to try to make people obey them.
You brought up burning witches when we were discussing Catholicism.
I didn't bring it up.
>>>It seems apparent you did not know what a shaman was. After
>>>all, that is what you asked.
>>
>>I was confused as to why you tried to relate Catholics burning witches
>>and also shamans. That seemed a little odd to me. I know you like to
>>embellish your stupid claims, and I was just trying to figure out how
>>you were doing it here.
>
>and all silly superstitions. I seldom single out one for
>attention unless it is the particular subject of a comment I
>am challenging.
Yetyou were discussing Catholicism in a Roman Catholic newsgroup, and
you asked me (specifically) when did we stop burning witches. Since I
am a Catholic, and I didn't appreciate you lumping all killers into
the Catholic religion, I had to ask you to be more specific.
And now you claim you are unable to. You just like to make
generalized statements. How about if I do the same: There are only
two types of people in the world: Catholics and then you dip shits. Is
that how you wish to continue?
>>>You started this when you ignored my question about when
>>>burning witches was stopped.
>>
>>Stupid question deserves a stupid answer.
>>How aBOUT IF i GIVE YOU EXAMPLE:
>>How did your mother punish you for rummaging through her bra drawer?
>>Did your dad whup you when you tortured your siblings?
Perhaps you missed my example.
And you are afraid to discuss your shortcomings.
>The intent
>of the question was to point out how superstitions try to
>control everyone and make them obey.
Why would you think I don't know about superstitions?
BTW, I owned a black cat for a while. He passed away back in 1973.
>I wonder if you knew that but did not wish to address the
>subject so you tried to change it
The subject was Catholics burning witches.
I embarrassed you by claiming you are a liar.
Therefore, you tried to change the subject matter.
Why do you post insults in the Catholic newsgroup?
>I have never claimed to believe in any silly
>superstitions.
Actually, I don't know of anyone who believes in "SILLY"
superstitions. And, I certainly don't think that burning a witch is a
superstition. How do you compute this?
Use small words if you think it will help.
>>>>>>And you feel that people want to hear your stupid beliefs?
>>>>>
>>>>>Such as what? All I do is ask questions and point out where
>>>>>some statements must lead.
>>>>
>>>>Kinda like me asking you what you mean by your stupid questions.
>>>
>>>What I mean is hardly a secret.
>>
>>Then I believe you should be more direct, instead of asking stupid
>>questions.
>
>require support is what I do?
How about if I ask you when did Catholics start burning witches.
Oh WAIT.......... I already asked for that support.
And then you changed the subject.
>I have noticed I seldom get actual answers but I get a lot
>of evasions, attempts to change the subject, derision, and
>attempts at ridicule. Or I am just ignored.
Kinda like you changing the subject when I asked you to provide an
actual answer to when Catholics started burning witches?
You really should try to stay on subject. We could get much further
in our conversations.
Perhaps you could select a superstition you believe that I have, and
then ask me about it. However, I will probably ask you to be very
specific, instead of some silly generalization.
>All of which encourages me to continue as time permits.
Usually dorks like you will eventually give up when they are defeated
in their stupid allegations and claim they don't have time.
I've seen it dozens of times here, bobbo.
You will soon give up.
>>>Superstitious based
>>>nonsense is constantly being posted here as if it actual
>>>fact yet it appears no one doing this can provide any
>>>independent and unrelated verification for what is said.
>>
>>And so now you feel you have the responsibility to accuse and insult
>>anyone who believes differently than you? How special.
>
>anything he likes, no matter how obvious, radical,
>illogical, or impossible it is. No basis for a belief is
>ever required and no belief requires any justification or
>explanation.
If we are free to believe in something, why do you feel compelled to
insult us for that belief? Why don't you follow your own advice and
NOT require a basis for our beliefs? And if we do not require
justification, why do you demand it? Then why do you insult us?
You really speak out of both sides of your mouth.
Stop demanding justification for any religious belief.
Stop it, I say.
>However having a belief is not a valid basis for asserting
>that belief as if it is actuality and on the same acceptance
>level as facts supported by unambiguous, unrelated,
>verifiable and credible evidence.
No one demands you believe in our religious belief.
Unless you are generalizing and lumping Catholics in with terrorist
Islam fundamentalists.
You did claim you like to generalize.
Remember: There are only two types of people in the wolrd: Catholics
and you dorks.
>Many people seem to have difficulty understanding this. I
>understand many actually think anything asserted about their
>particular flavor should never be questioned especially if
>it is based upon their dogma.
You can question anything you like.
Why do you feel you must also insult us with lies?
>Tough.
If we are free to believe in something, why do you feel compelled to
insult us for that belief? Why don't you follow your own advice and
NOT require a basis for our beliefs? And if we do not require
justification, why do you demand it? Then why do you insult us?
You really speak out of both sides of your mouth.
Stop demanding justification for any religious belief.
Stop it, I say.
>I am not talking about believing. Ever. I am talking about
>what a person asserts as being true in the real world.
Why?
Who made you chief inquisitor?
Why can't you just live and let live?
>If someone says "I believe god is great" I have no problem
>with that. If he says "God is great" I say "prove it".
Ahhhhh. So you are nit-picking.
I see.
Why does this bother you?
Who made you chief inquisitor?
>>>I question.
>>>Also this is an atheist group posing superstitious
>>>propaganda is frowned upon. Not that any of the pests seem
>>>to give a damn.
>>
>>Then get out of the Roman Catholic newsgroup.
>
>altered to send my response into a dead end. Since I have
>no idea what group you are in I never trim so as to insure
>my response is properly directed.
Gosh. My exact response.
However, I only read and post to the Roman Catholic newgroup.
And you have invaded it with your silly superstitions and accusations.
>I am amused by how many people seem to be upset when my
>comments are available to be read in their particular
>stomping ground. I can't help but wonder if they are afraid
>I may get someone to start asking their own questions.
Well then.
I always wonder about people crossing the street deliberately to
insult, antagonize and be rude to someone they don't even know.
>>You are not welcome here.
>>You come here merely to insult us.
>
By asking stupid questions.
We have gone over this before.
You claimed people don't NEED to show justification.
Yet, here you are, invading this newsgroup, and demanding answers.
Methinks you are a liar and a troll.
There..... I've said it.
>>Get out. Go away.
>>And you will never hear from me again.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>>Can you give a specific reference to where I have posted a
>>>>>belief? I have been accused of this many times over the
>>>>>years but somehow no one ever seems to be able to prove it
>>>>>with a direct link.
>>>>
>>>>No. Why should I?
>>>>I don't live in the past.
>>>
>>>Another case of an accusation without any evidence what you
>>>accuse me of ever occurred. Perhaps you just lie a lot.
>>
>>Read the next para, bobbo.
>>
>>
>>>>Feb 6: You said: "Somehow a person or place connected with some
>>>>religion is considered as something special when neither is
>>>>true."
>>>>Do you know the definition of "special?"
>
>"better, greater, or otherwise different from what is
>usual."
Changing the definitions again, are we?
Have I embarrassed you, bobbo?
>Just what makes a comment about a silly superstition special
>and deserving of some outside the norm treatment or
>consideration?
You need to be specific.
Like burning witches.
But then, when you are specific, you change the subject.
Have I embarrassed you, bobbo?
Are you running out of time yet?
>>>"better, greater, or otherwise different from what is
>>>usual."
>>
>>You don't have special parents?
>
>special to me but I don't expect them to be special to
>anyone else or get special treatment because they are
>parents.
No one expects you to become something you don't wish to be.
I certainly don't need a troll speaking during my church services.
>>My mom was a very special person. I claim this.
>
>to you.
>
>The difference is that some people think whatever they say
>about their particular silly superstition must be
>considered special by everyone because it is about their
>silly superstition and is never to be questioned.
Kinda like you demanding me to listen to your ramblings and give them
some credence?
>I notice every time you mention you mother you mention she
>was catholic. That may be something to you but why should
>it mean anything to anyone else?
She was also a female. She had six kids. She was a nurse.
I am posting in a Catholic newsgroup. I am Catholics. I merely
express that she was Catholic so you won't question me later on this.
That is what you trolls like to do.
>My uncle married an Italian girl from just outside of
>Chicago. Her father came from Italy, as did his wife. The
>entire family was old school Italian catholic. My uncle was
>not catholic but my aunt was (of course) and they raised
>their two girls as catholic.
Ok then.
Now we all know.
I have no intention of insulting them.
>I was surprised when I recently learned both girls left the
>catholic church for different reasons years ago. I never
>asked why but I never saw that coming. It was something
>about church rules and positions.
Ok then.
Now we all know.
I have no intention of insulting them.
Perhaps you should ask them why they left the church.
Maybe you will learn something.
>>>> Many people think Lourdes, Fatima, the
>>>>Vatican, etc are special. Some people even thought the "Devil's
>>>>Tower" was special.
>>>
>>>Superstitious nonsense.
>>
>>according to the atheist dip shit.
>
>buildings, the remainder are simply unverified stories.
>
>The only Devil's Tower I know is the mountain out west.
Yes. Wyoming. And it has superstitious stories.
Doesn't mean I will insult the Lakota for some of their beliefs.
>>>>Perhaps you think you are special. Delusion of grandeur refers to a
>>>>person's false belief that they are someone other than who they truly
>>>>are — typically someone powerful or important. Delusions may be a sign
>>>>of a mental health disorder.
>>>
>>>So you can ramble on and on about things you consider
>>>special. So what?
>>
>>Well then. I am special. And you are not.
>
>how many would agree? But it really doesn't matter.
Yet, you asked.
Why?
>>>If I claimed to own a flying hamster how many people do you
>>>think would believe me without supporting evidence?
>>
>>You won't find any catholics to believe you.
>
>religion is. It never occurs to me to even think about it.
Yet, you deliberately post to the Catholic newsgroup, and claim we
have superstitions, and then you insult us.
>I worked with a man named Dittman for a couple of years
>before I heard something someone else said to him and
>realized with that name he was probably Jewish. It is a
>subject that simply doesn't register in my consciousness.
Did you insult him with rantings about the "Torah?"
>>Perhaps you could go pound sand.
>
Like when I asked you when Catholics started to burn witches?
>>>>>Somehow I can say "I have yet to see any valid evidence
>>>>>supporting the existence of any god." and have someone
>>>>>demand I prove there is no god.
>>>>
>>>>OK.
>>>>To one who "believes" in God, no evidence is required.
>>>
>>>That does not give them the right to expect the same
>>>reaction from everyone, nor the right to assert their belief
>>>as if is fact without being challenged.
>>
>>And you feel you are the one to challenge them?
>
>
>>Are you "special?"
>
>Nope. Simply inquisitive.
Who are you to insult people for twir beliefs. You claimed we need
not justify our own beliefs. But, you challenge us.
>>So why come here and bother us?
>
>what people say and direct my questions so as to reach the
>person being questioned.
When did Catholics start to burn witches, as you claimed.
Be careful about your own claims and superstitions.
You may find that we like to challenge you trolls.
Dr. Auric Hellman
Feb 9, 2023, 2:59:36 PM2/9/23
to
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 11:18:43 PM UTC-5, "J Young" as Who could it be now? wrote:
> If sexual intercourse is positively prevented from being ordered toward
> children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
> moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
> primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
> pope, can undo.
>
>
> https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-churchs-total-ban-on-contraception-cannot-be-changed-by-pope-francis-or-anyone-else/?utm_source=news&utm_campaign=usa
> If sexual intercourse is positively prevented from being ordered toward
> children through the use of contraception, then the foundation for the
> moral goodness of sex has been destroyed, namely, its order toward its
> primary and natural end. This is a universal truth which no man, even a
> pope, can undo.
>
>
Who could it be now?
"J Young", of course!
LOL!
--
Dr. Auric D. Hellman
adhel...@gmail.com
P+Barker
Feb 9, 2023, 3:58:57 PM2/9/23
to
On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 13:58:36 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 08:04:45 -0500, P+Barker
>my comment referred to.
Let me help you out.
>religion. It was not just allowed but encouraged.
LIAR.
Prove your assertion.
>>> I see little difference between any of
>>>them and what is said about one will generally fit any of
>>>the others. Since catholics are the largest organized group
>>>and have had more widespread influence what I say may (or
>>>may not) fit them more than any other.
>>
>>So when protestants burned witches, you just automatically claim that
>>the catholics also did.
>
>I never mentioned catholics at all. You were the one who
>brought them into this mess. My comments are almost always
>intended for any silly superstition no matter what the
>flavor. They only differ in detail.
Atila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
their particular superstition?
We were discussing Catholics and superstitions.
Have you forgotten?
>>You do know that there is a difference between various religions, I
>>hope. Perhaps you would like a lesson. Just let me know.
>
>I am aware there are differences in detail but I could not
>possibly care less. For my purposes I lump the all
>together. By all I do not limit my comments to any one
>group.
And yet you post in the Roman Catholic newsgroup.
Why don't you leave?
>>>I have no idea who started burning witches and care even
>>>less. The prior conversation has been trimmed so I don't
>>>know what led to this but my comment about burning witches
>>>was to point out some of the methods used by superstitions
>>>to try to make people obey them.
>>
>>You brought up burning witches when we were discussing Catholicism.
>>I didn't bring it up.
>
>I seldom if ever discuss any particular flavor of silly
>superstition.
Atila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
their particular superstition?
We were discussing Catholics and superstitions.
Have you forgotten?
> I don't know what you had in mind bit I
>comment on the entire group and not just one.
You are posting in the Roman Catholic newsgroup.
> I did make a
>comment earlier about catholics and burning witches in
>response to a direct point of your's but that was a rare
>exception.
Atila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
their particular superstition?
We were discussing Catholics and superstitions.
What was the direct point?
Have you forgotten?
>>>>>It seems apparent you did not know what a shaman was. After
>>>>>all, that is what you asked.
>>>>
>>>>I was confused as to why you tried to relate Catholics burning witches
>>>>and also shamans. That seemed a little odd to me. I know you like to
>>>>embellish your stupid claims, and I was just trying to figure out how
>>>>you were doing it here.
>>>
>>>My comment was a generalized comment meant to include any
>>>and all silly superstitions. I seldom single out one for
>>>attention unless it is the particular subject of a comment I
>>>am challenging.
>>
>>Yetyou were discussing Catholicism in a Roman Catholic newsgroup, and
>>you asked me (specifically) when did we stop burning witches. Since I
>>am a Catholic, and I didn't appreciate you lumping all killers into
>>the Catholic religion, I had to ask you to be more specific.
>
>No, I am point out the lack of supporting evidence for
>assertions being made in alt.atheism, which you would know
>if you read the attributes at the beginning.
What assertions?
As far as I can tell, you insulted Catholics in the Roman Catholic
newsgroup. Perhaps if you ask forgiveness, I can consider this.
>>And now you claim you are unable to. You just like to make
>>generalized statements. How about if I do the same: There are only
>>two types of people in the world: Catholics and then you dip shits. Is
>>that how you wish to continue?
>
>I know next to nothing about catholics and care even less.
And yet you asked when we stopped burning witches.
Why did you decide to insult Catholics?
Is that what you do?
Do you consider yourself a troll?
>That is just one more silly superstition but I admit it is
>better organized and thus has more power than the others.
>Not as much as in the past but still a residual amount.
I do not consider my belief in God as a superstition.
And my church does not exert power over others.
We offer you a means to learn about your creator.
Take it or leave it.
>>>>>You started this when you ignored my question about when
>>>>>burning witches was stopped.
>>>>
>>>>Stupid question deserves a stupid answer.
>>>>How aBOUT IF i GIVE YOU EXAMPLE:
>>>>How did your mother punish you for rummaging through her bra drawer?
>>>>Did your dad whup you when you tortured your siblings?
>>
>>>Perhaps your silly superstition has not stopped.
>>
>>Perhaps you missed my example.
>>And you are afraid to discuss your shortcomings.
>
>I did not rummage through anything and I am an only child.
OK. You didn't answer my question about you rummaging through your
mom's underwear drawer. And I'm not too sure about you being an only
child. And what does that really mean? Did you have a brother and
then someone killed him? Was it you?
>>>The intent
>>>of the question was to point out how superstitions try to
>>>control everyone and make them obey.
>>
>>Why would you think I don't know about superstitions?
>>BTW, I owned a black cat for a while. He passed away back in 1973.
>>
>>
>>>I wonder if you knew that but did not wish to address the
>>>subject so you tried to change it
>>
>>The subject was Catholics burning witches.
>
>I don't recall what my subject was since you trimmed away
>the conversation but I assure you I care so little about
>what any particular silly superstition does I seldom bother
>to single one out for anything. That would probably
>require some understanding of their details, something that
>does not interest me at all.
Atila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
their particular superstition?
We were discussing Catholics and superstitions.
>I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
>existence of any god. If that ever changes I may be
>interested then but not until then.
Why do you think anyone cares about what you believe?
Do you ever ponder about the universe?
>>I embarrassed you by claiming you are a liar.
>>Therefore, you tried to change the subject matter.
>
>I assure you I am not embarrassed by anything involving the
>subject of silly superstitions.
Burning witches is really not much of a superstition. Yet, you accused
my religion of doing this by asking when we stopped.
What other torture and murder subjects do you consider to be a
superstition?
>>Why do you post insults in the Catholic newsgroup?
>
>When I respond to a post I usually don't concern myself
>about where the poster is but simply use the group list in
>the origional post. I could ask you why you are posting in
>alt.atheism it I really cared.
I read and onlt post to the Roman Catholic newsgroup.
You showed up and decided to insult my religious belief.
>>>I have never claimed to believe in any silly
>>>superstitions.
>>
>>Actually, I don't know of anyone who believes in "SILLY"
>>superstitions. And, I certainly don't think that burning a witch is a
>>superstition. How do you compute this?
>>Use small words if you think it will help.
>
>I consider all religions and any actions based upon the
>assumed existence of some god as a silly superstition and I
>call them that as a generalized label. here are no
>exceptions.
OK.
Then why did you post:
>Some are better know for burning witches than others but I
>cannot and will not compile a list. Your particular flavor
>is well known for burning witches, forcing conversions, and
>supporting governments that loot entire continents.
Can you show examples of this - perhaps in the last 100 years?
Or 200 years? Which continents did the Vatican loot?
>>>>>>>>And you feel that people want to hear your stupid beliefs?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Such as what? All I do is ask questions and point out where
>>>>>>>some statements must lead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Kinda like me asking you what you mean by your stupid questions.
>>>>>
>>>>>What I mean is hardly a secret.
>>>>
>>>>Then I believe you should be more direct, instead of asking stupid
>>>>questions.
>>>
>>>Just how can I do that when pointing out assertions that
>>>require support is what I do?
>>
>>How about if I ask you when did Catholics start burning witches.
>>Oh WAIT.......... I already asked for that support.
>>And then you changed the subject.
>
>Nope. I don't know and I don't care. I have covered this
>previously.
Then why did you ask?
>>>I have noticed I seldom get actual answers but I get a lot
>>>of evasions, attempts to change the subject, derision, and
>>>attempts at ridicule. Or I am just ignored.
>>
>>Kinda like you changing the subject when I asked you to provide an
>>actual answer to when Catholics started burning witches?
>
>You are a one trick pony aren't you?
It is your trick.
How about if you just ask forgiveness for your stupidity?
>>You really should try to stay on subject. We could get much further
>>in our conversations.
>
>You seem to have blundered into a dead end of your own
>making.\
Your trick Your dead end. Your change of subject.
How about if you just ask forgiveness for your stupidity?
>>Perhaps you could select a superstition you believe that I have, and
>>then ask me about it. However, I will probably ask you to be very
>>specific, instead of some silly generalization.
>
>I could not care less about your superstitions unless you
>assert them as being true. In that case I will ask for the
>supporting evidence that shows them to be true. The
>unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable and credible supporting
>evidence.
Sooooooooooooooooooo.
You are just trolling here in the Roman Catholic newsgroup.
Gotcha.
>>>All of which encourages me to continue as time permits.
>>
>>Usually dorks like you will eventually give up when they are defeated
>>in their stupid allegations and claim they don't have time.
>>I've seen it dozens of times here, bobbo.
>>You will soon give up.
>
>While I am busy with several things I consider much more
>important I usually only stop responding when people start
>altering my posts or repeatedly accuse me of saying what I
>did not say. For example please provide a link to exactly
>where I said anything about catholics burning witches. The
>statement must include the word "catholic".
>Or admit you are either wrong or just lying.
Then why did you post:
>>>>>Superstitious based
>>>>>nonsense is constantly being posted here as if it actual
>>>>>fact yet it appears no one doing this can provide any
>>>>>independent and unrelated verification for what is said.
>>>>
>>>>And so now you feel you have the responsibility to accuse and insult
>>>>anyone who believes differently than you? How special.
>>>
>>>As I have said dozens of times anyone is free to believe
>>>anything he likes, no matter how obvious, radical,
>>>illogical, or impossible it is. No basis for a belief is
>>>ever required and no belief requires any justification or
>>>explanation.
>>
>>If we are free to believe in something, why do you feel compelled to
>>insult us for that belief? Why don't you follow your own advice and
>>NOT require a basis for our beliefs? And if we do not require
>>justification, why do you demand it? Then why do you insult us?
>
>Try to get someone to esp;ain what I said.
You just claimed : "No basis for a belief is ever required and no
Did you mean this?
Or are you just rambling again?
>"As I have said dozens of times anyone is free to believe
>anything he likes, no matter how obvious, radical,
>illogical, or impossible it is. No basis for a belief is
>ever required and no belief requires any justification or
>explanation."
Excellent.
>"As I have said dozens of times anyone is free to believe
>anything he likes, no matter how obvious, radical,
>illogical, or impossible it is."
Excellent.
>What about that statement do you not understand? I clearly
>said anyone is free to have any belief they like and your
>response was "If we are free to believe in something, why do
The why did you come to the Roman Catholic newsgroup in order to
question us and insult us?
I find you speak out of both sides of your mouth.
> "And if we do not require justification, why do you demand
>it? Then why do you insult us?"
>
>I did not and never have demanded anyone justify a belief.
>However if that belief is asserted as being factual and
>therefore no longer being a belief but an actual fact then
>supporting evidence is needed.
Our beliefs are factual to us.
No one gives a crap if you believe them or not.
Catholics do not go door-to-door trying to round up converts.
We offer things for people to ponder.
It is up to each of us to figure out why we are here.
Why do you think you are here?
This is a serious question.
>>You really speak out of both sides of your mouth.
>>Stop demanding justification for any religious belief.
>>Stop it, I say.
>
>That would be difficult since I have never started.
Perhaps you actually believe this.
Then .... it really must suck to be you.
Why do you think you are here?
This is a serious question.
>>>However having a belief is not a valid basis for asserting
>>>that belief as if it is actuality and on the same acceptance
>>>level as facts supported by unambiguous, unrelated,
>>>verifiable and credible evidence.
>>
>>No one demands you believe in our religious belief.
>
>I should hope not.
>all superstition related terrorists, Islam, Christian,
>jewish, or any others.
Did I mention that it must suck to be you?
Humans love to complain. Nothing is more conducive to instant
camaraderie than a shared dissatisfaction we can grouse over
endlessly. By sharing our dislikes we quickly discover who we like.
If we want attention, we can get it, by sharing the bad more than the
good. People take notice, get involved. The mind is compelled to
understand wrongdoings and set them right.
The visibility and priority given to the bad in the world is
intentional and manipulative. It is designed to create rapport,
highlight a need, and make a sale. It is intended to make you feel
insufficient, and afraid, so you don't have to be convinced to go
along with the crowd, you just do.
This is where you remind me of the talking heads on MSNBC.
There are a few types of people in the world: Those who see a glass
half full of water. Then there are those who see a glass half empty.
Then there are those (like you) who demand to know who stole some
water.
The media leads us by fear into supporting their cause, which is only
the padding of their own bank accounts. Whatever paying advertisers
say is the message of the day.
The good people far outnumber the bad but they are quiet, hanging in
the background. They don't want the attention of a media frenzy, don't
feel the need to support a cause. They would rather do good works for
the sake of the work than to gain recognition for it.
They are out there everywhere but you're not looking. You're still
distracted by the media glitz and its bias toward upsetting you for
profit.
Go out and look into the eyes of people and you can see it. There are
100s of good people near you right now, going about their business,
hoping to stay unperturbed. If you happen to meet their eyes with a
smile, you will see the good shine through.
It is not your business to ask people if they believe in God.
It is not your business to demand they provide proof to you.
>>You did claim you like to generalize.
>>Remember: There are only two types of people in the wolrd: Catholics
>>and you dorks.
>
>That is one reason I lump all of your silly superstitions to
>gather. There is little difference among any of them.
<Yawn>
How obtuse of you.
I gues you belong to the "dork" group.
>>>Many people seem to have difficulty understanding this. I
>>>understand many actually think anything asserted about their
>>>particular flavor should never be questioned especially if
>>>it is based upon their dogma.
>>
>>You can question anything you like.
>>Why do you feel you must also insult us with lies?
>
>Such as what? Specifically?
Like when did Catholic stop burning witches.
I keep bringing this up because you demand I show you examples of your
own stupidity and false claims.
>>>Tough.
>>
>>If we are free to believe in something, why do you feel compelled to
>>insult us for that belief? Why don't you follow your own advice and
>>NOT require a basis for our beliefs? And if we do not require
>>justification, why do you demand it? Then why do you insult us?
>
>That sounds like an earlier paragraph.
You obviously were unable to answer my question to my satisfaction.
Of.... you changed the subject so that you wouldn't have to answer me.
>>You really speak out of both sides of your mouth.
>>Stop demanding justification for any religious belief.
>>Stop it, I say.
>
>As does that one.
You obviously were unable to answer my question to my satisfaction.
Of.... you changed the subject so that you wouldn't have to answer me.
>>>I am not talking about believing. Ever. I am talking about
>>>what a person asserts as being true in the real world.
>>
>>Why?
>>Who made you chief inquisitor?
>>Why can't you just live and let live?
>
>I dislike seeing someone try to slip something unverified
>into a conversation as if it is a proven fact.
Then stop doing it.
Like burning witches.
>>>If someone says "I believe god is great" I have no problem
>>>with that. If he says "God is great" I say "prove it".
>>
>>Ahhhhh. So you are nit-picking.
>>I see.
>>Why does this bother you?
>>Who made you chief inquisitor?
>
>Your "nit-picking" is actually an importance distinction.
>For example under the proper conditions it could be the
>difference between an opinion and a legally recognized death
>threat. It could determine where I spent the next 20 years
>or so.
>Wording matters.
My mom is special to me.
Your mom is special to you.
Do you wish to really insult someone for that belief?
>>>>>I question.
>>>>>Also this is an atheist group posing superstitious
>>>>>propaganda is frowned upon. Not that any of the pests seem
>>>>>to give a damn.
>>>>
>>>>Then get out of the Roman Catholic newsgroup.
>>>
>>>When I respond I never change the groups unless they were
>>>altered to send my response into a dead end. Since I have
>>>no idea what group you are in I never trim so as to insure
>>>my response is properly directed.
>>
>>Gosh. My exact response.
>>However, I only read and post to the Roman Catholic newgroup.
>>And you have invaded it with your silly superstitions and accusations.
>
>I respond to your comments, I return my comments to the
>same groups that were involved. That is the only way I can
>insure you see them.
I don't want to see you insults about Catholics.
I find that to be rude.
>Are you saying you send them to me but are not interested in
>my responses?
I don't send insults to you.
I merely demand that you explain why you enjoy insulting others.
>>>I am amused by how many people seem to be upset when my
>>>comments are available to be read in their particular
>>>stomping ground. I can't help but wonder if they are afraid
>>>I may get someone to start asking their own questions.
>>
>>Well then.
>>I always wonder about people crossing the street deliberately to
>>insult, antagonize and be rude to someone they don't even know.
>
>I did not originate this post. I responded.
You crossed the street into my newsgroup.
>>You are not welcome here.
>>>>You come here merely to insult us.
>>>
>>>By asking questions?
>>
>>By asking stupid questions.
>
>In your opinion.
Do I have to justify my opinion?
I did try to ask you to prove your accusations about burning witches.
Then you back-pedalled.
Just like most trolls who wander here.
>>We have gone over this before.
>>You claimed people don't NEED to show justification.
>>Yet, here you are, invading this newsgroup, and demanding answers.
>
>Such as what?
When did Catholics stop burning witches...
Have you forgotten?
Perhaps you need even more reminders of your stupid allegations.
>>Methinks you are a liar and a troll.
>>There..... I've said it.
>
>Yawn.
>statement.
I delete old posts.
I don't do lnks.
I don't do your homework for you.
I believe I told you that you post it on 6 Feb.
Maybe not.
It was in this conversation earlier.
You look it up.
>I do recall I posted a definition from Google as a copy and
>paste.
About burning witches?
>>>Just what makes a comment about a silly superstition special
>>>and deserving of some outside the norm treatment or
>>>consideration?
>>
>>You need to be specific.
>
>Pick any such statement you like. They are common enough.
You are the whiner here.
If you onl like to whine about superstitions - with no examples - then
-did I mention - that it must suck to be you?
>>Like burning witches.
>
>Is that to be considered a comment about a silly
>superstition?
I dunno.
It was your statement, not mine.
If you wish to make an accusation, you should try to verify it.
>>But then, when you are specific, you change the subject.
>>Have I embarrassed you, bobbo?
>
>Not in the slightest.
You will leave soon. All of you trolls eventually leave.
Maybe your mom should check your posts here.
>>>>>"better, greater, or otherwise different from what is
>>>>>usual."
>>>>
>>>>You don't have special parents?
>>>
>>>They fit the definition of parents everywhere. They are
>>>special to me but I don't expect them to be special to
>>>anyone else or get special treatment because they are
>>>parents.
>>
>>No one expects you to become something you don't wish to be.
>>I certainly don't need a troll speaking during my church services.
>
>I can assure you the is no possibility you will ever find me
>at any such service. You are entirely safe.
Yet you feel safe enough to invade the Roman Catholic newsgroup and
insult me here.
>>>>My mom was a very special person. I claim this.
>>>
>>>To you. She means about as much to me as my parents would
>>>to you.
>>>
>>>The difference is that some people think whatever they say
>>>about their particular silly superstition must be
>>>considered special by everyone because it is about their
>>>silly superstition and is never to be questioned.
>>
>>Kinda like you demanding me to listen to your ramblings and give them
>>some credence?
>
>Feel free to ignore them. But an observer might wonder why
>you seem to be unable to make a direct response.
kinda like you changing the subject when I asked you specifically
about Catholics burning witches?
>>>I notice every time you mention you mother you mention she
>>>was catholic. That may be something to you but why should
>>>it mean anything to anyone else?
>>
>>She was also a female. She had six kids. She was a nurse.
>>I am posting in a Catholic newsgroup. I am Catholics. I merely
>>express that she was Catholic so you won't question me later on this.
>>That is what you trolls like to do.
>
>I could not care less what your silly superstition is, who
>or what your mother was, or anything she did much less the
>size of her litter.
Are you jealous?
If you wish to disregard "special" people in the future, then perhaps
you won't mention them anymore.
>>>My uncle married an Italian girl from just outside of
>>>Chicago. Her father came from Italy, as did his wife. The
>>>entire family was old school Italian catholic. My uncle was
>>>not catholic but my aunt was (of course) and they raised
>>>their two girls as catholic.
>>
>>Ok then.
>>Now we all know.
>>I have no intention of insulting them.
>
>Feel free, They don't care.
And it seems obvious you don't care either.
Did I mention that it must suck to be you?
>>>I was surprised when I recently learned both girls left the
>>>catholic church for different reasons years ago. I never
>>>asked why but I never saw that coming. It was something
>>>about church rules and positions.
>>
>>Ok then.
>>Now we all know.
>>I have no intention of insulting them.
>
>See above.
>I would not know what they were talking about and I could
>not care less. They left at different times over different
>details.
OK. You could not care less about your cousins.
Why then do you think I might care more?
Are you trolling again?
>
>>>>>> Many people think Lourdes, Fatima, the
>>>>>>Vatican, etc are special. Some people even thought the "Devil's
>>>>>>Tower" was special.
>>>>>
>>>>>Superstitious nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>according to the atheist dip shit.
>>>
>>>According to my opinion. The Vatican is just a bunch of
>>>buildings, the remainder are simply unverified stories.
>>>
>>>The only Devil's Tower I know is the mountain out west.
>>
>>Yes. Wyoming. And it has superstitious stories.
>
>As do many places. All nonsense.
>must agree with them.
Will you walk across the street in order to insult Lakota Indians on
their beliefs? Will you call it nonsense to their faces? Is this
your role in life?
>>>>>>Perhaps you think you are special. Delusion of grandeur refers to a
>>>>>>person's false belief that they are someone other than who they truly
>>>>>>are — typically someone powerful or important. Delusions may be a sign
>>>>>>of a mental health disorder.
>>>>>
>>>>>So you can ramble on and on about things you consider
>>>>>special. So what?
>>>>
>>>>Well then. I am special. And you are not.
>>>
>>>As far as you are concerned you are correct. But I wonder
>>>how many would agree? But it really doesn't matter.
>>
>>Yet, you asked.
>
>I did? Where? I see where you claim to be special.
You wondered how many would agree.
Have you forgotten?
>>Why?
>>>>>If I claimed to own a flying hamster how many people do you
>>>>>think would believe me without supporting evidence?
>>>>
>>>>You won't find any catholics to believe you.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't know. AFAIK I have never asked anyone what their
>>>religion is. It never occurs to me to even think about it.
>>
>>Yet, you deliberately post to the Catholic newsgroup, and claim we
>>have superstitions, and then you insult us.
>
>Asked and answered.
Not adequately.
>>>I worked with a man named Dittman for a couple of years
>>>before I heard something someone else said to him and
>>>realized with that name he was probably Jewish. It is a
>>>subject that simply doesn't register in my consciousness.
>>
>>Did you insult him with rantings about the "Torah?"
>
>Nope. I don't know any and the subject never came up.
>Except once when he had a shouting disagreement with someone
>(business related) on the telephone, slammed the phone down,
>and glared at it. I asked him if he got mad like that
>because he was short or because he was Jewish. He actually
>almost fell down he was laughing so hard.
I have a sense of humor, but do not find that funny.
But then, that is me.
I also don't laugh at black people, fags, trannies, or the Irish.
>He and his wife died when he was moving his plane to another
>airport about 20 miles away and went in. She went along for
>the ride.
Sad. My next door neighbor was a pilot and he died of a heart attack
at the age of 33. He used to have a pet skunk.
>>>>Perhaps you could go pound sand.
>>>
>>>I prefer asking questions so many seem to avoid answering.
>>
>>Like when I asked you when Catholics started to burn witches?
>
>That is that pony again.
Did you answer this yet?
>>>>>>>Somehow I can say "I have yet to see any valid evidence
>>>>>>>supporting the existence of any god." and have someone
>>>>>>>demand I prove there is no god.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OK.
>>>>>>To one who "believes" in God, no evidence is required.
>>>>>
>>>>>That does not give them the right to expect the same
>>>>>reaction from everyone, nor the right to assert their belief
>>>>>as if is fact without being challenged.
>>>>
>>>>And you feel you are the one to challenge them?
>>>
>>>Why not?
>>>
>>>>Are you "special?"
>>>
>>>Nope. Simply inquisitive.
>>
>>Who are you to insult people for twir beliefs. You claimed we need
>>not justify our own beliefs. But, you challenge us.
>
>Do you lie or are you just stupid?
Are those my only choices? You claimed we need
>link.
Look it up.
It was your statement.
>>Be careful about your own claims and superstitions.
>
>Such as what? Specifically?
>try to get your facts straight.
wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 08:04:45 -0500, P+Barker
><PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
><luo9uht3nujmphjd5...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 16:19:17 -0500, P+Barker
>>
>>>>>>>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>>>>>>>>>their particular superstition?
>>
>>>>>I was not limiting my comment to any particular flavor. I
>>>>>address the entire subject of silly superstitions.
>>>>
>>>>OK.
>>>>Now you claim it was not Catholics who started burning witches or
>>>>shamans. And you don't know when they stopped burning witches.
>>>>Now I gotcha.
>>>
>>>I see you have a reading comprehension problem. I will try
>>>to use small words. Use Google to look un any of them you
>>>do not understand.
>>>
>>>I said my comments were not addressed to any particular
>>>silly superstition.
>>
>>Yet, you asked when catholics stopped burning witches.
>>OK then. You just asked a stupid question pertaining to no particular
>>superstition.
>
>Since the conversation was clipped I do not recall just what
>
>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 16:19:17 -0500, P+Barker
>>
>>>>>>>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>>>>>>>>>their particular superstition?
>>
>>>>>I was not limiting my comment to any particular flavor. I
>>>>>address the entire subject of silly superstitions.
>>>>
>>>>OK.
>>>>Now you claim it was not Catholics who started burning witches or
>>>>shamans. And you don't know when they stopped burning witches.
>>>>Now I gotcha.
>>>
>>>I see you have a reading comprehension problem. I will try
>>>to use small words. Use Google to look un any of them you
>>>do not understand.
>>>
>>>I said my comments were not addressed to any particular
>>>silly superstition.
>>
>>Yet, you asked when catholics stopped burning witches.
>>OK then. You just asked a stupid question pertaining to no particular
>>superstition.
>
>my comment referred to.
Let me help you out.
>>>>>>>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>>>>>>>>>their particular superstition?
>>>>>>>>>>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>>>>>>>>>their particular superstition?
>>Although, I must say that burning witches wasn't much of a
>>superstition. Perhaps you are confused again.
>
>It was enough to be a policy position of the major organized
>>superstition. Perhaps you are confused again.
>
>religion. It was not just allowed but encouraged.
LIAR.
Prove your assertion.
>>> I see little difference between any of
>>>them and what is said about one will generally fit any of
>>>the others. Since catholics are the largest organized group
>>>and have had more widespread influence what I say may (or
>>>may not) fit them more than any other.
>>
>>So when protestants burned witches, you just automatically claim that
>>the catholics also did.
>
>brought them into this mess. My comments are almost always
>intended for any silly superstition no matter what the
>flavor. They only differ in detail.
Atila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
their particular superstition?
Have you forgotten?
>>You do know that there is a difference between various religions, I
>>hope. Perhaps you would like a lesson. Just let me know.
>
>possibly care less. For my purposes I lump the all
>together. By all I do not limit my comments to any one
>group.
And yet you post in the Roman Catholic newsgroup.
Why don't you leave?
>>>I have no idea who started burning witches and care even
>>>less. The prior conversation has been trimmed so I don't
>>>know what led to this but my comment about burning witches
>>>was to point out some of the methods used by superstitions
>>>to try to make people obey them.
>>
>>You brought up burning witches when we were discussing Catholicism.
>>I didn't bring it up.
>
>superstition.
Atila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
their particular superstition?
Have you forgotten?
> I don't know what you had in mind bit I
>comment on the entire group and not just one.
You are posting in the Roman Catholic newsgroup.
> I did make a
>comment earlier about catholics and burning witches in
>response to a direct point of your's but that was a rare
>exception.
Atila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
their particular superstition?
What was the direct point?
Have you forgotten?
>>>>>It seems apparent you did not know what a shaman was. After
>>>>>all, that is what you asked.
>>>>
>>>>I was confused as to why you tried to relate Catholics burning witches
>>>>and also shamans. That seemed a little odd to me. I know you like to
>>>>embellish your stupid claims, and I was just trying to figure out how
>>>>you were doing it here.
>>>
>>>My comment was a generalized comment meant to include any
>>>and all silly superstitions. I seldom single out one for
>>>attention unless it is the particular subject of a comment I
>>>am challenging.
>>
>>Yetyou were discussing Catholicism in a Roman Catholic newsgroup, and
>>you asked me (specifically) when did we stop burning witches. Since I
>>am a Catholic, and I didn't appreciate you lumping all killers into
>>the Catholic religion, I had to ask you to be more specific.
>
>assertions being made in alt.atheism, which you would know
>if you read the attributes at the beginning.
What assertions?
As far as I can tell, you insulted Catholics in the Roman Catholic
newsgroup. Perhaps if you ask forgiveness, I can consider this.
>>And now you claim you are unable to. You just like to make
>>generalized statements. How about if I do the same: There are only
>>two types of people in the world: Catholics and then you dip shits. Is
>>that how you wish to continue?
>
And yet you asked when we stopped burning witches.
Why did you decide to insult Catholics?
Is that what you do?
Do you consider yourself a troll?
>That is just one more silly superstition but I admit it is
>better organized and thus has more power than the others.
>Not as much as in the past but still a residual amount.
I do not consider my belief in God as a superstition.
And my church does not exert power over others.
We offer you a means to learn about your creator.
Take it or leave it.
>>>>>You started this when you ignored my question about when
>>>>>burning witches was stopped.
>>>>
>>>>Stupid question deserves a stupid answer.
>>>>How aBOUT IF i GIVE YOU EXAMPLE:
>>>>How did your mother punish you for rummaging through her bra drawer?
>>>>Did your dad whup you when you tortured your siblings?
>>
>>>Perhaps your silly superstition has not stopped.
>>
>>Perhaps you missed my example.
>>And you are afraid to discuss your shortcomings.
>
OK. You didn't answer my question about you rummaging through your
mom's underwear drawer. And I'm not too sure about you being an only
child. And what does that really mean? Did you have a brother and
then someone killed him? Was it you?
>>>The intent
>>>of the question was to point out how superstitions try to
>>>control everyone and make them obey.
>>
>>Why would you think I don't know about superstitions?
>>BTW, I owned a black cat for a while. He passed away back in 1973.
>>
>>
>>>I wonder if you knew that but did not wish to address the
>>>subject so you tried to change it
>>
>>The subject was Catholics burning witches.
>
>the conversation but I assure you I care so little about
>what any particular silly superstition does I seldom bother
>to single one out for anything. That would probably
>require some understanding of their details, something that
>does not interest me at all.
Atila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
their particular superstition?
>I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
>interested then but not until then.
Why do you think anyone cares about what you believe?
Do you ever ponder about the universe?
>>I embarrassed you by claiming you are a liar.
>>Therefore, you tried to change the subject matter.
>
>subject of silly superstitions.
Burning witches is really not much of a superstition. Yet, you accused
my religion of doing this by asking when we stopped.
What other torture and murder subjects do you consider to be a
superstition?
>>Why do you post insults in the Catholic newsgroup?
>
>about where the poster is but simply use the group list in
>the origional post. I could ask you why you are posting in
>alt.atheism it I really cared.
I read and onlt post to the Roman Catholic newsgroup.
You showed up and decided to insult my religious belief.
>>>I have never claimed to believe in any silly
>>>superstitions.
>>
>>Actually, I don't know of anyone who believes in "SILLY"
>>superstitions. And, I certainly don't think that burning a witch is a
>>superstition. How do you compute this?
>>Use small words if you think it will help.
>
>assumed existence of some god as a silly superstition and I
>call them that as a generalized label. here are no
>exceptions.
OK.
Then why did you post:
Atila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
their particular superstition?
We were discussing Catholics and superstitions.
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
their particular superstition?
>Some are better know for burning witches than others but I
>cannot and will not compile a list. Your particular flavor
>is well known for burning witches, forcing conversions, and
>supporting governments that loot entire continents.
Can you show examples of this - perhaps in the last 100 years?
Or 200 years? Which continents did the Vatican loot?
>>>>>>>>And you feel that people want to hear your stupid beliefs?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Such as what? All I do is ask questions and point out where
>>>>>>>some statements must lead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Kinda like me asking you what you mean by your stupid questions.
>>>>>
>>>>>What I mean is hardly a secret.
>>>>
>>>>Then I believe you should be more direct, instead of asking stupid
>>>>questions.
>>>
>>>Just how can I do that when pointing out assertions that
>>>require support is what I do?
>>
>>How about if I ask you when did Catholics start burning witches.
>>Oh WAIT.......... I already asked for that support.
>>And then you changed the subject.
>
>previously.
Then why did you ask?
>>>I have noticed I seldom get actual answers but I get a lot
>>>of evasions, attempts to change the subject, derision, and
>>>attempts at ridicule. Or I am just ignored.
>>
>>Kinda like you changing the subject when I asked you to provide an
>>actual answer to when Catholics started burning witches?
>
It is your trick.
How about if you just ask forgiveness for your stupidity?
>>You really should try to stay on subject. We could get much further
>>in our conversations.
>
>making.\
Your trick Your dead end. Your change of subject.
How about if you just ask forgiveness for your stupidity?
>>Perhaps you could select a superstition you believe that I have, and
>>then ask me about it. However, I will probably ask you to be very
>>specific, instead of some silly generalization.
>
>assert them as being true. In that case I will ask for the
>supporting evidence that shows them to be true. The
>unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable and credible supporting
>evidence.
Sooooooooooooooooooo.
You are just trolling here in the Roman Catholic newsgroup.
Gotcha.
>>>All of which encourages me to continue as time permits.
>>
>>Usually dorks like you will eventually give up when they are defeated
>>in their stupid allegations and claim they don't have time.
>>I've seen it dozens of times here, bobbo.
>>You will soon give up.
>
>important I usually only stop responding when people start
>altering my posts or repeatedly accuse me of saying what I
>did not say. For example please provide a link to exactly
>where I said anything about catholics burning witches. The
>statement must include the word "catholic".
>Or admit you are either wrong or just lying.
Then why did you post:
Atila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
their particular superstition?
We were discussing Catholics and superstitions.
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
their particular superstition?
>>>>>Superstitious based
>>>>>nonsense is constantly being posted here as if it actual
>>>>>fact yet it appears no one doing this can provide any
>>>>>independent and unrelated verification for what is said.
>>>>
>>>>And so now you feel you have the responsibility to accuse and insult
>>>>anyone who believes differently than you? How special.
>>>
>>>As I have said dozens of times anyone is free to believe
>>>anything he likes, no matter how obvious, radical,
>>>illogical, or impossible it is. No basis for a belief is
>>>ever required and no belief requires any justification or
>>>explanation.
>>
>>If we are free to believe in something, why do you feel compelled to
>>insult us for that belief? Why don't you follow your own advice and
>>NOT require a basis for our beliefs? And if we do not require
>>justification, why do you demand it? Then why do you insult us?
>
You just claimed : "No basis for a belief is ever required and no
belief requires any justification or explanation."
Look 2-3 paragraphs above.
Did you mean this?
Or are you just rambling again?
>"As I have said dozens of times anyone is free to believe
>anything he likes, no matter how obvious, radical,
>illogical, or impossible it is. No basis for a belief is
>ever required and no belief requires any justification or
>explanation."
>"As I have said dozens of times anyone is free to believe
>anything he likes, no matter how obvious, radical,
>illogical, or impossible it is."
>What about that statement do you not understand? I clearly
>said anyone is free to have any belief they like and your
>response was "If we are free to believe in something, why do
>you feel compelled to insult us for that belief? Why don't
>you follow your own advice and NOT require a basis for our
>beliefs?"
>That is exactly what I said.
>you follow your own advice and NOT require a basis for our
>beliefs?"
The why did you come to the Roman Catholic newsgroup in order to
question us and insult us?
I find you speak out of both sides of your mouth.
> "And if we do not require justification, why do you demand
>it? Then why do you insult us?"
>
>However if that belief is asserted as being factual and
>therefore no longer being a belief but an actual fact then
>supporting evidence is needed.
Our beliefs are factual to us.
No one gives a crap if you believe them or not.
Catholics do not go door-to-door trying to round up converts.
We offer things for people to ponder.
It is up to each of us to figure out why we are here.
Why do you think you are here?
This is a serious question.
>>You really speak out of both sides of your mouth.
>>Stop demanding justification for any religious belief.
>>Stop it, I say.
>
Perhaps you actually believe this.
Then .... it really must suck to be you.
Why do you think you are here?
This is a serious question.
>>>However having a belief is not a valid basis for asserting
>>>that belief as if it is actuality and on the same acceptance
>>>level as facts supported by unambiguous, unrelated,
>>>verifiable and credible evidence.
>>
>>No one demands you believe in our religious belief.
>
>
>>Unless you are generalizing and lumping Catholics in with terrorist
>>Islam fundamentalists.
>
>I lump all silly superstitions together. That would include
>>Unless you are generalizing and lumping Catholics in with terrorist
>>Islam fundamentalists.
>
>all superstition related terrorists, Islam, Christian,
>jewish, or any others.
Did I mention that it must suck to be you?
Humans love to complain. Nothing is more conducive to instant
camaraderie than a shared dissatisfaction we can grouse over
endlessly. By sharing our dislikes we quickly discover who we like.
If we want attention, we can get it, by sharing the bad more than the
good. People take notice, get involved. The mind is compelled to
understand wrongdoings and set them right.
The visibility and priority given to the bad in the world is
intentional and manipulative. It is designed to create rapport,
highlight a need, and make a sale. It is intended to make you feel
insufficient, and afraid, so you don't have to be convinced to go
along with the crowd, you just do.
This is where you remind me of the talking heads on MSNBC.
There are a few types of people in the world: Those who see a glass
half full of water. Then there are those who see a glass half empty.
Then there are those (like you) who demand to know who stole some
water.
The media leads us by fear into supporting their cause, which is only
the padding of their own bank accounts. Whatever paying advertisers
say is the message of the day.
The good people far outnumber the bad but they are quiet, hanging in
the background. They don't want the attention of a media frenzy, don't
feel the need to support a cause. They would rather do good works for
the sake of the work than to gain recognition for it.
They are out there everywhere but you're not looking. You're still
distracted by the media glitz and its bias toward upsetting you for
profit.
Go out and look into the eyes of people and you can see it. There are
100s of good people near you right now, going about their business,
hoping to stay unperturbed. If you happen to meet their eyes with a
smile, you will see the good shine through.
It is not your business to ask people if they believe in God.
It is not your business to demand they provide proof to you.
>>You did claim you like to generalize.
>>Remember: There are only two types of people in the wolrd: Catholics
>>and you dorks.
>
>gather. There is little difference among any of them.
<Yawn>
How obtuse of you.
I gues you belong to the "dork" group.
>>>Many people seem to have difficulty understanding this. I
>>>understand many actually think anything asserted about their
>>>particular flavor should never be questioned especially if
>>>it is based upon their dogma.
>>
>>You can question anything you like.
>>Why do you feel you must also insult us with lies?
>
Like when did Catholic stop burning witches.
I keep bringing this up because you demand I show you examples of your
own stupidity and false claims.
>>>Tough.
>>
>>If we are free to believe in something, why do you feel compelled to
>>insult us for that belief? Why don't you follow your own advice and
>>NOT require a basis for our beliefs? And if we do not require
>>justification, why do you demand it? Then why do you insult us?
>
You obviously were unable to answer my question to my satisfaction.
Of.... you changed the subject so that you wouldn't have to answer me.
>>You really speak out of both sides of your mouth.
>>Stop demanding justification for any religious belief.
>>Stop it, I say.
>
You obviously were unable to answer my question to my satisfaction.
Of.... you changed the subject so that you wouldn't have to answer me.
>>>I am not talking about believing. Ever. I am talking about
>>>what a person asserts as being true in the real world.
>>
>>Why?
>>Who made you chief inquisitor?
>>Why can't you just live and let live?
>
>into a conversation as if it is a proven fact.
Then stop doing it.
Like burning witches.
>>>If someone says "I believe god is great" I have no problem
>>>with that. If he says "God is great" I say "prove it".
>>
>>Ahhhhh. So you are nit-picking.
>>I see.
>>Why does this bother you?
>>Who made you chief inquisitor?
>
>For example under the proper conditions it could be the
>difference between an opinion and a legally recognized death
>threat. It could determine where I spent the next 20 years
>or so.
>Wording matters.
My mom is special to me.
Your mom is special to you.
Do you wish to really insult someone for that belief?
>>>>>I question.
>>>>>Also this is an atheist group posing superstitious
>>>>>propaganda is frowned upon. Not that any of the pests seem
>>>>>to give a damn.
>>>>
>>>>Then get out of the Roman Catholic newsgroup.
>>>
>>>When I respond I never change the groups unless they were
>>>altered to send my response into a dead end. Since I have
>>>no idea what group you are in I never trim so as to insure
>>>my response is properly directed.
>>
>>Gosh. My exact response.
>>However, I only read and post to the Roman Catholic newgroup.
>>And you have invaded it with your silly superstitions and accusations.
>
>same groups that were involved. That is the only way I can
>insure you see them.
I don't want to see you insults about Catholics.
I find that to be rude.
>Are you saying you send them to me but are not interested in
>my responses?
I don't send insults to you.
I merely demand that you explain why you enjoy insulting others.
>>>I am amused by how many people seem to be upset when my
>>>comments are available to be read in their particular
>>>stomping ground. I can't help but wonder if they are afraid
>>>I may get someone to start asking their own questions.
>>
>>Well then.
>>I always wonder about people crossing the street deliberately to
>>insult, antagonize and be rude to someone they don't even know.
>
You crossed the street into my newsgroup.
>>You are not welcome here.
>>>>You come here merely to insult us.
>>>
>>>By asking questions?
>>
>>By asking stupid questions.
>
Do I have to justify my opinion?
I did try to ask you to prove your accusations about burning witches.
Then you back-pedalled.
Just like most trolls who wander here.
>>We have gone over this before.
>>You claimed people don't NEED to show justification.
>>Yet, here you are, invading this newsgroup, and demanding answers.
>
When did Catholics stop burning witches...
Have you forgotten?
Perhaps you need even more reminders of your stupid allegations.
>>Methinks you are a liar and a troll.
>>There..... I've said it.
>
>
>
>>>>Get out. Go away.
>>>>And you will never hear from me again.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Can you give a specific reference to where I have posted a
>>>>>>>belief? I have been accused of this many times over the
>>>>>>>years but somehow no one ever seems to be able to prove it
>>>>>>>with a direct link.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. Why should I?
>>>>>>I don't live in the past.
>>>>>
>>>>>Another case of an accusation without any evidence what you
>>>>>accuse me of ever occurred. Perhaps you just lie a lot.
>>>>
>>>>Read the next para, bobbo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Feb 6: You said: "Somehow a person or place connected with some
>>>>>>religion is considered as something special when neither is
>>>>>>true."
>>>>>>Do you know the definition of "special?"
>>>
>>>"better, greater, or otherwise different from what is
>>>usual."
>>
>>Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
>>Changing the definitions again, are we?
>>Have I embarrassed you, bobbo?
>
>I asked for a link. I cannot be sure you did not alter my
>
>>>>Get out. Go away.
>>>>And you will never hear from me again.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Can you give a specific reference to where I have posted a
>>>>>>>belief? I have been accused of this many times over the
>>>>>>>years but somehow no one ever seems to be able to prove it
>>>>>>>with a direct link.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. Why should I?
>>>>>>I don't live in the past.
>>>>>
>>>>>Another case of an accusation without any evidence what you
>>>>>accuse me of ever occurred. Perhaps you just lie a lot.
>>>>
>>>>Read the next para, bobbo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Feb 6: You said: "Somehow a person or place connected with some
>>>>>>religion is considered as something special when neither is
>>>>>>true."
>>>>>>Do you know the definition of "special?"
>>>
>>>"better, greater, or otherwise different from what is
>>>usual."
>>
>>Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
>>Changing the definitions again, are we?
>>Have I embarrassed you, bobbo?
>
>statement.
I delete old posts.
I don't do lnks.
I don't do your homework for you.
I believe I told you that you post it on 6 Feb.
Maybe not.
It was in this conversation earlier.
You look it up.
>I do recall I posted a definition from Google as a copy and
>paste.
About burning witches?
>>>Just what makes a comment about a silly superstition special
>>>and deserving of some outside the norm treatment or
>>>consideration?
>>
>>You need to be specific.
>
You are the whiner here.
If you onl like to whine about superstitions - with no examples - then
-did I mention - that it must suck to be you?
>>Like burning witches.
>
>Is that to be considered a comment about a silly
>superstition?
I dunno.
It was your statement, not mine.
If you wish to make an accusation, you should try to verify it.
>>But then, when you are specific, you change the subject.
>>Have I embarrassed you, bobbo?
>
>
>>
>>Are you running out of time yet?
>
>Nope. I am still here.
>>
>>Are you running out of time yet?
>
You will leave soon. All of you trolls eventually leave.
Maybe your mom should check your posts here.
>>>>>"better, greater, or otherwise different from what is
>>>>>usual."
>>>>
>>>>You don't have special parents?
>>>
>>>They fit the definition of parents everywhere. They are
>>>special to me but I don't expect them to be special to
>>>anyone else or get special treatment because they are
>>>parents.
>>
>>No one expects you to become something you don't wish to be.
>>I certainly don't need a troll speaking during my church services.
>
>at any such service. You are entirely safe.
Yet you feel safe enough to invade the Roman Catholic newsgroup and
insult me here.
>>>>My mom was a very special person. I claim this.
>>>
>>>To you. She means about as much to me as my parents would
>>>to you.
>>>
>>>The difference is that some people think whatever they say
>>>about their particular silly superstition must be
>>>considered special by everyone because it is about their
>>>silly superstition and is never to be questioned.
>>
>>Kinda like you demanding me to listen to your ramblings and give them
>>some credence?
>
>you seem to be unable to make a direct response.
kinda like you changing the subject when I asked you specifically
about Catholics burning witches?
>>>I notice every time you mention you mother you mention she
>>>was catholic. That may be something to you but why should
>>>it mean anything to anyone else?
>>
>>She was also a female. She had six kids. She was a nurse.
>>I am posting in a Catholic newsgroup. I am Catholics. I merely
>>express that she was Catholic so you won't question me later on this.
>>That is what you trolls like to do.
>
>or what your mother was, or anything she did much less the
>size of her litter.
Are you jealous?
If you wish to disregard "special" people in the future, then perhaps
you won't mention them anymore.
>>>My uncle married an Italian girl from just outside of
>>>Chicago. Her father came from Italy, as did his wife. The
>>>entire family was old school Italian catholic. My uncle was
>>>not catholic but my aunt was (of course) and they raised
>>>their two girls as catholic.
>>
>>Ok then.
>>Now we all know.
>>I have no intention of insulting them.
>
And it seems obvious you don't care either.
Did I mention that it must suck to be you?
>>>I was surprised when I recently learned both girls left the
>>>catholic church for different reasons years ago. I never
>>>asked why but I never saw that coming. It was something
>>>about church rules and positions.
>>
>>Ok then.
>>Now we all know.
>>I have no intention of insulting them.
>
>
>>
>>
>>Perhaps you should ask them why they left the church.
>>Maybe you will learn something.
>
>It was something about internal policy. I did not ask since
>>
>>
>>Perhaps you should ask them why they left the church.
>>Maybe you will learn something.
>
>I would not know what they were talking about and I could
>not care less. They left at different times over different
>details.
OK. You could not care less about your cousins.
Why then do you think I might care more?
Are you trolling again?
>
>>>>>> Many people think Lourdes, Fatima, the
>>>>>>Vatican, etc are special. Some people even thought the "Devil's
>>>>>>Tower" was special.
>>>>>
>>>>>Superstitious nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>according to the atheist dip shit.
>>>
>>>According to my opinion. The Vatican is just a bunch of
>>>buildings, the remainder are simply unverified stories.
>>>
>>>The only Devil's Tower I know is the mountain out west.
>>
>>Yes. Wyoming. And it has superstitious stories.
>
>
>>Doesn't mean I will insult the Lakota for some of their beliefs.
>
>They can have any beliefs the like. That doesn't mean I
>>Doesn't mean I will insult the Lakota for some of their beliefs.
>
>must agree with them.
Will you walk across the street in order to insult Lakota Indians on
their beliefs? Will you call it nonsense to their faces? Is this
your role in life?
>>>>>>Perhaps you think you are special. Delusion of grandeur refers to a
>>>>>>person's false belief that they are someone other than who they truly
>>>>>>are — typically someone powerful or important. Delusions may be a sign
>>>>>>of a mental health disorder.
>>>>>
>>>>>So you can ramble on and on about things you consider
>>>>>special. So what?
>>>>
>>>>Well then. I am special. And you are not.
>>>
>>>As far as you are concerned you are correct. But I wonder
>>>how many would agree? But it really doesn't matter.
>>
>>Yet, you asked.
>
You wondered how many would agree.
Have you forgotten?
>>Why?
>>>>>If I claimed to own a flying hamster how many people do you
>>>>>think would believe me without supporting evidence?
>>>>
>>>>You won't find any catholics to believe you.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't know. AFAIK I have never asked anyone what their
>>>religion is. It never occurs to me to even think about it.
>>
>>Yet, you deliberately post to the Catholic newsgroup, and claim we
>>have superstitions, and then you insult us.
>
Not adequately.
>>>I worked with a man named Dittman for a couple of years
>>>before I heard something someone else said to him and
>>>realized with that name he was probably Jewish. It is a
>>>subject that simply doesn't register in my consciousness.
>>
>>Did you insult him with rantings about the "Torah?"
>
>Except once when he had a shouting disagreement with someone
>(business related) on the telephone, slammed the phone down,
>and glared at it. I asked him if he got mad like that
>because he was short or because he was Jewish. He actually
>almost fell down he was laughing so hard.
I have a sense of humor, but do not find that funny.
But then, that is me.
I also don't laugh at black people, fags, trannies, or the Irish.
>He and his wife died when he was moving his plane to another
>airport about 20 miles away and went in. She went along for
>the ride.
Sad. My next door neighbor was a pilot and he died of a heart attack
at the age of 33. He used to have a pet skunk.
>>>>Perhaps you could go pound sand.
>>>
>>>I prefer asking questions so many seem to avoid answering.
>>
>>Like when I asked you when Catholics started to burn witches?
>
Did you answer this yet?
>>>>>>>Somehow I can say "I have yet to see any valid evidence
>>>>>>>supporting the existence of any god." and have someone
>>>>>>>demand I prove there is no god.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OK.
>>>>>>To one who "believes" in God, no evidence is required.
>>>>>
>>>>>That does not give them the right to expect the same
>>>>>reaction from everyone, nor the right to assert their belief
>>>>>as if is fact without being challenged.
>>>>
>>>>And you feel you are the one to challenge them?
>>>
>>>Why not?
>>>
>>>>Are you "special?"
>>>
>>>Nope. Simply inquisitive.
>>
>>Who are you to insult people for twir beliefs. You claimed we need
>>not justify our own beliefs. But, you challenge us.
>
Are those my only choices? You claimed we need
not justify our own beliefs. But, you challenge us.
>>>>So why come here and bother us?
>>>
>>>I don't go anywhere to bother anyone. I simply question
>>>what people say and direct my questions so as to reach the
>>>person being questioned.
>>
>>When did Catholics start to burn witches, as you claimed.
>
>I am still waiting for you to prove that statement with a
>>>>So why come here and bother us?
>>>
>>>I don't go anywhere to bother anyone. I simply question
>>>what people say and direct my questions so as to reach the
>>>person being questioned.
>>
>>When did Catholics start to burn witches, as you claimed.
>
>link.
Look it up.
It was your statement.
>>Be careful about your own claims and superstitions.
>
>
>>You may find that we like to challenge you trolls.
>
>I am not a troll but you can challenge me at any time. Just
>>You may find that we like to challenge you trolls.
>
>try to get your facts straight.
tesla sTinker
Feb 10, 2023, 12:16:26 AM2/10/23
to
On 2/9/2023 10:58 AM, Attila < scribbled:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 08:04:45 -0500, P+Barker
> <PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <luo9uht3nujmphjd5...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> Attila<<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 16:19:17 -0500, P+Barker
>>
>>>>>>>> Attila<<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>>>>>>>>> their particular superstition?
>>
>>>>> I was not limiting my comment to any particular flavor. I
>>>>> address the entire subject of silly superstitions.
>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>> Now you claim it was not Catholics who started burning witches or
>>>> shamans. And you don't know when they stopped burning witches.
>>>> Now I gotcha.
>>>
>>> I see you have a reading comprehension problem. I will try
>>> to use small words. Use Google to look un any of them you
>>> do not understand.
>>>
>>> I said my comments were not addressed to any particular
>>> silly superstition.
>>
>> Yet, you asked when catholics stopped burning witches.
>> OK then. You just asked a stupid question pertaining to no particular
>> superstition.
>
>
>> Attila<<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 16:19:17 -0500, P+Barker
>>
>>>>>>>> Attila<<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>>>>>>>>> their particular superstition?
>>
>>>>> I was not limiting my comment to any particular flavor. I
>>>>> address the entire subject of silly superstitions.
>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>> Now you claim it was not Catholics who started burning witches or
>>>> shamans. And you don't know when they stopped burning witches.
>>>> Now I gotcha.
>>>
>>> I see you have a reading comprehension problem. I will try
>>> to use small words. Use Google to look un any of them you
>>> do not understand.
>>>
>>> I said my comments were not addressed to any particular
>>> silly superstition.
>>
>> Yet, you asked when catholics stopped burning witches.
>> OK then. You just asked a stupid question pertaining to no particular
>> superstition.
>
> Since the conversation was clipped I do not recall just what
> my comment referred to.
>
> my comment referred to.
>
>> Although, I must say that burning witches wasn't much of a
>> superstition. Perhaps you are confused again.
>
>> superstition. Perhaps you are confused again.
>
> It was enough to be a policy position of the major organized
> religion. It was not just allowed but encouraged.
>
>>
>>
> religion. It was not just allowed but encouraged.
>
>>
>>
>>> I see little difference between any of
>>> them and what is said about one will generally fit any of
>>> the others. Since catholics are the largest organized group
>>> and have had more widespread influence what I say may (or
>>> may not) fit them more than any other.
>>
>> So when protestants burned witches, you just automatically claim that
>> the catholics also did.
>
>>> them and what is said about one will generally fit any of
>>> the others. Since catholics are the largest organized group
>>> and have had more widespread influence what I say may (or
>>> may not) fit them more than any other.
>>
>> So when protestants burned witches, you just automatically claim that
>> the catholics also did.
>
> I never mentioned catholics at all. You were the one who
> brought them into this mess. My comments are almost always
> intended for any silly superstition no matter what the
> flavor. They only differ in detail.
>
> brought them into this mess. My comments are almost always
> intended for any silly superstition no matter what the
> flavor. They only differ in detail.
>
>> You do know that there is a difference between various religions, I
>> hope. Perhaps you would like a lesson. Just let me know.
>
>> hope. Perhaps you would like a lesson. Just let me know.
>
> I am aware there are differences in detail but I could not
> possibly care less. For my purposes I lump the all
> together. By all I do not limit my comments to any one
> group.
>>
>>
> possibly care less. For my purposes I lump the all
> together. By all I do not limit my comments to any one
> group.
>>
>>
>>> I have no idea who started burning witches and care even
>>> less. The prior conversation has been trimmed so I don't
>>> know what led to this but my comment about burning witches
>>> was to point out some of the methods used by superstitions
>>> to try to make people obey them.
>>
>> You brought up burning witches when we were discussing Catholicism.
>> I didn't bring it up.
>
>>> less. The prior conversation has been trimmed so I don't
>>> know what led to this but my comment about burning witches
>>> was to point out some of the methods used by superstitions
>>> to try to make people obey them.
>>
>> You brought up burning witches when we were discussing Catholicism.
>> I didn't bring it up.
>
> I seldom if ever discuss any particular flavor of silly
> superstition. I don't know what you had in mind bit I
> comment on the entire group and not just one. I did make a
> comment earlier about catholics and burning witches in
> response to a direct point of your's but that was a rare
> exception.
>
>>
>>
>>
> response to a direct point of your's but that was a rare
> exception.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> It seems apparent you did not know what a shaman was. After
>>>>> all, that is what you asked.
>>>>
>>>> I was confused as to why you tried to relate Catholics burning witches
>>>> and also shamans. That seemed a little odd to me. I know you like to
>>>> embellish your stupid claims, and I was just trying to figure out how
>>>> you were doing it here.
>>>
>>> My comment was a generalized comment meant to include any
>>> and all silly superstitions. I seldom single out one for
>>> attention unless it is the particular subject of a comment I
>>> am challenging.
>>
>> Yetyou were discussing Catholicism in a Roman Catholic newsgroup, and
>> you asked me (specifically) when did we stop burning witches. Since I
>> am a Catholic, and I didn't appreciate you lumping all killers into
>> the Catholic religion, I had to ask you to be more specific.
>
>>>>> all, that is what you asked.
>>>>
>>>> I was confused as to why you tried to relate Catholics burning witches
>>>> and also shamans. That seemed a little odd to me. I know you like to
>>>> embellish your stupid claims, and I was just trying to figure out how
>>>> you were doing it here.
>>>
>>> My comment was a generalized comment meant to include any
>>> and all silly superstitions. I seldom single out one for
>>> attention unless it is the particular subject of a comment I
>>> am challenging.
>>
>> Yetyou were discussing Catholicism in a Roman Catholic newsgroup, and
>> you asked me (specifically) when did we stop burning witches. Since I
>> am a Catholic, and I didn't appreciate you lumping all killers into
>> the Catholic religion, I had to ask you to be more specific.
>
> No, I am point out the lack of supporting evidence for
> assertions being made in alt.atheism, which you would know
> if you read the attributes at the beginning.
>
>>
> assertions being made in alt.atheism, which you would know
> if you read the attributes at the beginning.
>
>>
>> And now you claim you are unable to. You just like to make
>> generalized statements. How about if I do the same: There are only
>> two types of people in the world: Catholics and then you dip shits. Is
>> that how you wish to continue?
>
>> generalized statements. How about if I do the same: There are only
>> two types of people in the world: Catholics and then you dip shits. Is
>> that how you wish to continue?
>
> I know next to nothing about catholics and care even less.
> That is just one more silly superstition but I admit it is
> better organized and thus has more power than the others.
> Not as much as in the past but still a residual amount.
>
>>
> better organized and thus has more power than the others.
> Not as much as in the past but still a residual amount.
>
>>
>>>>> You started this when you ignored my question about when
>>>>> burning witches was stopped.
>>>>
>>>> Stupid question deserves a stupid answer.
>>>> How aBOUT IF i GIVE YOU EXAMPLE:
>>>> How did your mother punish you for rummaging through her bra drawer?
>>>> Did your dad whup you when you tortured your siblings?
>>
>>> Perhaps your silly superstition has not stopped.
>>
>> Perhaps you missed my example.
>> And you are afraid to discuss your shortcomings.
>
>>>>> burning witches was stopped.
>>>>
>>>> Stupid question deserves a stupid answer.
>>>> How aBOUT IF i GIVE YOU EXAMPLE:
>>>> How did your mother punish you for rummaging through her bra drawer?
>>>> Did your dad whup you when you tortured your siblings?
>>
>>> Perhaps your silly superstition has not stopped.
>>
>> Perhaps you missed my example.
>> And you are afraid to discuss your shortcomings.
>
> I did not rummage through anything and I am an only child.
>
>
>
>
>>> The intent
>>> of the question was to point out how superstitions try to
>>> control everyone and make them obey.
>>
>> Why would you think I don't know about superstitions?
>> BTW, I owned a black cat for a while. He passed away back in 1973.
>>
>>
>>> I wonder if you knew that but did not wish to address the
>>> subject so you tried to change it
>>
>> The subject was Catholics burning witches.
>
>>> of the question was to point out how superstitions try to
>>> control everyone and make them obey.
>>
>> Why would you think I don't know about superstitions?
>> BTW, I owned a black cat for a while. He passed away back in 1973.
>>
>>
>>> I wonder if you knew that but did not wish to address the
>>> subject so you tried to change it
>>
>> The subject was Catholics burning witches.
>
> I don't recall what my subject was since you trimmed away
> the conversation but I assure you I care so little about
> what any particular silly superstition does I seldom bother
> to single one out for anything. That would probably
> require some understanding of their details, something that
> does not interest me at all.
>
> the conversation but I assure you I care so little about
> what any particular silly superstition does I seldom bother
> to single one out for anything. That would probably
> require some understanding of their details, something that
> does not interest me at all.
>
> I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
> existence of any god. If that ever changes I may be
> interested then but not until then.
>
> interested then but not until then.
>
>> I embarrassed you by claiming you are a liar.
>> Therefore, you tried to change the subject matter.
>
>> Therefore, you tried to change the subject matter.
>
> I assure you I am not embarrassed by anything involving the
> subject of silly superstitions.
>
>>
> subject of silly superstitions.
>
>>
>> Why do you post insults in the Catholic newsgroup?
>
>
> When I respond to a post I usually don't concern myself
> about where the poster is but simply use the group list in
> the origional post. I could ask you why you are posting in
> alt.atheism it I really cared.
>
>>
> about where the poster is but simply use the group list in
> the origional post. I could ask you why you are posting in
> alt.atheism it I really cared.
>
>>
>>> I have never claimed to believe in any silly
>>> superstitions.
>>
>> Actually, I don't know of anyone who believes in "SILLY"
>> superstitions. And, I certainly don't think that burning a witch is a
>> superstition. How do you compute this?
>> Use small words if you think it will help.
>
>>> superstitions.
>>
>> Actually, I don't know of anyone who believes in "SILLY"
>> superstitions. And, I certainly don't think that burning a witch is a
>> superstition. How do you compute this?
>> Use small words if you think it will help.
>
> I consider all religions and any actions based upon the
> assumed existence of some god as a silly superstition and I
> call them that as a generalized label. here are no
> exceptions.
>
> assumed existence of some god as a silly superstition and I
> call them that as a generalized label. here are no
> exceptions.
>
> Some are better know for burning witches than others but I
> cannot and will not compile a list. Your particular flavor
> is well known for burning witches, forcing conversions, and
> supporting governments that loot entire continents.
>
>>
> cannot and will not compile a list. Your particular flavor
> is well known for burning witches, forcing conversions, and
> supporting governments that loot entire continents.
>
>>
>>>>>>>> And you feel that people want to hear your stupid beliefs?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Such as what? All I do is ask questions and point out where
>>>>>>> some statements must lead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kinda like me asking you what you mean by your stupid questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I mean is hardly a secret.
>>>>
>>>> Then I believe you should be more direct, instead of asking stupid
>>>> questions.
>>>
>>> Just how can I do that when pointing out assertions that
>>> require support is what I do?
>>
>> How about if I ask you when did Catholics start burning witches.
>> Oh WAIT.......... I already asked for that support.
>> And then you changed the subject.
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Such as what? All I do is ask questions and point out where
>>>>>>> some statements must lead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kinda like me asking you what you mean by your stupid questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I mean is hardly a secret.
>>>>
>>>> Then I believe you should be more direct, instead of asking stupid
>>>> questions.
>>>
>>> Just how can I do that when pointing out assertions that
>>> require support is what I do?
>>
>> How about if I ask you when did Catholics start burning witches.
>> Oh WAIT.......... I already asked for that support.
>> And then you changed the subject.
>
> Nope. I don't know and I don't care. I have covered this
> previously.
>
>>
>>
> previously.
>
>>
>>
>>> I have noticed I seldom get actual answers but I get a lot
>>> of evasions, attempts to change the subject, derision, and
>>> attempts at ridicule. Or I am just ignored.
>>
>> Kinda like you changing the subject when I asked you to provide an
>> actual answer to when Catholics started burning witches?
>
>>> of evasions, attempts to change the subject, derision, and
>>> attempts at ridicule. Or I am just ignored.
>>
>> Kinda like you changing the subject when I asked you to provide an
>> actual answer to when Catholics started burning witches?
>
> You are a one trick pony aren't you?
>
>>
>
>>
>> You really should try to stay on subject. We could get much further
>> in our conversations.
>
>> in our conversations.
>
> You seem to have blundered into a dead end of your own
> making.
>
>>
> making.
>
>>
>> Perhaps you could select a superstition you believe that I have, and
>> then ask me about it. However, I will probably ask you to be very
>> specific, instead of some silly generalization.
>
>> then ask me about it. However, I will probably ask you to be very
>> specific, instead of some silly generalization.
>
> I could not care less about your superstitions unless you
> assert them as being true. In that case I will ask for the
> supporting evidence that shows them to be true. The
> unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable and credible supporting
> assert them as being true. In that case I will ask for the
> supporting evidence that shows them to be true. The
> evidence.
>
>>
>>> All of which encourages me to continue as time permits.
>>
>> Usually dorks like you will eventually give up when they are defeated
>> in their stupid allegations and claim they don't have time.
>> I've seen it dozens of times here, bobbo.
>> You will soon give up.
>
>>
>>> All of which encourages me to continue as time permits.
>>
>> Usually dorks like you will eventually give up when they are defeated
>> in their stupid allegations and claim they don't have time.
>> I've seen it dozens of times here, bobbo.
>> You will soon give up.
>
> While I am busy with several things I consider much more
> important I usually only stop responding when people start
> altering my posts or repeatedly accuse me of saying what I
> did not say. For example please provide a link to exactly
> where I said anything about catholics burning witches. The
> statement must include the word "catholic".
>
> Or admit you are either wrong or just lying.
>
>>
>>
>>
> important I usually only stop responding when people start
> altering my posts or repeatedly accuse me of saying what I
> did not say. For example please provide a link to exactly
> where I said anything about catholics burning witches. The
> statement must include the word "catholic".
>
> Or admit you are either wrong or just lying.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Superstitious based
>>>>> nonsense is constantly being posted here as if it actual
>>>>> fact yet it appears no one doing this can provide any
>>>>> independent and unrelated verification for what is said.
>>>>
>>>> And so now you feel you have the responsibility to accuse and insult
>>>> anyone who believes differently than you? How special.
>>>
>>> As I have said dozens of times anyone is free to believe
>>> anything he likes, no matter how obvious, radical,
>>> illogical, or impossible it is. No basis for a belief is
>>> ever required and no belief requires any justification or
>>> explanation.
>>
>> If we are free to believe in something, why do you feel compelled to
>> insult us for that belief? Why don't you follow your own advice and
>> NOT require a basis for our beliefs? And if we do not require
>> justification, why do you demand it? Then why do you insult us?
>
>>>>> nonsense is constantly being posted here as if it actual
>>>>> fact yet it appears no one doing this can provide any
>>>>> independent and unrelated verification for what is said.
>>>>
>>>> And so now you feel you have the responsibility to accuse and insult
>>>> anyone who believes differently than you? How special.
>>>
>>> As I have said dozens of times anyone is free to believe
>>> anything he likes, no matter how obvious, radical,
>>> illogical, or impossible it is. No basis for a belief is
>>> ever required and no belief requires any justification or
>>> explanation.
>>
>> If we are free to believe in something, why do you feel compelled to
>> insult us for that belief? Why don't you follow your own advice and
>> NOT require a basis for our beliefs? And if we do not require
>> justification, why do you demand it? Then why do you insult us?
>
> Try to get someone to esp;ain what I said.
>
>
> "As I have said dozens of times anyone is free to believe
> anything he likes, no matter how obvious, radical,
> illogical, or impossible it is. No basis for a belief is
> ever required and no belief requires any justification or
> explanation."
>
> "As I have said dozens of times anyone is free to believe
> anything he likes, no matter how obvious, radical,
> illogical, or impossible it is."
>
> anything he likes, no matter how obvious, radical,
> illogical, or impossible it is. No basis for a belief is
> ever required and no belief requires any justification or
> explanation."
>
> "As I have said dozens of times anyone is free to believe
> anything he likes, no matter how obvious, radical,
> illogical, or impossible it is."
>
> What about that statement do you not understand? I clearly
> said anyone is free to have any belief they like and your
> response was "If we are free to believe in something, why do
> said anyone is free to have any belief they like and your
> you feel compelled to insult us for that belief? Why don't
> you follow your own advice and NOT require a basis for our
> beliefs?"
>
> you follow your own advice and NOT require a basis for our
> beliefs?"
>
> That is exactly what I said.
>
>
> "And if we do not require justification, why do you demand
> it? Then why do you insult us?"
>
> it? Then why do you insult us?"
>
> I did not and never have demanded anyone justify a belief.
> However if that belief is asserted as being factual and
> therefore no longer being a belief but an actual fact then
> supporting evidence is needed.
>
>
>>
> However if that belief is asserted as being factual and
> therefore no longer being a belief but an actual fact then
> supporting evidence is needed.
>
>
>>
>> You really speak out of both sides of your mouth.
>> Stop demanding justification for any religious belief.
>> Stop it, I say.
>
>> Stop demanding justification for any religious belief.
>> Stop it, I say.
>
> That would be difficult since I have never started.
>
>
>>> However having a belief is not a valid basis for asserting
>>> that belief as if it is actuality and on the same acceptance
>>> level as facts supported by unambiguous, unrelated,
>>> verifiable and credible evidence.
>>
>> No one demands you believe in our religious belief.
>
> I should hope not.
>>> that belief as if it is actuality and on the same acceptance
>>> level as facts supported by unambiguous, unrelated,
>>> verifiable and credible evidence.
>>
>> No one demands you believe in our religious belief.
>
>
>> Unless you are generalizing and lumping Catholics in with terrorist
>> Islam fundamentalists.
>
>> Unless you are generalizing and lumping Catholics in with terrorist
>> Islam fundamentalists.
>
> I lump all silly superstitions together. That would include
> all superstition related terrorists, Islam, Christian,
> jewish, or any others.
>
> all superstition related terrorists, Islam, Christian,
> jewish, or any others.
>
>> You did claim you like to generalize.
>> Remember: There are only two types of people in the wolrd: Catholics
>> and you dorks.
>
>> Remember: There are only two types of people in the wolrd: Catholics
>> and you dorks.
>
> That is one reason I lump all of your silly superstitions to
> gather. There is little difference among any of them.
>
>>
>>
> gather. There is little difference among any of them.
>
>>
>>
>>> Many people seem to have difficulty understanding this. I
>>> understand many actually think anything asserted about their
>>> particular flavor should never be questioned especially if
>>> it is based upon their dogma.
>>
>> You can question anything you like.
>> Why do you feel you must also insult us with lies?
>
>
> Such as what? Specifically?
>>> understand many actually think anything asserted about their
>>> particular flavor should never be questioned especially if
>>> it is based upon their dogma.
>>
>> You can question anything you like.
>> Why do you feel you must also insult us with lies?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Tough.
>>
>> If we are free to believe in something, why do you feel compelled to
>> insult us for that belief? Why don't you follow your own advice and
>> NOT require a basis for our beliefs? And if we do not require
>> justification, why do you demand it? Then why do you insult us?
>
>>
>>
>>> Tough.
>>
>> If we are free to believe in something, why do you feel compelled to
>> insult us for that belief? Why don't you follow your own advice and
>> NOT require a basis for our beliefs? And if we do not require
>> justification, why do you demand it? Then why do you insult us?
>
> That sounds like an earlier paragraph.
>
>>
>
>>
>> You really speak out of both sides of your mouth.
>> Stop demanding justification for any religious belief.
>> Stop it, I say.
>
> As does that one.
>> Stop demanding justification for any religious belief.
>> Stop it, I say.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> I am not talking about believing. Ever. I am talking about
>>> what a person asserts as being true in the real world.
>>
>> Why?
>> Who made you chief inquisitor?
>> Why can't you just live and let live?
>
>>
>>
>>> I am not talking about believing. Ever. I am talking about
>>> what a person asserts as being true in the real world.
>>
>> Why?
>> Who made you chief inquisitor?
>> Why can't you just live and let live?
>
> I dislike seeing someone try to slip something unverified
> into a conversation as if it is a proven fact.
>
>
> into a conversation as if it is a proven fact.
>
>
>>> If someone says "I believe god is great" I have no problem
>>> with that. If he says "God is great" I say "prove it".
>>
>> Ahhhhh. So you are nit-picking.
>> I see.
>> Why does this bother you?
>> Who made you chief inquisitor?
>
>>> with that. If he says "God is great" I say "prove it".
>>
>> Ahhhhh. So you are nit-picking.
>> I see.
>> Why does this bother you?
>> Who made you chief inquisitor?
>
> Your "nit-picking" is actually an importance distinction.
> For example under the proper conditions it could be the
> difference between an opinion and a legally recognized death
> threat. It could determine where I spent the next 20 years
> or so.
>
> Wording matters.
>
>>
> For example under the proper conditions it could be the
> difference between an opinion and a legally recognized death
> threat. It could determine where I spent the next 20 years
> or so.
>
> Wording matters.
>
>>
>>>>> I question.
>>>>> Also this is an atheist group posing superstitious
>>>>> propaganda is frowned upon. Not that any of the pests seem
>>>>> to give a damn.
>>>>
>>>> Then get out of the Roman Catholic newsgroup.
>>>
>>> When I respond I never change the groups unless they were
>>> altered to send my response into a dead end. Since I have
>>> no idea what group you are in I never trim so as to insure
>>> my response is properly directed.
>>
>> Gosh. My exact response.
>> However, I only read and post to the Roman Catholic newgroup.
>> And you have invaded it with your silly superstitions and accusations.
>
>>>>> Also this is an atheist group posing superstitious
>>>>> propaganda is frowned upon. Not that any of the pests seem
>>>>> to give a damn.
>>>>
>>>> Then get out of the Roman Catholic newsgroup.
>>>
>>> When I respond I never change the groups unless they were
>>> altered to send my response into a dead end. Since I have
>>> no idea what group you are in I never trim so as to insure
>>> my response is properly directed.
>>
>> Gosh. My exact response.
>> However, I only read and post to the Roman Catholic newgroup.
>> And you have invaded it with your silly superstitions and accusations.
>
> I respond to your comments, I return my comments to the
> same groups that were involved. That is the only way I can
> insure you see them.
>
> same groups that were involved. That is the only way I can
> insure you see them.
>
> Are you saying you send them to me but are not interested in
> my responses?
>
> my responses?
>
>>> I am amused by how many people seem to be upset when my
>>> comments are available to be read in their particular
>>> stomping ground. I can't help but wonder if they are afraid
>>> I may get someone to start asking their own questions.
>>
>> Well then.
>> I always wonder about people crossing the street deliberately to
>> insult, antagonize and be rude to someone they don't even know.
>
>>> comments are available to be read in their particular
>>> stomping ground. I can't help but wonder if they are afraid
>>> I may get someone to start asking their own questions.
>>
>> Well then.
>> I always wonder about people crossing the street deliberately to
>> insult, antagonize and be rude to someone they don't even know.
>
> I did not originate this post. I responded.
>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>>> You are not welcome here.
>>>> You come here merely to insult us.
>>>
>>> By asking questions?
>>
>> By asking stupid questions.
>
> In your opinion.
>>>> You come here merely to insult us.
>>>
>>> By asking questions?
>>
>> By asking stupid questions.
>
>
>> We have gone over this before.
>> You claimed people don't NEED to show justification.
>> Yet, here you are, invading this newsgroup, and demanding answers.
>
> Such as what?
>> We have gone over this before.
>> You claimed people don't NEED to show justification.
>> Yet, here you are, invading this newsgroup, and demanding answers.
>
>
>>
>> Methinks you are a liar and a troll.
>> There..... I've said it.
>
> Yawn.
>>
>> Methinks you are a liar and a troll.
>> There..... I've said it.
>
>
>
>>>> Get out. Go away.
>>>> And you will never hear from me again.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you give a specific reference to where I have posted a
>>>>>>> belief? I have been accused of this many times over the
>>>>>>> years but somehow no one ever seems to be able to prove it
>>>>>>> with a direct link.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. Why should I?
>>>>>> I don't live in the past.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another case of an accusation without any evidence what you
>>>>> accuse me of ever occurred. Perhaps you just lie a lot.
>>>>
>>>> Read the next para, bobbo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Feb 6: You said: "Somehow a person or place connected with some
>>>>>> religion is considered as something special when neither is
>>>>>> true."
>>>>>> Do you know the definition of "special?"
>>>
>>> "better, greater, or otherwise different from what is
>>> usual."
>>
>> Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
>> Changing the definitions again, are we?
>> Have I embarrassed you, bobbo?
>
> I asked for a link. I cannot be sure you did not alter my
>
>>>> Get out. Go away.
>>>> And you will never hear from me again.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you give a specific reference to where I have posted a
>>>>>>> belief? I have been accused of this many times over the
>>>>>>> years but somehow no one ever seems to be able to prove it
>>>>>>> with a direct link.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. Why should I?
>>>>>> I don't live in the past.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another case of an accusation without any evidence what you
>>>>> accuse me of ever occurred. Perhaps you just lie a lot.
>>>>
>>>> Read the next para, bobbo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Feb 6: You said: "Somehow a person or place connected with some
>>>>>> religion is considered as something special when neither is
>>>>>> true."
>>>>>> Do you know the definition of "special?"
>>>
>>> "better, greater, or otherwise different from what is
>>> usual."
>>
>> Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
>> Changing the definitions again, are we?
>> Have I embarrassed you, bobbo?
>
> statement.
>
> I do recall I posted a definition from Google as a copy and
> paste.
>
>>
> I do recall I posted a definition from Google as a copy and
> paste.
>
>>
>>> Just what makes a comment about a silly superstition special
>>> and deserving of some outside the norm treatment or
>>> consideration?
>>
>> You need to be specific.
>
>>> and deserving of some outside the norm treatment or
>>> consideration?
>>
>> You need to be specific.
>
> Pick any such statement you like. They are common enough.
>
>> Like burning witches.
>
>
> Is that to be considered a comment about a silly
> superstition?
>
>> But then, when you are specific, you change the subject.
>> Have I embarrassed you, bobbo?
>
> Not in the slightest.
>> But then, when you are specific, you change the subject.
>> Have I embarrassed you, bobbo?
>
>
>>
>> Are you running out of time yet?
>
>>
>> Are you running out of time yet?
>
> Nope. I am still here.
>
>
>
>
>>>>> "better, greater, or otherwise different from what is
>>>>> usual."
>>>>
>>>> You don't have special parents?
>>>
>>> They fit the definition of parents everywhere. They are
>>> special to me but I don't expect them to be special to
>>> anyone else or get special treatment because they are
>>> parents.
>>
>> No one expects you to become something you don't wish to be.
>> I certainly don't need a troll speaking during my church services.
>
>>>>> usual."
>>>>
>>>> You don't have special parents?
>>>
>>> They fit the definition of parents everywhere. They are
>>> special to me but I don't expect them to be special to
>>> anyone else or get special treatment because they are
>>> parents.
>>
>> No one expects you to become something you don't wish to be.
>> I certainly don't need a troll speaking during my church services.
>
> I can assure you the is no possibility you will ever find me
> at any such service. You are entirely safe.
>
>>
> at any such service. You are entirely safe.
>
>>
>>>> My mom was a very special person. I claim this.
>>>
>>> To you. She means about as much to me as my parents would
>>> to you.
>>>
>>> The difference is that some people think whatever they say
>>> about their particular silly superstition must be
>>> considered special by everyone because it is about their
>>> silly superstition and is never to be questioned.
>>
>> Kinda like you demanding me to listen to your ramblings and give them
>> some credence?
>
>>>
>>> To you. She means about as much to me as my parents would
>>> to you.
>>>
>>> The difference is that some people think whatever they say
>>> about their particular silly superstition must be
>>> considered special by everyone because it is about their
>>> silly superstition and is never to be questioned.
>>
>> Kinda like you demanding me to listen to your ramblings and give them
>> some credence?
>
> Feel free to ignore them. But an observer might wonder why
> you seem to be unable to make a direct response.
>
>>
>>
> you seem to be unable to make a direct response.
>
>>
>>
>>> I notice every time you mention you mother you mention she
>>> was catholic. That may be something to you but why should
>>> it mean anything to anyone else?
>>
>> She was also a female. She had six kids. She was a nurse.
>> I am posting in a Catholic newsgroup. I am Catholics. I merely
>> express that she was Catholic so you won't question me later on this.
>> That is what you trolls like to do.
>
>>> was catholic. That may be something to you but why should
>>> it mean anything to anyone else?
>>
>> She was also a female. She had six kids. She was a nurse.
>> I am posting in a Catholic newsgroup. I am Catholics. I merely
>> express that she was Catholic so you won't question me later on this.
>> That is what you trolls like to do.
>
> I could not care less what your silly superstition is, who
> or what your mother was, or anything she did much less the
> size of her litter.
>
>>
>>
>>
> or what your mother was, or anything she did much less the
> size of her litter.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> My uncle married an Italian girl from just outside of
>>> Chicago. Her father came from Italy, as did his wife. The
>>> entire family was old school Italian catholic. My uncle was
>>> not catholic but my aunt was (of course) and they raised
>>> their two girls as catholic.
>>
>> Ok then.
>> Now we all know.
>> I have no intention of insulting them.
>
>>> Chicago. Her father came from Italy, as did his wife. The
>>> entire family was old school Italian catholic. My uncle was
>>> not catholic but my aunt was (of course) and they raised
>>> their two girls as catholic.
>>
>> Ok then.
>> Now we all know.
>> I have no intention of insulting them.
>
> Feel free, They don't care.
>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>> I was surprised when I recently learned both girls left the
>>> catholic church for different reasons years ago. I never
>>> asked why but I never saw that coming. It was something
>>> about church rules and positions.
>>
>> Ok then.
>> Now we all know.
>> I have no intention of insulting them.
>
> See above.
>>> catholic church for different reasons years ago. I never
>>> asked why but I never saw that coming. It was something
>>> about church rules and positions.
>>
>> Ok then.
>> Now we all know.
>> I have no intention of insulting them.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you should ask them why they left the church.
>> Maybe you will learn something.
>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you should ask them why they left the church.
>> Maybe you will learn something.
>
> It was something about internal policy. I did not ask since
> I would not know what they were talking about and I could
> not care less. They left at different times over different
> details.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I would not know what they were talking about and I could
> not care less. They left at different times over different
> details.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Many people think Lourdes, Fatima, the
>>>>>> Vatican, etc are special. Some people even thought the "Devil's
>>>>>> Tower" was special.
>>>>>
>>>>> Superstitious nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> according to the atheist dip shit.
>>>
>>> According to my opinion. The Vatican is just a bunch of
>>> buildings, the remainder are simply unverified stories.
>>>
>>> The only Devil's Tower I know is the mountain out west.
>>
>> Yes. Wyoming. And it has superstitious stories.
>
>>>>>> Vatican, etc are special. Some people even thought the "Devil's
>>>>>> Tower" was special.
>>>>>
>>>>> Superstitious nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> according to the atheist dip shit.
>>>
>>> According to my opinion. The Vatican is just a bunch of
>>> buildings, the remainder are simply unverified stories.
>>>
>>> The only Devil's Tower I know is the mountain out west.
>>
>> Yes. Wyoming. And it has superstitious stories.
>
> As do many places. All nonsense.
>
>
>> Doesn't mean I will insult the Lakota for some of their beliefs.
>
>
> They can have any beliefs the like. That doesn't mean I
> must agree with them.
>
>>
>>
> must agree with them.
>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Perhaps you think you are special. Delusion of grandeur refers to a
>>>>>> person's false belief that they are someone other than who they truly
>>>>>> are — typically someone powerful or important. Delusions may be a sign
>>>>>> of a mental health disorder.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you can ramble on and on about things you consider
>>>>> special. So what?
>>>>
>>>> Well then. I am special. And you are not.
>>>
>>> As far as you are concerned you are correct. But I wonder
>>> how many would agree? But it really doesn't matter.
>>
>> Yet, you asked.
>
>>>>>> person's false belief that they are someone other than who they truly
>>>>>> are — typically someone powerful or important. Delusions may be a sign
>>>>>> of a mental health disorder.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you can ramble on and on about things you consider
>>>>> special. So what?
>>>>
>>>> Well then. I am special. And you are not.
>>>
>>> As far as you are concerned you are correct. But I wonder
>>> how many would agree? But it really doesn't matter.
>>
>> Yet, you asked.
>
> I did? Where? I see where you claim to be special.
>
>
>
>
>> Why?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> If I claimed to own a flying hamster how many people do you
>>>>> think would believe me without supporting evidence?
>>>>
>>>> You won't find any catholics to believe you.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't know. AFAIK I have never asked anyone what their
>>> religion is. It never occurs to me to even think about it.
>>
>> Yet, you deliberately post to the Catholic newsgroup, and claim we
>> have superstitions, and then you insult us.
>
> Asked and answered.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> If I claimed to own a flying hamster how many people do you
>>>>> think would believe me without supporting evidence?
>>>>
>>>> You won't find any catholics to believe you.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't know. AFAIK I have never asked anyone what their
>>> religion is. It never occurs to me to even think about it.
>>
>> Yet, you deliberately post to the Catholic newsgroup, and claim we
>> have superstitions, and then you insult us.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> I worked with a man named Dittman for a couple of years
>>> before I heard something someone else said to him and
>>> realized with that name he was probably Jewish. It is a
>>> subject that simply doesn't register in my consciousness.
>>
>> Did you insult him with rantings about the "Torah?"
>
>>
>>
>>> I worked with a man named Dittman for a couple of years
>>> before I heard something someone else said to him and
>>> realized with that name he was probably Jewish. It is a
>>> subject that simply doesn't register in my consciousness.
>>
>> Did you insult him with rantings about the "Torah?"
>
> Nope. I don't know any and the subject never came up.
> Except once when he had a shouting disagreement with someone
> (business related) on the telephone, slammed the phone down,
> and glared at it. I asked him if he got mad like that
> because he was short or because he was Jewish. He actually
> almost fell down he was laughing so hard.
>
> Except once when he had a shouting disagreement with someone
> (business related) on the telephone, slammed the phone down,
> and glared at it. I asked him if he got mad like that
> because he was short or because he was Jewish. He actually
> almost fell down he was laughing so hard.
>
> He and his wife died when he was moving his plane to another
> airport about 20 miles away and went in. She went along for
> the ride.
>
>>
> airport about 20 miles away and went in. She went along for
> the ride.
>
>>
>>>> Perhaps you could go pound sand.
>>>
>>> I prefer asking questions so many seem to avoid answering.
>>
>> Like when I asked you when Catholics started to burn witches?
>
>>>
>>> I prefer asking questions so many seem to avoid answering.
>>
>> Like when I asked you when Catholics started to burn witches?
>
> That is that pony again.
>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> Somehow I can say "I have yet to see any valid evidence
>>>>>>> supporting the existence of any god." and have someone
>>>>>>> demand I prove there is no god.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK.
>>>>>> To one who "believes" in God, no evidence is required.
>>>>>
>>>>> That does not give them the right to expect the same
>>>>> reaction from everyone, nor the right to assert their belief
>>>>> as if is fact without being challenged.
>>>>
>>>> And you feel you are the one to challenge them?
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>>>> Are you "special?"
>>>
>>> Nope. Simply inquisitive.
>>
>> Who are you to insult people for twir beliefs. You claimed we need
>> not justify our own beliefs. But, you challenge us.
>
>>>>>>> supporting the existence of any god." and have someone
>>>>>>> demand I prove there is no god.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK.
>>>>>> To one who "believes" in God, no evidence is required.
>>>>>
>>>>> That does not give them the right to expect the same
>>>>> reaction from everyone, nor the right to assert their belief
>>>>> as if is fact without being challenged.
>>>>
>>>> And you feel you are the one to challenge them?
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>>>> Are you "special?"
>>>
>>> Nope. Simply inquisitive.
>>
>> Who are you to insult people for twir beliefs. You claimed we need
>> not justify our own beliefs. But, you challenge us.
>
> Do you lie or are you just stupid?
>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>>> So why come here and bother us?
>>>
>>> I don't go anywhere to bother anyone. I simply question
>>> what people say and direct my questions so as to reach the
>>> person being questioned.
>>
>> When did Catholics start to burn witches, as you claimed.
>
>>>
>>> I don't go anywhere to bother anyone. I simply question
>>> what people say and direct my questions so as to reach the
>>> person being questioned.
>>
>> When did Catholics start to burn witches, as you claimed.
>
> I am still waiting for you to prove that statement with a
> link.
>
> link.
>
>> Be careful about your own claims and superstitions.
>
> Such as what? Specifically?
>
>
>> You may find that we like to challenge you trolls.
>
>> You may find that we like to challenge you trolls.
>
> I am not a troll but you can challenge me at any time. Just
> try to get your facts straight.
>
Maybe you should consider not speaking to this idiot anymore.
> try to get your facts straight.
>
He is no bishop, and He is not a true catholic. He is a one world
order, novus ordo fake catholic usary government stealing taxpayers
money. They are freemasons, they kill people, and rape children. they
belong to the devil. They do not go
to Heaven. \what they tell you is truth and lies. So if I were you,
even though I am certain you are an infidel idiot, I caution you on your
knowledge. These kind do not honor St Peter. Or Jesus either.
They hate the true catholic church, that is why they say what they do.
P+Barker
Feb 11, 2023, 8:59:03 AM2/11/23
to
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 21:16:17 -0800, tesla sTinker
>>> I am not a troll but you can challenge me at any time. Just
>>> try to get your facts straight.
>>>
>>
>>Maybe you should consider not speaking to this idiot anymore.
>He seems to suffer from a bad case of foot in mouth disease.
>I am seriously considering adding
>alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic to all of my posts
>just to keep his blood pressure up.
>I was especially fond of how he kept telling me what to do.
poor baby.
>On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 21:16:17 -0800, tesla sTinker
>>> I am not a troll but you can challenge me at any time. Just
>>> try to get your facts straight.
>>>
>>
>>Maybe you should consider not speaking to this idiot anymore.
>I am seriously considering adding
>alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic to all of my posts
>just to keep his blood pressure up.
>I was especially fond of how he kept telling me what to do.
poor baby.
P+Barker
Feb 11, 2023, 9:48:37 AM2/11/23
to
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 15:58:54 -0500, P+Barker
<Major snipping involved.... I don't waste other people's time in
trying figure out what I am responding to. If I respond to a specific
attila whine>
>>>>>>>>>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>their particular superstition?
Well then. It is your turn to reference this history.
Not some chick tract, or other catholic basher writing.
>Are you saying the RCC was not the major organized religion?
Nope.
Did you admit that Catholicism was the best religion around?
>Are you saying the Inquisition was not>allowed but was discouraged?
Nope. Never said that.
I am saying your definition of the Inquisition is insulting and
incorrect. Pay tension!
One of the wonderful things about being Catholic is all the weird,
random, and sometimes jagged questions people ask you about your
faith. It might send you to odd topics, though. When you want to talk
about the beauty, say, of adoration or Mass, someone might deny you
that pleasure, wanting instead to inquire about a topic that isn’t a
fundamental aspect of Catholicism but, rather, some perceived flaw out
of left field.
https://catholic-link.org/how-to-handle-inquisition/?gclid=CjwKCAiAlp2fBhBPEiwA2Q10D4MY69hqzkHhUZTORP3SoYu2diMNjlt3cR2y-klz2dDcozLDr7yMuxoChb8QAvD_BwE
There were multiple inquisitions (Medieval Inquisition in the twelfth
century; Roman Inquisitions in the sixteenth century) throughout
history, the most infamous being the Spanish Inquisition (late
fifteenth century).
Remember the controversy over water-boarding? Or any other countless
times groups of people were criticized for their treatment of others?
It’s certainly not morally upstanding to torture another person, but
my point is that the Inquisition is more a by-product of the culture,
not the religion.
Robert P. Lockwood points this out in his article “Secrets of the
Spanish Inquisition Revealed” for Catholic Answers: “While we look
back at this with obvious repulsion, the simple fact is that torture
was commonplace in all judicial systems throughout Western Europe.” It
doesn’t make it right, but it helps bring things into perspective:
Humans in general can be very flawed, not just Catholics and certainly
not because of their Catholic faith.
When someone brings up the Inquisition, ask them what he or she thinks
of it. You might hear anger or frustration in a person’s tone. It’s
understandable. Torture is clearly contradicting Jesus’ well-known
“Love your neighbor” command.
The New Testament certainly contains no basis for a theory of
persecution, but after the conversion of Constantine, the Roman
Emperors began the policy of using force against heretics—sometimes
even the death penalty
“Inquisition” usually refers to a questioning to uproot and correct a
heresy (see Catholic Encyclopedia). Oftentimes the image brings to
mind horrible torture devices. Popular culture often sets scenes
reflecting the general view—gruesome torture led by Catholic monks who
maniacally wanted to destroy non-Catholics or convert them through
pain.
The Church doesn’t teach conversion by threat or pain. We are called
to practice love of others, even when engaged in a conversation about
a topic oftentimes described as embarrassing. Some sources talk about
the Inquisitions as if the Church is the worst villain in the world;
some are incredibly dismissive as if there was barely torture at all.
I recommend you read for yourself, especially primary sources.
Remember that the Inquisition was to gain confessions of those accused
of heresy and not every suspect was tortured. Indeed, non-Catholics
were mostly left alone.
People who dislike any group of people will believe the most terrible
lies more quickly than they will believe a less-incriminating truth or
an apology.
When researching the Inquisition, keep in mind the danger of two
extremes in sources: those Catholics who are incredibly defensive and
“have glossed over incontrovertible facts and tried to white-wash the
Inquisition” and those who have “harbored fierce animosity toward the
Church—animosity that had little to do with the Inquisition itself”
>Next you will say I was talking about the RCC with my
>burning witches comment. I would point out that was not the
>only superstition that did this.
Ahhhhhhhh. Someone else did it first.
Therefore, you are not to blame for your lies.
>If you still disagree research Torquemada.
I don't do your homework for you.
>you will find my comment and the preceding exchange that led
>to it. You previously clipped this.
Post it.
Don't make me do your homework for you.
>See my previous reference. You may have been talking about
>the RCC but I was talking about control by silly
>superstitions in general and used that as a specific
>reference. I could have used the Salem witch hunts.
Why didn't you?
HA!
You know why.
>>As far as I can tell, you insulted Catholics in the Roman Catholic
>>newsgroup. Perhaps if you ask forgiveness, I can consider this.
>
>When Hell (assuming there is such a place) freezes over.
So you do not see anything wrong in insulting others with your lies?
Why do you think anyone would want to cintinue any discussion with
you?
>Do you think you are the only people in the world? Or the
>only silly superstition? Or the only group?
>BTW, your RCC group is open for anyone to post anything he
>likes. Perhaps I should insure in the future all of my
>posts are copied to you.
You are now proving my assessment of your character was correct.
You are an ass hole, and a troll who enjoys insulting catholics.
>>And my church does not exert power over others.
>
>Historically that ws a major function. It furnished church
>officials to legitimize rulers in as many countries as you
>could infiltrate.
And why was that?
Could it be that the people begged the church to make decisions that
would be fair and unbiased - compared to the feudal lords and corrupt
kings during that time?
> You established the principal that rulers
>ruled "in the name of god" (your god) and they were crowned
>by your officials.
I did not.
LIAR.
I do not speak for any ruler - crowned by anyone.
I believe they call this a strawman.
Do you need another lesson.
> Unless you silly superstition was
>directly involved the ruler ws considered illegitimate.
Not by me.
Try to read history in a perspective of a person who actually lived
through that history. Look for a bigger picture. Maybe this is too
much for you.
>>We offer you a means to learn about your creator.
>>Take it or leave it.
>
>have killed me for making that statement.
I don't care if you believe it or not.
And I would never kill a person unless he is a physical threat.
>>Atila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>their particular superstition?
>>We were discussing Catholics and superstitions.
>
>No, you were. See the previous reference. For the fourth
>time.
Post it.
Don't make me do your homework for you.
>>Burning witches is really not much of a superstition.
>
>It was to the one burned as well as the person doing the
>burning since the possessions of the witch became the
>property of the "church" In the person of the accuser,
>judge, and executioner.
Burning witches is really not much of a superstition.
>done by silly superstitions.
Read your own words again.
>>>Some are better know for burning witches than others but I
>>>cannot and will not compile a list. Your particular flavor
>>>is well known for burning witches, forcing conversions, and
>>>supporting governments that loot entire continents.
>>
>>Can you show examples of this - perhaps in the last 100 years?
>>Or 200 years?
>
>See Torquemada
Do your own homework.
You made a statement.
Prove it.
>>Which continents did the Vatican loot?
>
>The Spanish looted central and South America with the
>compliance of their silly superstition.
Which continents did the Vatican loot?
The Spanish Inquisition contains all the elements of a classic
Catholic urban legend. A distorted historical understanding shared by
Catholics and non-Catholics alike makes a useful club against any
position taken by the Church today in the public arena. Any Catholic
apologist or spokesperson for a Catholic position in contemporary
culture knows this. It is virtually impossible to engage in any
discussion without someone raising the Spanish Inquisition to score
effective, if irrelevant, debating points.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/secrets-of-the-spanish-inquisition-revealed
The historical reality of the Spanish Inquisition has its own
tragedies, without a doubt, and it remains an ugly part of Europe’s
past.
The ugly truth of the Spanish Inquisition is that it was aimed
primarily at descendants of Jewish converts who were accused of
secretly practicing their old faith. And the motivating factor may
have been greed, jealously, and racial pogroms, rather than
preservation of the unity of faith.
Spain was unique in Western Europe for the racial diversity of its
population. In addition to a large Muslim population, Spain had the
single largest Jewish community in the world in the thirteenth
century, numbering about 100,000. For centuries, Jews and Christians
had lived together in a generally peaceful, if separate, coexistence.
In 1478, Frederick and Isabella requested a papal bull establishing an
inquisition. It was granted, and by 1482 the inquisition had been
placed under the Dominican Friar Tomas de Torquemada.
Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) complained about the activities of the
inquisition in Aragon and its treatment of the conversos. But, as
throughout much of Europe, the papacy had lost much control over the
actions of local inquisitions. Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492)
complained fruitlessly as well. The inquisition in Spain was
controlled by Spanish authorities, not the authority of the papacy.
It should be noted that after the bitter persecution of the conversos
in the first two decades of the Spanish Inquisition, very few were
actually executed. Most of the condemned were burned in effigy, as
they would have fled before the inquisition began.
History created by Reformation polemics is not history. It is just
Catholic urban legend.
And you claim history tells you something different.
Poor baby.
>>You just claimed : "No basis for a belief is ever required and no
>>belief requires any justification or explanation."
>anything at all and as such needs no support. In many if
>not most cases such support would be impossible.
The why do you require evidence?
You just said: "No basis for a belief is ever required ..."
>When a belief is expressed as an assertion of truth or
>implied as being true it is no longer a belief and becomes
>an assertion of fact requiring support.
>A belief should be clearly identified as a belief in order
>to not be misunderstood as an assertion of reality.
Why?
Are you the chief arbitrator of understanding?
>>Our beliefs are factual to us.
>
>That does not make them factual to anyone else.
I don't care what you believe.
I care when you lie about Catholics.
>>Catholics do not go door-to-door trying to round up converts.
>>We offer things for people to ponder.
>>It is up to each of us to figure out why we are here.
>>
>>Why do you think you are here?
>>This is a serious question.
>
>Why should I have a reason? I never think about it.
You never think about why you are here?
We often use the words “happiness” and “joy” interchangeably, but in
fact they’re different things — and I find it really helps to pull
them apart. Happiness is a broad evaluation of how we feel about our
lives over time.
And you claim you don't think about this.
Have I ever mentioned that it must suck to be you?
>Of course you did.
>Next.
You have no comment?
>>Go out and look into the eyes of people and you can see it. There are
>>100s of good people near you right now, going about their business,
>>hoping to stay unperturbed. If you happen to meet their eyes with a
>>smile, you will see the good shine through.
>
>I am certainly glad I don't know you.
Have I ever mentioned that it must suck to be you?
>>It is not your business to ask people if they believe in God.
>
>Of all the things I don't care about that is off the top of
>the list. In fact I don't think I have ever asked anyone
>that. The subject literally does not occur to me.
>unchallenged.
Why?
Is this one of the major goals in your life?
I take it that you don't believe in the premise of "Live and let
live."?
>Torquemada
>Of course I did not answer to your satisfaction. I
>disagreed with what you said.
>See prior comments.
>You appear to be the only one other than me here. You are
>not worth the bother.
>Then don't read my posts.
>I respond in the same spirit as the origional comment.
>Do you know what a troll is?
>>Perhaps you need even more reminders of your stupid allegations.
>
>Such as what? Fire away.
>That is one way to reword responses.
>Why should I? I am satisfied with my comments.
>The definition of special.
>Yes. Have you ever heard of "Consider the source . . ."?
>>Yet you feel safe enough to invade the Roman Catholic newsgroup and
>>insult me here.
>
>It is the only place I can find you.
Now you are starting to get it.
And now you admit that you post here only to irritate me.
Finally.
Do you know what a troll is?
>I seldom answer questions about specific superstitions. I
>know very little about any of them because learning would be
>a waste of time before it is established that some god or
>other actually exists.
Do you know what a troll is?
>I pay as much attention to what you consider special as you
>do to what I consider special. But I don't expect you to
>pay any attention to me.
Then why do you post here?
>>Will you walk across the street in order to insult Lakota Indians on
>>their beliefs? Will you call it nonsense to their faces? Is this
>>your role in life?
>
>I am not aware any of them are trying to assert those
>beliefs as being true.
Perhaps you should search and find an American Indian newsgroup.
Then you go and insult them also.
>>>>Yet, you deliberately post to the Catholic newsgroup, and claim we
>>>>have superstitions, and then you insult us.
>>>
>>>Asked and answered.
>>
>>Not adequately.
>
>In your opinion.
That is all that counts in this post.
>>When did Catholics start to burn witches, as you claimed.
>
>I made no such claim.
<Yawn> TROLL.
>On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 15:58:54 -0500, P+Barker
<Major snipping involved.... I don't waste other people's time in
trying figure out what I am responding to. If I respond to a specific
attila whine>
>>>>>>>>>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>their particular superstition?
>>>It was enough to be a policy position of the major organized
>>>religion. It was not just allowed but encouraged.
>>
>>LIAR.
>>Prove your assertion.
>
>History proves it.
>>>religion. It was not just allowed but encouraged.
>>
>>LIAR.
>>Prove your assertion.
>
Well then. It is your turn to reference this history.
Not some chick tract, or other catholic basher writing.
>Are you saying the RCC was not the major organized religion?
Nope.
Did you admit that Catholicism was the best religion around?
>Are you saying the Inquisition was not>allowed but was discouraged?
Nope. Never said that.
I am saying your definition of the Inquisition is insulting and
incorrect. Pay tension!
One of the wonderful things about being Catholic is all the weird,
random, and sometimes jagged questions people ask you about your
faith. It might send you to odd topics, though. When you want to talk
about the beauty, say, of adoration or Mass, someone might deny you
that pleasure, wanting instead to inquire about a topic that isn’t a
fundamental aspect of Catholicism but, rather, some perceived flaw out
of left field.
https://catholic-link.org/how-to-handle-inquisition/?gclid=CjwKCAiAlp2fBhBPEiwA2Q10D4MY69hqzkHhUZTORP3SoYu2diMNjlt3cR2y-klz2dDcozLDr7yMuxoChb8QAvD_BwE
There were multiple inquisitions (Medieval Inquisition in the twelfth
century; Roman Inquisitions in the sixteenth century) throughout
history, the most infamous being the Spanish Inquisition (late
fifteenth century).
Remember the controversy over water-boarding? Or any other countless
times groups of people were criticized for their treatment of others?
It’s certainly not morally upstanding to torture another person, but
my point is that the Inquisition is more a by-product of the culture,
not the religion.
Robert P. Lockwood points this out in his article “Secrets of the
Spanish Inquisition Revealed” for Catholic Answers: “While we look
back at this with obvious repulsion, the simple fact is that torture
was commonplace in all judicial systems throughout Western Europe.” It
doesn’t make it right, but it helps bring things into perspective:
Humans in general can be very flawed, not just Catholics and certainly
not because of their Catholic faith.
When someone brings up the Inquisition, ask them what he or she thinks
of it. You might hear anger or frustration in a person’s tone. It’s
understandable. Torture is clearly contradicting Jesus’ well-known
“Love your neighbor” command.
The New Testament certainly contains no basis for a theory of
persecution, but after the conversion of Constantine, the Roman
Emperors began the policy of using force against heretics—sometimes
even the death penalty
“Inquisition” usually refers to a questioning to uproot and correct a
heresy (see Catholic Encyclopedia). Oftentimes the image brings to
mind horrible torture devices. Popular culture often sets scenes
reflecting the general view—gruesome torture led by Catholic monks who
maniacally wanted to destroy non-Catholics or convert them through
pain.
The Church doesn’t teach conversion by threat or pain. We are called
to practice love of others, even when engaged in a conversation about
a topic oftentimes described as embarrassing. Some sources talk about
the Inquisitions as if the Church is the worst villain in the world;
some are incredibly dismissive as if there was barely torture at all.
I recommend you read for yourself, especially primary sources.
Remember that the Inquisition was to gain confessions of those accused
of heresy and not every suspect was tortured. Indeed, non-Catholics
were mostly left alone.
People who dislike any group of people will believe the most terrible
lies more quickly than they will believe a less-incriminating truth or
an apology.
When researching the Inquisition, keep in mind the danger of two
extremes in sources: those Catholics who are incredibly defensive and
“have glossed over incontrovertible facts and tried to white-wash the
Inquisition” and those who have “harbored fierce animosity toward the
Church—animosity that had little to do with the Inquisition itself”
>Next you will say I was talking about the RCC with my
>burning witches comment. I would point out that was not the
>only superstition that did this.
Ahhhhhhhh. Someone else did it first.
Therefore, you are not to blame for your lies.
>If you still disagree research Torquemada.
I don't do your homework for you.
>>Atila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>their particular superstition?
>>We were discussing Catholics and superstitions.
>>
>>Have you forgotten?
>
>If you look at <v535uhprsj62vpivl...@4ax.com>
>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>their particular superstition?
>>We were discussing Catholics and superstitions.
>>
>>Have you forgotten?
>
>you will find my comment and the preceding exchange that led
>to it. You previously clipped this.
Post it.
Don't make me do your homework for you.
>See my previous reference. You may have been talking about
>the RCC but I was talking about control by silly
>superstitions in general and used that as a specific
>reference. I could have used the Salem witch hunts.
Why didn't you?
HA!
You know why.
>>As far as I can tell, you insulted Catholics in the Roman Catholic
>>newsgroup. Perhaps if you ask forgiveness, I can consider this.
>
So you do not see anything wrong in insulting others with your lies?
Why do you think anyone would want to cintinue any discussion with
you?
>Do you think you are the only people in the world? Or the
>only silly superstition? Or the only group?
>BTW, your RCC group is open for anyone to post anything he
>likes. Perhaps I should insure in the future all of my
>posts are copied to you.
You are now proving my assessment of your character was correct.
You are an ass hole, and a troll who enjoys insulting catholics.
>>And my church does not exert power over others.
>
>officials to legitimize rulers in as many countries as you
>could infiltrate.
And why was that?
Could it be that the people begged the church to make decisions that
would be fair and unbiased - compared to the feudal lords and corrupt
kings during that time?
> You established the principal that rulers
>ruled "in the name of god" (your god) and they were crowned
>by your officials.
I did not.
LIAR.
I do not speak for any ruler - crowned by anyone.
I believe they call this a strawman.
Do you need another lesson.
> Unless you silly superstition was
>directly involved the ruler ws considered illegitimate.
Not by me.
Try to read history in a perspective of a person who actually lived
through that history. Look for a bigger picture. Maybe this is too
much for you.
>>We offer you a means to learn about your creator.
>>Take it or leave it.
>
>I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
>existence of any creator. A few hundred years ago you would
>have killed me for making that statement.
I don't care if you believe it or not.
And I would never kill a person unless he is a physical threat.
>>Atila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>their particular superstition?
>>We were discussing Catholics and superstitions.
>
>time.
Post it.
Don't make me do your homework for you.
>>Burning witches is really not much of a superstition.
>
>burning since the possessions of the witch became the
>property of the "church" In the person of the accuser,
>judge, and executioner.
Burning witches is really not much of a superstition.
>>What other torture and murder subjects do you consider to be a
>>superstition?
>
>I did not say there were superstitions. I said they were
>>superstition?
>
>done by silly superstitions.
Read your own words again.
>>Burning witches is really not much of a superstition.
>It was to the one burned
>>>Some are better know for burning witches than others but I
>>>cannot and will not compile a list. Your particular flavor
>>>is well known for burning witches, forcing conversions, and
>>>supporting governments that loot entire continents.
>>
>>Can you show examples of this - perhaps in the last 100 years?
>>Or 200 years?
>
Do your own homework.
You made a statement.
Prove it.
>>Which continents did the Vatican loot?
>
>compliance of their silly superstition.
Which continents did the Vatican loot?
Catholic urban legend. A distorted historical understanding shared by
Catholics and non-Catholics alike makes a useful club against any
position taken by the Church today in the public arena. Any Catholic
apologist or spokesperson for a Catholic position in contemporary
culture knows this. It is virtually impossible to engage in any
discussion without someone raising the Spanish Inquisition to score
effective, if irrelevant, debating points.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/secrets-of-the-spanish-inquisition-revealed
The historical reality of the Spanish Inquisition has its own
tragedies, without a doubt, and it remains an ugly part of Europe’s
past.
The ugly truth of the Spanish Inquisition is that it was aimed
primarily at descendants of Jewish converts who were accused of
secretly practicing their old faith. And the motivating factor may
have been greed, jealously, and racial pogroms, rather than
preservation of the unity of faith.
Spain was unique in Western Europe for the racial diversity of its
population. In addition to a large Muslim population, Spain had the
single largest Jewish community in the world in the thirteenth
century, numbering about 100,000. For centuries, Jews and Christians
had lived together in a generally peaceful, if separate, coexistence.
In 1478, Frederick and Isabella requested a papal bull establishing an
inquisition. It was granted, and by 1482 the inquisition had been
placed under the Dominican Friar Tomas de Torquemada.
Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) complained about the activities of the
inquisition in Aragon and its treatment of the conversos. But, as
throughout much of Europe, the papacy had lost much control over the
actions of local inquisitions. Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492)
complained fruitlessly as well. The inquisition in Spain was
controlled by Spanish authorities, not the authority of the papacy.
It should be noted that after the bitter persecution of the conversos
in the first two decades of the Spanish Inquisition, very few were
actually executed. Most of the condemned were burned in effigy, as
they would have fled before the inquisition began.
History created by Reformation polemics is not history. It is just
Catholic urban legend.
And you claim history tells you something different.
Poor baby.
>>You just claimed : "No basis for a belief is ever required and no
>>belief requires any justification or explanation."
>>Did you mean this?
>>Or are you just rambling again?
>
>Nope. Like an opinion a belief can be off the wall about
>>Or are you just rambling again?
>
>anything at all and as such needs no support. In many if
>not most cases such support would be impossible.
The why do you require evidence?
You just said: "No basis for a belief is ever required ..."
>When a belief is expressed as an assertion of truth or
>implied as being true it is no longer a belief and becomes
>an assertion of fact requiring support.
>A belief should be clearly identified as a belief in order
>to not be misunderstood as an assertion of reality.
Why?
Are you the chief arbitrator of understanding?
>>Our beliefs are factual to us.
>
I don't care what you believe.
I care when you lie about Catholics.
>>Catholics do not go door-to-door trying to round up converts.
>>We offer things for people to ponder.
>>It is up to each of us to figure out why we are here.
>>
>>Why do you think you are here?
>>This is a serious question.
>
You never think about why you are here?
We often use the words “happiness” and “joy” interchangeably, but in
fact they’re different things — and I find it really helps to pull
them apart. Happiness is a broad evaluation of how we feel about our
lives over time.
And you claim you don't think about this.
Have I ever mentioned that it must suck to be you?
>Of course you did.
>Next.
You have no comment?
>>Go out and look into the eyes of people and you can see it. There are
>>100s of good people near you right now, going about their business,
>>hoping to stay unperturbed. If you happen to meet their eyes with a
>>smile, you will see the good shine through.
>
Have I ever mentioned that it must suck to be you?
>>It is not your business to ask people if they believe in God.
>
>the list. In fact I don't think I have ever asked anyone
>that. The subject literally does not occur to me.
>
>>It is not your business to demand they provide proof to you.
>
>If they assert a belief as a fact I won't let them get away
>>It is not your business to demand they provide proof to you.
>
>unchallenged.
Why?
Is this one of the major goals in your life?
I take it that you don't believe in the premise of "Live and let
live."?
>Torquemada
>Of course I did not answer to your satisfaction. I
>disagreed with what you said.
>See prior comments.
>You appear to be the only one other than me here. You are
>not worth the bother.
>Then don't read my posts.
>I respond in the same spirit as the origional comment.
>Do you know what a troll is?
>>Perhaps you need even more reminders of your stupid allegations.
>
>That is one way to reword responses.
>Why should I? I am satisfied with my comments.
>The definition of special.
>Yes. Have you ever heard of "Consider the source . . ."?
>>Yet you feel safe enough to invade the Roman Catholic newsgroup and
>>insult me here.
>
Now you are starting to get it.
And now you admit that you post here only to irritate me.
Finally.
Do you know what a troll is?
>I seldom answer questions about specific superstitions. I
>know very little about any of them because learning would be
>a waste of time before it is established that some god or
>other actually exists.
Do you know what a troll is?
>I pay as much attention to what you consider special as you
>do to what I consider special. But I don't expect you to
>pay any attention to me.
Then why do you post here?
>>Will you walk across the street in order to insult Lakota Indians on
>>their beliefs? Will you call it nonsense to their faces? Is this
>>your role in life?
>
>beliefs as being true.
Perhaps you should search and find an American Indian newsgroup.
Then you go and insult them also.
>>>>Yet, you deliberately post to the Catholic newsgroup, and claim we
>>>>have superstitions, and then you insult us.
>>>
>>>Asked and answered.
>>
>>Not adequately.
>
That is all that counts in this post.
>>When did Catholics start to burn witches, as you claimed.
>
<Yawn> TROLL.
P+Barker
Feb 12, 2023, 10:49:24 AM2/12/23
to
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 09:48:33 -0500, P+Barker
>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 15:58:54 -0500, P+Barker
>>
<Major snipping involved.... I don't waste other people's time in
trying figure out what I am responding to. If I respond to a specific
attila whine>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>their particular superstition?
>>>>>It was enough to be a policy position of the major organized
>>>>>religion. It was not just allowed but encouraged.
>>>>
>>>>LIAR.
>>>>Prove your assertion.
>>>
>>>History proves it.
>>
>>Well then. It is your turn to reference this history.
>>Not some chick tract, or other catholic basher writing.
>
>Try learning something about the history of your silly
>superstition.
Try posting which "superstition" you are speaking of.
>If you think I read that you are out of your mind.
You told me to look up history.
I posted the real history.
And you ignored it.
I understand.
You don't wish to know the truth.
You'd rather believe in my supposed superstions.
You are a troll.
>>>Next you will say I was talking about the RCC with my
>>>burning witches comment. I would point out that was not the
>>>only superstition that did this.
>>
>>Ahhhhhhhh. Someone else did it first.
>>Therefore, you are not to blame for your lies.
>
>Your own words prove you a liar.
Someone else lies.
So when you repeat that lie, you are not responsible.
Gotcha.
Troll.
>>>If you still disagree research Torquemada.
>>
>>I don't do your homework for you.
>
>Horse. Water.
Bible, Catholic Catechism. Horse water.
>>>See my previous reference. You may have been talking about
>>>the RCC but I was talking about control by silly
>>>superstitions in general and used that as a specific
>>>reference. I could have used the Salem witch hunts.
>>
>>Why didn't you?
>>HA!
>>You know why.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>As far as I can tell, you insulted Catholics in the Roman Catholic
>>>>newsgroup. Perhaps if you ask forgiveness, I can consider this.
>>>
>>>When Hell (assuming there is such a place) freezes over.
>>
>>So you do not see anything wrong in insulting others with your lies?
>
>I did not lie.
You know you did.
I would post it, but you will claim I am a one trick pony.
You lied.
Troll.
>>You are now proving my assessment of your character was correct.
>>You are an ass hole, and a troll who enjoys insulting catholics.
>
>You have catholics on the brain.
I read and post to the Catholic newsgroup.
I see you interrupting here with your lies and trolling.
Gosh, and you wonder why I confront you with your lies.
I've done this for 20 years and I have run off dozens of dip shit
trolls like you over the years. You won't last long.
> You are unable to
>understand I don't give a damn what silly superstition you
>bother with. I lump them all together and my comments can
>usually apply to any and all of them.
Why?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>And my church does not exert power over others.
>>>
>>>Historically that ws a major function. It furnished church
>>>officials to legitimize rulers in as many countries as you
>>>could infiltrate.
>>
>>And why was that?
>But you just said you don't. Which is the lie?
Prove me wrong.
You should learn to read history.
Horse, water.
>>> You established the principal that rulers
>>>ruled "in the name of god" (your god) and they were crowned
>>>by your officials.
>>
>>I did not.
>>LIAR.
>>I do not speak for any ruler - crowned by anyone.
>
>By you I meant your silly superstition of course. Don't be
>so full of yourself.
Don't address me if you don't mean me.
I am addressing atilla because he is the dip shit here.
You and matt, Cece, Dark Lady, Amban, Ferris and Karen.
Oh - and Bishop Ray and his bishop wife.
Go pound sand elsewhere.
>>I believe they call this a strawman.
>>Do you need another lesson.
>
>Another?
Yours.
>>> Unless you silly superstition was
>>>directly involved the ruler was considered illegitimate.
>>
>>Not by me.
>
>You would have if you had been alive at the time. It was
>the party line.
If you had lived earlier, would you have been leader of the huns>
Is that why you snatched up that fake name?
Why are you ashamed of your own?
I didn't hear you.
>>Try to read history in a perspective of a person who actually lived
>>through that history. Look for a bigger picture. Maybe this is too
>>much for you.
>
>Power is power no matter when.
How are the huns handling your leadership pretend role?
>>>>We offer you a means to learn about your creator.
>>>>Take it or leave it.
>>>
>>>I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
>>>existence of any creator. A few hundred years ago you would
>>>have killed me for making that statement.
>>
>>I don't care if you believe it or not.
>>And I would never kill a person unless he is a physical threat.
>
>Your superstition would. And did.
Not true.
You can't pluck me out of a time period and claim I would live
differently if I lived in another time period.
That is stupd, ehhh hun?
>>>>Atila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>>their particular superstition?
>>>>We were discussing Catholics and superstitions.
>>>
>>>No, you were. See the previous reference. For the fourth
>>>time.
>>
>>Post it.
>>Don't make me do your homework for you.
>
>Horse. Water.
Horse. Water.
hun.
>>>>Burning witches is really not much of a superstition.
>>>
>>>It was to the one burned as well as the person doing the
>>>burning since the possessions of the witch became the
>>>property of the "church" In the person of the accuser,
>>>judge, and executioner.
>>
>>Burning witches is really not much of a superstition.
>
>See above.
See above.
Then look up superstition.
Then prove it is an action of murder, rather than a belief held by a
person. Did I mention that it must suck to be you? Troll.
>>>>What other torture and murder subjects do you consider to be a
>>>>superstition?
>>>
>>>I did not say there were superstitions. I said they were
>>>done by silly superstitions.
>>
>>Read your own words again.
>>>>Burning witches is really not much of a superstition.
>
>Your comment.
Supersation is a belief. Murder is different.
>Who limited this to 200 years? Your superstition has been
>at work for about 2000 years.
Prove it.
Which superstition?
The one that claims Jesus lived, and taught a new way to be an
honorable citizen of this world? That one?
Or the one that you claim Jesus burned some witches... huh?
Of course you will ignore this because I have kicked your ass once
again. I demand that you provide specific examples, and you are
afraid. Troll. hun. bobbo.
>>>>Which continents did the Vatican loot?
>>>
>>>The Spanish looted central and South America with the
>>>compliance of their silly superstition.
>>
>>Which continents did the Vatican loot?
>
>They got indirect benefit.
They didn't loot anyone.
Another perfect example of when you provide a whimpering specific
example, and I prove that you are a liar.
No wonder you don't wish to provide specifics.
Why do you hide behind your hun name?
Are you afraid someone might find out you are just another ass hole?
>Skipped.
Of course.
You refuse to read the real history.
You would rather believe some superstition that some OTHER ass made
up.
>>>>You just claimed : "No basis for a belief is ever required and no
>>>>belief requires any justification or explanation."
>>>>Did you mean this?
>>>>Or are you just rambling again?
>>>
>>>Nope. Like an opinion a belief can be off the wall about
>>>anything at all and as such needs no support. In many if
>>>not most cases such support would be impossible.
>>
>>The why do you require evidence?
>>You just said: "No basis for a belief is ever required ..."
>
>Where have I requested evidence for a stated belief?
How funny.
Do you recall saying: "I was talking about people who post their
How funny.
>>>When a belief is expressed as an assertion of truth or
>>>implied as being true it is no longer a belief and becomes
>>>an assertion of fact requiring support.
>>>A belief should be clearly identified as a belief in order
>>>to not be misunderstood as an assertion of reality.
>>
>>Why?
>>Are you the chief arbitrator of understanding?
>
>Nope.
Sounds llike you want to be leader of the huns.
>>>>Our beliefs are factual to us.
>>>
>>>That does not make them factual to anyone else.
>>
>>I don't care what you believe.
>>I care when you lie about Catholics.
>
>I never seldom if ever discuss catholics. I my comment on
>the silly superstition at times.
<Yawn>
I ALWAYS address ass holes, liars, trolls, and jerks like you.
>>>>Catholics do not go door-to-door trying to round up converts.
>>>>We offer things for people to ponder.
>>>>It is up to each of us to figure out why we are here.
>>>>
>>>>Why do you think you are here?
>>>>This is a serious question.
>>>
>>>Why should I have a reason? I never think about it.
>>
>>You never think about why you are here?
>
>No
Then why are you afraid to provide a real name and city?
>>We often use the words “happiness” and “joy” interchangeably, but in
>>fact they’re different things — and I find it really helps to pull
>>them apart. Happiness is a broad evaluation of how we feel about our
>>lives over time.
>>
>>And you claim you don't think about this.
>>
>>Have I ever mentioned that it must suck to be you?
>>
>>>Of course you did.
>>>Next.
>>
>>You have no comment?
>
>I did comment. "Next".
Have I ever mentioned that it must suck to be you?
Because you keep crawling back for more, bobbo.
>>>>It is not your business to ask people if they believe in God.
>>>
>>>Of all the things I don't care about that is off the top of
>>>the list. In fact I don't think I have ever asked anyone
>>>that. The subject literally does not occur to me.
>>>
>>>>It is not your business to demand they provide proof to you.
>>>
>>>If they assert a belief as a fact I won't let them get away
>>>unchallenged.
>>
>>Why?
>
>Entertainment.
>belief.
Try saying that again. In English.
>On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 09:48:33 -0500, P+Barker
>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 15:58:54 -0500, P+Barker
>>
<Major snipping involved.... I don't waste other people's time in
trying figure out what I am responding to. If I respond to a specific
attila whine>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>their particular superstition?
>>>>>It was enough to be a policy position of the major organized
>>>>>religion. It was not just allowed but encouraged.
>>>>
>>>>LIAR.
>>>>Prove your assertion.
>>>
>>>History proves it.
>>
>>Well then. It is your turn to reference this history.
>>Not some chick tract, or other catholic basher writing.
>
>superstition.
Try posting which "superstition" you are speaking of.
You told me to look up history.
I posted the real history.
And you ignored it.
I understand.
You don't wish to know the truth.
You'd rather believe in my supposed superstions.
You are a troll.
>>>Next you will say I was talking about the RCC with my
>>>burning witches comment. I would point out that was not the
>>>only superstition that did this.
>>
>>Ahhhhhhhh. Someone else did it first.
>>Therefore, you are not to blame for your lies.
>
Someone else lies.
So when you repeat that lie, you are not responsible.
Gotcha.
Troll.
>>>If you still disagree research Torquemada.
>>
>>I don't do your homework for you.
>
Bible, Catholic Catechism. Horse water.
>>>See my previous reference. You may have been talking about
>>>the RCC but I was talking about control by silly
>>>superstitions in general and used that as a specific
>>>reference. I could have used the Salem witch hunts.
>>
>>Why didn't you?
>>HA!
>>You know why.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>As far as I can tell, you insulted Catholics in the Roman Catholic
>>>>newsgroup. Perhaps if you ask forgiveness, I can consider this.
>>>
>>>When Hell (assuming there is such a place) freezes over.
>>
>>So you do not see anything wrong in insulting others with your lies?
>
You know you did.
I would post it, but you will claim I am a one trick pony.
You lied.
Troll.
>>You are now proving my assessment of your character was correct.
>>You are an ass hole, and a troll who enjoys insulting catholics.
>
I read and post to the Catholic newsgroup.
I see you interrupting here with your lies and trolling.
Gosh, and you wonder why I confront you with your lies.
I've done this for 20 years and I have run off dozens of dip shit
trolls like you over the years. You won't last long.
> You are unable to
>understand I don't give a damn what silly superstition you
>bother with. I lump them all together and my comments can
>usually apply to any and all of them.
Why?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>And my church does not exert power over others.
>>>
>>>Historically that ws a major function. It furnished church
>>>officials to legitimize rulers in as many countries as you
>>>could infiltrate.
>>
>>And why was that?
>
>>Could it be that the people begged the church to make decisions that
>>would be fair and unbiased - compared to the feudal lords and corrupt
>>kings during that time?
>
>Party line.
>>Could it be that the people begged the church to make decisions that
>>would be fair and unbiased - compared to the feudal lords and corrupt
>>kings during that time?
>
Prove me wrong.
You should learn to read history.
Horse, water.
>>> You established the principal that rulers
>>>ruled "in the name of god" (your god) and they were crowned
>>>by your officials.
>>
>>I did not.
>>LIAR.
>>I do not speak for any ruler - crowned by anyone.
>
>so full of yourself.
Don't address me if you don't mean me.
I am addressing atilla because he is the dip shit here.
You and matt, Cece, Dark Lady, Amban, Ferris and Karen.
Oh - and Bishop Ray and his bishop wife.
Go pound sand elsewhere.
>>I believe they call this a strawman.
>>Do you need another lesson.
>
Yours.
>>> Unless you silly superstition was
>>
>>Not by me.
>
>You would have if you had been alive at the time. It was
>the party line.
If you had lived earlier, would you have been leader of the huns>
Is that why you snatched up that fake name?
Why are you ashamed of your own?
I didn't hear you.
>>Try to read history in a perspective of a person who actually lived
>>through that history. Look for a bigger picture. Maybe this is too
>>much for you.
>
How are the huns handling your leadership pretend role?
>>>>We offer you a means to learn about your creator.
>>>>Take it or leave it.
>>>
>>>I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
>>>existence of any creator. A few hundred years ago you would
>>>have killed me for making that statement.
>>
>>I don't care if you believe it or not.
>>And I would never kill a person unless he is a physical threat.
>
Not true.
You can't pluck me out of a time period and claim I would live
differently if I lived in another time period.
That is stupd, ehhh hun?
>>>>Atila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>>their particular superstition?
>>>>We were discussing Catholics and superstitions.
>>>
>>>No, you were. See the previous reference. For the fourth
>>>time.
>>
>>Post it.
>>Don't make me do your homework for you.
>
Horse. Water.
hun.
>>>>Burning witches is really not much of a superstition.
>>>
>>>It was to the one burned as well as the person doing the
>>>burning since the possessions of the witch became the
>>>property of the "church" In the person of the accuser,
>>>judge, and executioner.
>>
>>Burning witches is really not much of a superstition.
>
See above.
Then look up superstition.
Then prove it is an action of murder, rather than a belief held by a
person. Did I mention that it must suck to be you? Troll.
>>>>What other torture and murder subjects do you consider to be a
>>>>superstition?
>>>
>>>I did not say there were superstitions. I said they were
>>>done by silly superstitions.
>>
>>Read your own words again.
>>>>Burning witches is really not much of a superstition.
>
>
>>>It was to the one burned
>
>It wasn't?
>>>It was to the one burned
>
Supersation is a belief. Murder is different.
>Who limited this to 200 years? Your superstition has been
>at work for about 2000 years.
Prove it.
Which superstition?
The one that claims Jesus lived, and taught a new way to be an
honorable citizen of this world? That one?
Or the one that you claim Jesus burned some witches... huh?
Of course you will ignore this because I have kicked your ass once
again. I demand that you provide specific examples, and you are
afraid. Troll. hun. bobbo.
>>>>Which continents did the Vatican loot?
>>>
>>>The Spanish looted central and South America with the
>>>compliance of their silly superstition.
>>
>>Which continents did the Vatican loot?
>
They didn't loot anyone.
Another perfect example of when you provide a whimpering specific
example, and I prove that you are a liar.
No wonder you don't wish to provide specifics.
Why do you hide behind your hun name?
Are you afraid someone might find out you are just another ass hole?
Of course.
You refuse to read the real history.
You would rather believe some superstition that some OTHER ass made
up.
>>>>You just claimed : "No basis for a belief is ever required and no
>>>>belief requires any justification or explanation."
>>>>Did you mean this?
>>>>Or are you just rambling again?
>>>
>>>Nope. Like an opinion a belief can be off the wall about
>>>anything at all and as such needs no support. In many if
>>>not most cases such support would be impossible.
>>
>>The why do you require evidence?
>>You just said: "No basis for a belief is ever required ..."
>
How funny.
Do you recall saying: "I was talking about people who post their
superstitious nonsense and feel they do not need to support it with
unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence but
demand it be accepted just because they think it is true."
So now you clai that you don't request supporting evidence?
unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence but
demand it be accepted just because they think it is true."
How funny.
>>>When a belief is expressed as an assertion of truth or
>>>implied as being true it is no longer a belief and becomes
>>>an assertion of fact requiring support.
>>>A belief should be clearly identified as a belief in order
>>>to not be misunderstood as an assertion of reality.
>>
>>Why?
>>Are you the chief arbitrator of understanding?
>
Sounds llike you want to be leader of the huns.
>>>>Our beliefs are factual to us.
>>>
>>>That does not make them factual to anyone else.
>>
>>I don't care what you believe.
>>I care when you lie about Catholics.
>
>the silly superstition at times.
<Yawn>
I ALWAYS address ass holes, liars, trolls, and jerks like you.
>>>>Catholics do not go door-to-door trying to round up converts.
>>>>We offer things for people to ponder.
>>>>It is up to each of us to figure out why we are here.
>>>>
>>>>Why do you think you are here?
>>>>This is a serious question.
>>>
>>>Why should I have a reason? I never think about it.
>>
>>You never think about why you are here?
>
Then why are you afraid to provide a real name and city?
>>We often use the words “happiness” and “joy” interchangeably, but in
>>fact they’re different things — and I find it really helps to pull
>>them apart. Happiness is a broad evaluation of how we feel about our
>>lives over time.
>>
>>And you claim you don't think about this.
>>
>>Have I ever mentioned that it must suck to be you?
>>
>>>Of course you did.
>>>Next.
>>
>>You have no comment?
>
Have I ever mentioned that it must suck to be you?
>>>Go out and look into the eyes of people and you can see it. There are
>>>>100s of good people near you right now, going about their business,
>>>>hoping to stay unperturbed. If you happen to meet their eyes with a
>>>>smile, you will see the good shine through.
>>>
>>>I am certainly glad I don't know you.
>>
>>Have I ever mentioned that it must suck to be you?
>
>Several times. Why do you think I care what you think?
>>>>100s of good people near you right now, going about their business,
>>>>hoping to stay unperturbed. If you happen to meet their eyes with a
>>>>smile, you will see the good shine through.
>>>
>>>I am certainly glad I don't know you.
>>
>>Have I ever mentioned that it must suck to be you?
>
Because you keep crawling back for more, bobbo.
>>>>It is not your business to ask people if they believe in God.
>>>
>>>Of all the things I don't care about that is off the top of
>>>the list. In fact I don't think I have ever asked anyone
>>>that. The subject literally does not occur to me.
>>>
>>>>It is not your business to demand they provide proof to you.
>>>
>>>If they assert a belief as a fact I won't let them get away
>>>unchallenged.
>>
>>Why?
>
>
>>Is this one of the major goals in your life?
>>I take it that you don't believe in the premise of "Live and let
>>live."?
>
>Sure I do. I only question what is not presented as a
>>Is this one of the major goals in your life?
>>I take it that you don't believe in the premise of "Live and let
>>live."?
>
>belief.
Try saying that again. In English.
tesla sTinker
Feb 12, 2023, 2:35:58 PM2/12/23
to
On 2/10/2023 3:25 PM, Attila < scribbled:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 21:16:17 -0800, tesla sTinker
> <seav...@yahoo.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <ts4jv0$v9b8$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>>> I am not a troll but you can challenge me at any time. Just
>>> try to get your facts straight.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you should consider not speaking to this idiot anymore.
>> He is no bishop, and He is not a true catholic. He is a one world
>> order, novus ordo fake catholic usary government stealing taxpayers
>> money. They are freemasons, they kill people, and rape children. they
>> belong to the devil. They do not go
>> to Heaven. \what they tell you is truth and lies. So if I were you,
>> even though I am certain you are an infidel idiot, I caution you on your
>> knowledge. These kind do not honor St Peter. Or Jesus either.
>> They hate the true catholic church, that is why they say what they do.
>
>
>>> I am not a troll but you can challenge me at any time. Just
>>> try to get your facts straight.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you should consider not speaking to this idiot anymore.
>> He is no bishop, and He is not a true catholic. He is a one world
>> order, novus ordo fake catholic usary government stealing taxpayers
>> money. They are freemasons, they kill people, and rape children. they
>> belong to the devil. They do not go
>> to Heaven. \what they tell you is truth and lies. So if I were you,
>> even though I am certain you are an infidel idiot, I caution you on your
>> knowledge. These kind do not honor St Peter. Or Jesus either.
>> They hate the true catholic church, that is why they say what they do.
>
> He seems to suffer from a bad case of foot in mouth disease.
>
> I suspect he is one of those True Believers who cannot
>
> understand someone can easily live with paying no attention
> to any silly superstition and could not care less about the
> details involved with any of them. He also has no clue
> about the mechanics of newsgroups.
>
> I am seriously considering adding
> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic to all of my posts
> just to keep his blood pressure up.
>
> I was especially fond of how he kept telling me what to do.
>
He does not even know what is in the real true Bible. And neither do
> I am seriously considering adding
> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic to all of my posts
> just to keep his blood pressure up.
>
> I was especially fond of how he kept telling me what to do.
>
you. That is what is very scary. The whole event of the dead coming
back to life from the grave has once happened already in the Book of
Ezechiel, and angels spoke.
Not to mention, God hates things. And the majority of infidels get
shit on by God because they do not believe in Him
And the entire Novus Ordo believes they can defy God, and shit on His
Altar, and in the meantime, they lie about who they are on purpose, just
to make jokes out of others who do believe. Now, is that anyone to
treat a persons faith not to even say, what do they believe.
?
i SHIT you not, Attila was an evil bastard. God killed him, just like
that. Bible says this about many in past history. They do not even
think God is real and then, the ground opens up and swallows them whole.
Down to hell they go. And that was after He warned them He would do
it. And no, He did not give them a chance to say they were sorry, and
in my honest opinion of My True God, He did the correct thing, yes. Do
not even think for one moment, you can good fruit from a bad tree.
tesla sTinker
Feb 12, 2023, 2:59:06 PM2/12/23
to
On 2/10/2023 3:25 PM, Attila < scribbled:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 21:16:17 -0800, tesla sTinker
> <seav...@yahoo.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <ts4jv0$v9b8$1...@dont-email.me> wrote:
>
>>> I am not a troll but you can challenge me at any time. Just
>>> try to get your facts straight.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you should consider not speaking to this idiot anymore.
>> He is no bishop, and He is not a true catholic. He is a one world
>> order, novus ordo fake catholic usary government stealing taxpayers
>> money. They are freemasons, they kill people, and rape children. they
>> belong to the devil. They do not go
>> to Heaven. \what they tell you is truth and lies. So if I were you,
>> even though I am certain you are an infidel idiot, I caution you on your
>> knowledge. These kind do not honor St Peter. Or Jesus either.
>> They hate the true catholic church, that is why they say what they do.
>
>>> try to get your facts straight.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you should consider not speaking to this idiot anymore.
>> He is no bishop, and He is not a true catholic. He is a one world
>> order, novus ordo fake catholic usary government stealing taxpayers
>> money. They are freemasons, they kill people, and rape children. they
>> belong to the devil. They do not go
>> to Heaven. \what they tell you is truth and lies. So if I were you,
>> even though I am certain you are an infidel idiot, I caution you on your
>> knowledge. These kind do not honor St Peter. Or Jesus either.
>> They hate the true catholic church, that is why they say what they do.
>
> He seems to suffer from a bad case of foot in mouth disease.
>
> I suspect he is one of those True Believers who cannot
> understand someone can easily live with paying no attention
> to any silly superstition and could not care less about the
> details involved with any of them. He also has no clue
> about the mechanics of newsgroups.
>
> I am seriously considering adding
> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic to all of my posts
> just to keep his blood pressure up.
>
> I was especially fond of how he kept telling me what to do.
>
He does not even know what is in the real true Bible. And neither do
you. That is what is very scary. The whole event of the dead coming
back to life from the grave has once happened already in the Book of
Ezechiel, and angels spoke.
Not to mention, God hates things an people. And the majority of
>
> I suspect he is one of those True Believers who cannot
> understand someone can easily live with paying no attention
> to any silly superstition and could not care less about the
> details involved with any of them. He also has no clue
> about the mechanics of newsgroups.
>
> I am seriously considering adding
> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic to all of my posts
> just to keep his blood pressure up.
>
> I was especially fond of how he kept telling me what to do.
>
He does not even know what is in the real true Bible. And neither do
you. That is what is very scary. The whole event of the dead coming
back to life from the grave has once happened already in the Book of
Ezechiel, and angels spoke.
infidels get shit on by God because they do not believe in Him.
That I can understand.
And the entire Novus Ordo believes they can defy God, and shit on His
Altar, and in the meantime, they lie about who they are on purpose, just
anyway to treat a persons faith not to even say, what do they believe
in. ? Novus Ordo catholics.
i SHIT you not, Attila was an evil bastard. God killed him, just like
do not even think God is real and then, the ground opens up and swallows
them whole while they are making fun of Him. Down to hell they go. And
that was after He warned them He would do it. And no, He did not give
them a chance to say they were sorry at all, and in my honest opinion of
My True God, He did the very correct thing, yes. Do not even think for
one moment, you can find good fruit from a bad tree.
He also said you cannot.
God's name, most the world has not a clue what it really is? Its not
told to you in the book of Genesis. He says it in Exodus. But you
would be surprised how it was said to Moses.
And Jesus made it clear, to listen to Moses, His exact words.
Now I know why God hates liars. And what he does with them the ones
that disobey Him. No one seems to say anything about what is real
truth on here. the first JOHN PAUL, freemason, that claimed to be pope,
ha, God killed him in 33 days, they were looking for another pope,
cause that one, was killed dead and my guess, is it is the double name
that made God extremely angry. Never before that person, was there ever
a 2 faced name used for the papacy.
And to BACK THAT UP, EVEN THE second one, had his throat sliced open
3 days prior to passion sunday. And the book of psalms says, God cuts
the throats of sinners. Same reason, an likely many other things he
did wrong, not paying one bit of attention to what true canon law and
the true Bible says..... the man wrote whatever he wanted to write,
and kissed the feet of a whore also. Things Jesus would never accept of.
True Catholic Church, is certainly hard to find today. To many liars
exist that do it for $$$$.
And God also said in His true Bible, Money is not supposed to be in
the hands of a true priest. That is one of His Precepts of law that the
Priest is to obey when He goes preaching. No money, no book, no purse,
nothing. Is He to have with himself not even shoes.
P+Barker
Feb 12, 2023, 4:50:15 PM2/12/23
to
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 10:49:19 -0500, P+Barker
Major snipping involved.... I don't waste other people's time in
trying figure out what I am responding to. If I respond to a specific
attila whine>
Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
If you really wish to discuss it, ref to it. Name it. Post it.
>>You told me to look up history.
>>I posted the real history.
>>And you ignored it.
>
>I said look it up. I did not say I was interested enough to
>waste time reading dreary details.
Well then.
You just want to poke and prod. No discussion involved.
Troll.
Gotcha.
>>I understand.
>>You don't wish to know the truth.
>
>As defined by your or your silly superstition? No.
As defined by real history, not yer silly troll buddies.
>I was considering joining but Duke (before he died) told me
>I would not get a certificate suitable for framing when I
>was excommunicated. Since that would be the only reason I
>would join I dropped that idea.
You want a certificate?
Send me your address, bubba. I'll send you one.
>I wonder if I could get your pope to send me a letter saying
>under no circumstances could I ever join. That would be
>better than nothing.
You want a certificate?
Send me your address, bubba. I'll send you one.
>>>>>If you still disagree research Torquemada.
>>>>
>>>>I don't do your homework for you.
>>>
>>>Horse. Water.
>>
>>Bible, Catholic Catechism. Horse water.
>
>I don't waste time on the first, could not care less about
>the second, and the third went right over your head.
Have you ever ridden a horse?
Would you like to discuss this?
>Why?
>
>Simple, moron. I have yet to see any valid evidence
>supporting the existence of any god.
Asked and answered.
Why are you here on earth?
>For any observer - It's OK not to drink the Kool-aid. You
>can be as skeptical as you like and think for yourself.
Why are you here again?
>>I am addressing atilla because he is the dip shit here.
>>You and matt, Cece, Dark Lady, Amban, Ferris and Karen.
>>Oh - and Bishop Ray and his bishop wife.
>>Go pound sand elsewhere.
>
>It is too much fun pounding it up your ass.
So you finally admit you are a troll.
It is about time, bobbo.
>>If you had lived earlier, would you have been leader of the huns>
>
>I didn't know that, Captain Obvious,
So you finally admit you are a troll.
It is about time, bobbo.
>>Horse. Water.
>>hun.
>>>>>>Burning witches is really not much of a superstition.
>>>>>
>>>>>It was to the one burned as well as the person doing the
>>>>>burning since the possessions of the witch became the
>>>>>property of the "church" In the person of the accuser,
>>>>>judge, and executioner.
>>>>
>>>>Burning witches is really not much of a superstition.
>>>
>>>See above.
>>
>>See above.
>>Then look up superstition.
>>Then prove it is an action of murder, rather than a belief held by a
>>person. Did I mention that it must suck to be you? Troll.
>
>If it is a belief it would not be murder?
Murder is not a belief. It is an action.
Would you like to discuss this, troll?
>>Supersation is a belief. Murder is different.
>>
>>
>>>Who limited this to 200 years? Your superstition has been
>>>at work for about 2000 years.
>>
>>Prove it.
>>Which superstition?
>
>The one you claim is a lot older than that. It's the one
>famous for alter boys.
Prove it.
Which one is that?
bobbo.
>>The one that claims Jesus lived, and taught a new way to be an
>>honorable citizen of this world? That one?
>
>I have no idea. Nor do I care.
So..........................
You claim we have superstitions.
And yet, you are unable to identify them.
Gotcha, bobbo.
>>Or the one that you claim Jesus burned some witches... huh?
>>Of course you will ignore this because I have kicked your ass once
>>again. I demand that you provide specific examples, and you are
>>afraid. Troll. hun. bobbo.
>
>I have no idea about any specifics, only the well known
>generalizations. There are too many to otherwise bother
>with and they are basically all the same.
Exactly. You refuse to be tied down to any specific discussion.
You'd get your ass kicked by the truth.
>>>>>>Which continents did the Vatican loot?
>>>>>
>>>>>The Spanish looted central and South America with the
>>>>>compliance of their silly superstition.
>>>>
>>>>Which continents did the Vatican loot?
>>>
>>>They got indirect benefit.
>>
>>They didn't loot anyone.
>
>It was done in the name of His (or Her) Most Catholic
>Majesty. Sound familiar?
Nope.
Prove it.
Give a reference.
C'mon bubba... Are you afraid?
>>Another perfect example of when you provide a whimpering specific
>>example, and I prove that you are a liar.
>>No wonder you don't wish to provide specifics.
>
>If you mean details about your silly superstition I neither
>know or care.
Then why are you here again?
Besides to whine, to cry, insult, and to accuse....
with absolutely no facts.
Troll.
>>Why do you hide behind your hun name?
>>Are you afraid someone might find out you are just another ass hole?
>
>There are too many nuts like you here to be specific. In
>today's environment self defense results in too much
>paperwork.
So you are afraid of people who you deliberately offend.
Gotcha.
Troll.
Keep flapping yer lips.
We learn more about you every time.
Chicken.
>>Do you recall saying: "I was talking about people who post their
>>superstitious nonsense and feel they do not need to support it with
>>unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence but
>>demand it be accepted just because they think it is true."
>
>Did the post clearly indicate it was a belief? Did it state
>this?
You said this.
Look it up, troll.
>>I ALWAYS address ass holes, liars, trolls, and jerks like you.
>
>So many responses come to mind I cannot choose.
Of course you cannot.
You are afraid.
>>Have I ever mentioned that it must suck to be you?
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 10:49:19 -0500, P+Barker
Major snipping involved.... I don't waste other people's time in
trying figure out what I am responding to. If I respond to a specific
attila whine>
>>>Try learning something about the history of your silly
>>>superstition.
>>
>>Try posting which "superstition" you are speaking of.
>
>You know more about it than I do.
>>>superstition.
>>
>>Try posting which "superstition" you are speaking of.
>
Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
If you really wish to discuss it, ref to it. Name it. Post it.
>>You told me to look up history.
>>I posted the real history.
>>And you ignored it.
>
>waste time reading dreary details.
Well then.
You just want to poke and prod. No discussion involved.
Troll.
Gotcha.
>>I understand.
>>You don't wish to know the truth.
>
As defined by real history, not yer silly troll buddies.
>I was considering joining but Duke (before he died) told me
>I would not get a certificate suitable for framing when I
>was excommunicated. Since that would be the only reason I
>would join I dropped that idea.
You want a certificate?
Send me your address, bubba. I'll send you one.
>I wonder if I could get your pope to send me a letter saying
>under no circumstances could I ever join. That would be
>better than nothing.
You want a certificate?
Send me your address, bubba. I'll send you one.
>>>>>If you still disagree research Torquemada.
>>>>
>>>>I don't do your homework for you.
>>>
>>>Horse. Water.
>>
>>Bible, Catholic Catechism. Horse water.
>
>the second, and the third went right over your head.
Have you ever ridden a horse?
Would you like to discuss this?
>Why?
>
>Simple, moron. I have yet to see any valid evidence
>supporting the existence of any god.
Asked and answered.
Why are you here on earth?
>For any observer - It's OK not to drink the Kool-aid. You
>can be as skeptical as you like and think for yourself.
Why are you here again?
>>I am addressing atilla because he is the dip shit here.
>>You and matt, Cece, Dark Lady, Amban, Ferris and Karen.
>>Oh - and Bishop Ray and his bishop wife.
>>Go pound sand elsewhere.
>
So you finally admit you are a troll.
It is about time, bobbo.
>>If you had lived earlier, would you have been leader of the huns>
>
>
>>Is that why you snatched up that fake name?
>
>He actually lived and I like his other name.
>>Is that why you snatched up that fake name?
>
>
>>Why are you ashamed of your own?
>
>Do you still beat your dog?
>>Why are you ashamed of your own?
>
>
>>I didn't hear you.
>
>Try harder.
>>I didn't hear you.
>
So you finally admit you are a troll.
It is about time, bobbo.
>>Horse. Water.
>>hun.
>>>>>>Burning witches is really not much of a superstition.
>>>>>
>>>>>It was to the one burned as well as the person doing the
>>>>>burning since the possessions of the witch became the
>>>>>property of the "church" In the person of the accuser,
>>>>>judge, and executioner.
>>>>
>>>>Burning witches is really not much of a superstition.
>>>
>>>See above.
>>
>>See above.
>>Then look up superstition.
>>Then prove it is an action of murder, rather than a belief held by a
>>person. Did I mention that it must suck to be you? Troll.
>
Murder is not a belief. It is an action.
Would you like to discuss this, troll?
>>Supersation is a belief. Murder is different.
>>
>>
>>>Who limited this to 200 years? Your superstition has been
>>>at work for about 2000 years.
>>
>>Prove it.
>>Which superstition?
>
>famous for alter boys.
Prove it.
Which one is that?
bobbo.
>>The one that claims Jesus lived, and taught a new way to be an
>>honorable citizen of this world? That one?
>
So..........................
You claim we have superstitions.
And yet, you are unable to identify them.
Gotcha, bobbo.
>>Or the one that you claim Jesus burned some witches... huh?
>>Of course you will ignore this because I have kicked your ass once
>>again. I demand that you provide specific examples, and you are
>>afraid. Troll. hun. bobbo.
>
>generalizations. There are too many to otherwise bother
>with and they are basically all the same.
Exactly. You refuse to be tied down to any specific discussion.
You'd get your ass kicked by the truth.
>>>>>>Which continents did the Vatican loot?
>>>>>
>>>>>The Spanish looted central and South America with the
>>>>>compliance of their silly superstition.
>>>>
>>>>Which continents did the Vatican loot?
>>>
>>>They got indirect benefit.
>>
>>They didn't loot anyone.
>
>Majesty. Sound familiar?
Nope.
Prove it.
Give a reference.
C'mon bubba... Are you afraid?
>>Another perfect example of when you provide a whimpering specific
>>example, and I prove that you are a liar.
>>No wonder you don't wish to provide specifics.
>
>know or care.
Then why are you here again?
Besides to whine, to cry, insult, and to accuse....
with absolutely no facts.
Troll.
>>Why do you hide behind your hun name?
>>Are you afraid someone might find out you are just another ass hole?
>
>today's environment self defense results in too much
>paperwork.
So you are afraid of people who you deliberately offend.
Gotcha.
Troll.
Keep flapping yer lips.
We learn more about you every time.
Chicken.
>>Do you recall saying: "I was talking about people who post their
>>superstitious nonsense and feel they do not need to support it with
>>unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence but
>>demand it be accepted just because they think it is true."
>
>this?
You said this.
Look it up, troll.
>>I ALWAYS address ass holes, liars, trolls, and jerks like you.
>
Of course you cannot.
You are afraid.
>>Have I ever mentioned that it must suck to be you?
>>Have I ever mentioned that it must suck to be you?
>>>
>>>Several times. Why do you think I care what you think?
>>
>>Because you keep crawling back for more, bobbo.
>
>It only shows I am easily amused.
>>>
>>>Several times. Why do you think I care what you think?
>>
>>Because you keep crawling back for more, bobbo.
>
P+Barker
Feb 13, 2023, 8:09:11 AM2/13/23
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 19:56:56 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 16:50:10 -0500, P+Barker
Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
>>If you really wish to discuss it, ref to it. Name it. Post it.
>
>Since you clipped the exchange I have no idea what was
>involved.
Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
>care less.
If you know little to nothing about history, why do you tell me to
look up history. I have already done that. I have studied history my
whole life. And you claim to know little or nothing about it
Why ... then .... do you post here?
Troll.
Gotcha.
>>>I was considering joining but Duke (before he died) told me
>>>I would not get a certificate suitable for framing when I
>>>was excommunicated. Since that would be the only reason I
>>>would join I dropped that idea.
>>
>>You want a certificate?
>>Send me your address, bubba. I'll send you one.
>
>Not going to happen. It is nuts like you who shoot people
>and think they should not be punished because their god told
>them to do it.
Why would someone wish to shoot you?
Could it be because you insult them, lie about them, poke them?
If you stop, no one will want to shoot you.
>>>I wonder if I could get your pope to send me a letter saying
>>>under no circumstances could I ever join. That would be
>>>better than nothing.
>>
>>You want a certificate?
>>Send me your address, bubba. I'll send you one.
>
>Are you the pope?
He's my buddy.
>>Why are you here on earth?
>
>I was born a member of a native species.
Who wasn't?
>>>For any observer - It's OK not to drink the Kool-aid. You
>>>can be as skeptical as you like and think for yourself.
>>
>>Why are you here again?
>
>Why should I need a reason?
To be a while person.
Have I mentioned it must suck to be you?
>>>>I am addressing atilla because he is the dip shit here.
>>>>You and matt, Cece, Dark Lady, Amban, Ferris and Karen.
>>>>Oh - and Bishop Ray and his bishop wife.
>>>>Go pound sand elsewhere.
>>>
>>>It is too much fun pounding it up your ass.
>>
>>So you finally admit you are a troll.
>>It is about time, bobbo.
>
>I admit nothing. I am responding to your lies and
>distortions among other things.
So you finally admit you are a troll.
>>So you finally admit you are a troll.
>>It is about time, bobbo.
Of course not.
Troll.
>You trimmed proof in another discussion with someone else.
>
>>Which one is that?
>
>The one that has priests and alter boys.
What is an alter boy?
>>So..........................
>>You claim we have superstitions.
>>And yet, you are unable to identify them.
>>Gotcha, bobbo.
>
>What I have said is that I lump anything pertaining to a
>god under the same label of silly superstition since they
>are basically all the same anyway. I neither know or care
>much about the details of any particular one.
So, you don't know the superstition.
You don't know history.
And you don't know anything.
Gotcha.
But you already knew this.
>>>>Or the one that you claim Jesus burned some witches... huh?
>>>>Of course you will ignore this because I have kicked your ass once
>>>>again. I demand that you provide specific examples, and you are
>>>>afraid. Troll. hun. bobbo.
>>>
>>>I have no idea about any specifics, only the well known
>>>generalizations.
get back to me when you have a specific.
Or stop yer whining.
bobbo.
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 16:50:10 -0500, P+Barker
><PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
><bomiuhlq31sa7k60u...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 10:49:19 -0500, P+Barker
>>
>>Major snipping involved.... I don't waste other people's time in
>>trying figure out what I am responding to. If I respond to a specific
>>attila whine>
>>
>>
>>>>>Try learning something about the history of your silly
>>>>>superstition.
>>>>
>>>>Try posting which "superstition" you are speaking of.
>>>
>>>You know more about it than I do.
>>
>>Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
>
>You lie more than Traitor Joe Biden.
>
>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 10:49:19 -0500, P+Barker
>>
>>Major snipping involved.... I don't waste other people's time in
>>trying figure out what I am responding to. If I respond to a specific
>>attila whine>
>>
>>
>>>>>Try learning something about the history of your silly
>>>>>superstition.
>>>>
>>>>Try posting which "superstition" you are speaking of.
>>>
>>>You know more about it than I do.
>>
>>Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
>
Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
>>If you really wish to discuss it, ref to it. Name it. Post it.
>
>involved.
Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
>>>>You told me to look up history.
>>>>I posted the real history.
>>>>And you ignored it.
>>>
>>>I said look it up. I did not say I was interested enough to
>>>waste time reading dreary details.
>>
>>Well then.
>>You just want to poke and prod. No discussion involved.
>
>I cannot discuss what I know little to nothing about. And
>>>>I posted the real history.
>>>>And you ignored it.
>>>
>>>I said look it up. I did not say I was interested enough to
>>>waste time reading dreary details.
>>
>>Well then.
>>You just want to poke and prod. No discussion involved.
>
>care less.
If you know little to nothing about history, why do you tell me to
look up history. I have already done that. I have studied history my
whole life. And you claim to know little or nothing about it
Why ... then .... do you post here?
Troll.
Gotcha.
>>>I was considering joining but Duke (before he died) told me
>>>I would not get a certificate suitable for framing when I
>>>was excommunicated. Since that would be the only reason I
>>>would join I dropped that idea.
>>
>>You want a certificate?
>>Send me your address, bubba. I'll send you one.
>
>and think they should not be punished because their god told
>them to do it.
Why would someone wish to shoot you?
Could it be because you insult them, lie about them, poke them?
If you stop, no one will want to shoot you.
>>>I wonder if I could get your pope to send me a letter saying
>>>under no circumstances could I ever join. That would be
>>>better than nothing.
>>
>>You want a certificate?
>>Send me your address, bubba. I'll send you one.
>
He's my buddy.
>>Why are you here on earth?
>
Who wasn't?
>>>For any observer - It's OK not to drink the Kool-aid. You
>>>can be as skeptical as you like and think for yourself.
>>
>>Why are you here again?
>
To be a while person.
Have I mentioned it must suck to be you?
>>>>I am addressing atilla because he is the dip shit here.
>>>>You and matt, Cece, Dark Lady, Amban, Ferris and Karen.
>>>>Oh - and Bishop Ray and his bishop wife.
>>>>Go pound sand elsewhere.
>>>
>>>It is too much fun pounding it up your ass.
>>
>>So you finally admit you are a troll.
>>It is about time, bobbo.
>
>distortions among other things.
So you finally admit you are a troll.
>>So you finally admit you are a troll.
>>It is about time, bobbo.
>>Murder is not a belief. It is an action.
>>Would you like to discuss this, troll?
>
>No.
>>Would you like to discuss this, troll?
>
Of course not.
Troll.
>You trimmed proof in another discussion with someone else.
>
>>Which one is that?
>
>The one that has priests and alter boys.
What is an alter boy?
>>So..........................
>>You claim we have superstitions.
>>And yet, you are unable to identify them.
>>Gotcha, bobbo.
>
>god under the same label of silly superstition since they
>are basically all the same anyway. I neither know or care
>much about the details of any particular one.
So, you don't know the superstition.
You don't know history.
And you don't know anything.
Gotcha.
But you already knew this.
>>>>Or the one that you claim Jesus burned some witches... huh?
>>>>Of course you will ignore this because I have kicked your ass once
>>>>again. I demand that you provide specific examples, and you are
>>>>afraid. Troll. hun. bobbo.
>>>
>>>I have no idea about any specifics, only the well known
>>>generalizations.
Or stop yer whining.
bobbo.
P+Barker
Feb 14, 2023, 4:13:55 PM2/14/23
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 06:55:39 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 08:09:03 -0500, P+Barker
Huh?
You call me an idiot since I can't read your mind?
OK then.
>>>>If you really wish to discuss it, ref to it. Name it. Post it.
>>>
>>>Since you clipped the exchange I have no idea what was
>>>involved.
>>
>>Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
>
>Of course you don't. Moron.
Huh?
You call me a moron since I can't read your mind?
OK then.
>>>>>>You told me to look up history.
>>>>>>I posted the real history.
>>>>>>And you ignored it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I said look it up. I did not say I was interested enough to
>>>>>waste time reading dreary details.
>>>>
>>>>Well then.
>>>>You just want to poke and prod. No discussion involved.
>>>
>>>I cannot discuss what I know little to nothing about. And
>>>care less.
>>
>>If you know little to nothing about history, why do you tell me to
>>look up history.
>
>It's your silly superstition, not mine. I could not care
>less about any of the details.
Huh?
You call me a moron since I can't read your mind?
OK then.
>> I have already done that. I have studied history my
>>whole life. And you claim to know little or nothing about it
>>Why ... then .... do you post here?
>
>In case someone believes what you say.
Huh?
You call me a moron since I can't read your mind?
OK then.
>>Troll.
>>Gotcha.
>>>>>I was considering joining but Duke (before he died) told me
>>>>>I would not get a certificate suitable for framing when I
>>>>>was excommunicated. Since that would be the only reason I
>>>>>would join I dropped that idea.
>>>>
>>>>You want a certificate?
>>>>Send me your address, bubba. I'll send you one.
>>>
>>>Not going to happen. It is nuts like you who shoot people
>>>and think they should not be punished because their god told
>>>them to do it.
>>
>>Why would someone wish to shoot you?
>
>Why do you want my address?
To send you a certificate.
Have you forgotten?
>>Could it be because you insult them, lie about them, poke them?
>>If you stop, no one will want to shoot you.
>
>IOW, just accept what you say as being true.
>Not a chance.
If you stop, no one will want to shoot you.
>>>>>I wonder if I could get your pope to send me a letter saying
>>>>>under no circumstances could I ever join. That would be
>>>>>better than nothing.
>>>>
>>>>You want a certificate?
>>>>Send me your address, bubba. I'll send you one.
>>>
>>>Are you the pope?
>>
>>He's my buddy.
>
>I am heroically refraining from the obvious response. No I
>won't.
>Asshole buddies?
Is that what you call your own buddies?
>>>>Why are you here on earth?
>>>
>>>I was born a member of a native species.
>>
>>Who wasn't?
>
>No one know of.
>>>>>>I am addressing atilla because he is the dip shit here.
>>>>>>You and matt, Cece, Dark Lady, Amban, Ferris and Karen.
>>>>>>Oh - and Bishop Ray and his bishop wife.
>>>>>>Go pound sand elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is too much fun pounding it up your ass.
>>>>
>>>>So you finally admit you are a troll.
>>>>It is about time, bobbo.
>>>
>>>I admit nothing. I am responding to your lies and
>>>distortions among other things.
>>
>>So you finally admit you are a troll.
>
>Thanks for admitting you lie and distort.
So you finally admit you are a troll.
Murder is not a belief. It is an action.
What is an alter boy?
>>>>So..........................
>>>>You claim we have superstitions.
>>>>And yet, you are unable to identify them.
>>>>Gotcha, bobbo.
>>>
>>>What I have said is that I lump anything pertaining to a
>>>god under the same label of silly superstition since they
>>>are basically all the same anyway. I neither know or care
>>>much about the details of any particular one.
>>
>>So, you don't know the superstition.
>
>No particular one, no. Why bother?
So, you don't know the superstition.
>>You don't know history.
>>And you don't know anything.
>>Gotcha.
>>But you already knew this.
>>
>>
>>>>>>Or the one that you claim Jesus burned some witches... huh?
>>>>>>Of course you will ignore this because I have kicked your ass once
>>>>>>again. I demand that you provide specific examples, and you are
>>>>>>afraid. Troll. hun. bobbo.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have no idea about any specifics, only the well known
>>>>>generalizations.
>>
>>get back to me when you have a specific.
>>Or stop yer whining.
>>bobbo.
>
>You do not tell me what to do about anything.
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 08:09:03 -0500, P+Barker
><PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
><2s9kuh52abt22du1i...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 19:56:56 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 16:50:10 -0500, P+Barker
>>><PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>><bomiuhlq31sa7k60u...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 10:49:19 -0500, P+Barker
>>>>
>>>>Major snipping involved.... I don't waste other people's time in
>>>>trying figure out what I am responding to. If I respond to a specific
>>>>attila whine>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Try learning something about the history of your silly
>>>>>>>superstition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Try posting which "superstition" you are speaking of.
>>>>>
>>>>>You know more about it than I do.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
>>>
>>>You lie more than Traitor Joe Biden.
>>
>>Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
>
>If you don't that just makes you even more of an idiot.
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 19:56:56 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 16:50:10 -0500, P+Barker
>>><PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>><bomiuhlq31sa7k60u...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 10:49:19 -0500, P+Barker
>>>>
>>>>Major snipping involved.... I don't waste other people's time in
>>>>trying figure out what I am responding to. If I respond to a specific
>>>>attila whine>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Try learning something about the history of your silly
>>>>>>>superstition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Try posting which "superstition" you are speaking of.
>>>>>
>>>>>You know more about it than I do.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
>>>
>>>You lie more than Traitor Joe Biden.
>>
>>Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
>
Huh?
You call me an idiot since I can't read your mind?
OK then.
>>>>If you really wish to discuss it, ref to it. Name it. Post it.
>>>
>>>Since you clipped the exchange I have no idea what was
>>>involved.
>>
>>Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
>
Huh?
You call me a moron since I can't read your mind?
OK then.
>>>>>>You told me to look up history.
>>>>>>I posted the real history.
>>>>>>And you ignored it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I said look it up. I did not say I was interested enough to
>>>>>waste time reading dreary details.
>>>>
>>>>Well then.
>>>>You just want to poke and prod. No discussion involved.
>>>
>>>I cannot discuss what I know little to nothing about. And
>>>care less.
>>
>>If you know little to nothing about history, why do you tell me to
>>look up history.
>
>less about any of the details.
Huh?
You call me a moron since I can't read your mind?
OK then.
>> I have already done that. I have studied history my
>>whole life. And you claim to know little or nothing about it
>>Why ... then .... do you post here?
>
Huh?
You call me a moron since I can't read your mind?
OK then.
>>Troll.
>>Gotcha.
>>>>>I was considering joining but Duke (before he died) told me
>>>>>I would not get a certificate suitable for framing when I
>>>>>was excommunicated. Since that would be the only reason I
>>>>>would join I dropped that idea.
>>>>
>>>>You want a certificate?
>>>>Send me your address, bubba. I'll send you one.
>>>
>>>Not going to happen. It is nuts like you who shoot people
>>>and think they should not be punished because their god told
>>>them to do it.
>>
>>Why would someone wish to shoot you?
>
To send you a certificate.
Have you forgotten?
>>Could it be because you insult them, lie about them, poke them?
>>If you stop, no one will want to shoot you.
>
>Not a chance.
If you stop, no one will want to shoot you.
>>>>>I wonder if I could get your pope to send me a letter saying
>>>>>under no circumstances could I ever join. That would be
>>>>>better than nothing.
>>>>
>>>>You want a certificate?
>>>>Send me your address, bubba. I'll send you one.
>>>
>>>Are you the pope?
>>
>>He's my buddy.
>
>won't.
>Asshole buddies?
Is that what you call your own buddies?
>>>>Why are you here on earth?
>>>
>>>I was born a member of a native species.
>>
>>Who wasn't?
>
>
>>
>>>>>For any observer - It's OK not to drink the Kool-aid. You
>>>>>can be as skeptical as you like and think for yourself.
>>>>
>>>>Why are you here again?
>>>
>>>Why should I need a reason?
>>
>>To be a while person.
>>Have I mentioned it must suck to be you?
>
>Many times.
>>
>>>>>For any observer - It's OK not to drink the Kool-aid. You
>>>>>can be as skeptical as you like and think for yourself.
>>>>
>>>>Why are you here again?
>>>
>>>Why should I need a reason?
>>
>>To be a while person.
>>Have I mentioned it must suck to be you?
>
>>>>>>I am addressing atilla because he is the dip shit here.
>>>>>>You and matt, Cece, Dark Lady, Amban, Ferris and Karen.
>>>>>>Oh - and Bishop Ray and his bishop wife.
>>>>>>Go pound sand elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is too much fun pounding it up your ass.
>>>>
>>>>So you finally admit you are a troll.
>>>>It is about time, bobbo.
>>>
>>>I admit nothing. I am responding to your lies and
>>>distortions among other things.
>>
>>So you finally admit you are a troll.
>
So you finally admit you are a troll.
>>>>Murder is not a belief. It is an action.
>>>>Would you like to discuss this, troll?
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Of course not.
>>Troll.
>
>What's to discuss? The definition is clear.
>>>>Would you like to discuss this, troll?
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Of course not.
>>Troll.
>
Murder is not a belief. It is an action.
>>>You trimmed proof in another discussion with someone else.
>>>
>>>>Which one is that?
>>>
>>>The one that has priests and alter boys.
>>
>>What is an alter boy?
>
>Ask your shaman.
>>>
>>>>Which one is that?
>>>
>>>The one that has priests and alter boys.
>>
>>What is an alter boy?
>
What is an alter boy?
>>>>So..........................
>>>>You claim we have superstitions.
>>>>And yet, you are unable to identify them.
>>>>Gotcha, bobbo.
>>>
>>>What I have said is that I lump anything pertaining to a
>>>god under the same label of silly superstition since they
>>>are basically all the same anyway. I neither know or care
>>>much about the details of any particular one.
>>
>>So, you don't know the superstition.
>
So, you don't know the superstition.
>>You don't know history.
>>And you don't know anything.
>>Gotcha.
>>But you already knew this.
>>
>>
>>>>>>Or the one that you claim Jesus burned some witches... huh?
>>>>>>Of course you will ignore this because I have kicked your ass once
>>>>>>again. I demand that you provide specific examples, and you are
>>>>>>afraid. Troll. hun. bobbo.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have no idea about any specifics, only the well known
>>>>>generalizations.
>>
>>get back to me when you have a specific.
>>Or stop yer whining.
>>bobbo.
>
P+Barker
Feb 15, 2023, 8:35:03 AM2/15/23
to
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 16:13:51 -0500, P+Barker
Major snipping involved.... I don't waste other people's time in
trying figure out what I am responding to. If I respond to a specific
attila whine>
>out in small words what you already know but are ignoring.
OK then.
>I consider anything connected to any god as a silly
>superstition.
OK then.
>You have mentioned the catholic church
>several times in such a way as to indicate your are
>catholic.
OK then.
>herefore it would follow you silly superstition
>is catholic and that is the silly superstition I was
>referring to in some of the dialog with you whenever you
>mention a specific example.
Ok then.
I didn't bring up a specific example.
You brought up the burning of witches.
I did not.
I do not consider burning witches as a "superstition."
That is stupid.
You brought it up.
Therefore you are stupid.
>But none of this is new is it?
Ok then.
I didn't bring up a specific example.
You brought up the burning of witches.
I did not.
I do not consider burning witches as a "superstition."
That is stupid.
You brought it up.
Therefore you are stupid.
>>>>>Since you clipped the exchange I have no idea what was
>>>>>involved.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
>>>
>>>Of course you don't. Moron.
>>
>>Huh?
>>You call me a moron since I can't read your mind?
>>OK then.
>
>See above.
Ok then.
I didn't bring up a specific example.
You brought up the burning of witches.
I did not.
I do not consider burning witches as a "superstition."
That is stupid.
You brought it up.
Therefore you are stupid.
>>>>>I cannot discuss what I know little to nothing about. And
>>>>>care less.
>>>>
>>>>If you know little to nothing about history, why do you tell me to
>>>>look up history.
>>>
>>>It's your silly superstition, not mine. I could not care
>>>less about any of the details.
>>
>>Huh?
>>You call me a moron since I can't read your mind?
>>OK then.
>
>See above.
Ok then.
I didn't bring up a specific example.
You brought up the burning of witches.
I did not.
I do not consider burning witches as a "superstition."
That is stupid.
You brought it up.
Therefore you are stupid.
Troll.
Gotcha.
> It is nuts like you who shoot people
>>>>>and think they should not be punished because their god told
>>>>>them to do it.
>>>>
>>>>Why would someone wish to shoot you?
>>>
>>>Why do you want my address?
>>
>>To send you a certificate.
>>Have you forgotten?
>
>Anything from you is useless.
Don't ask for a certificate if you don't really want it.
>>>>Could it be because you insult them, lie about them, poke them?
>>>>If you stop, no one will want to shoot you.
>>>
>>>IOW, just accept what you say as being true.
>>>Not a chance.
>>
>>If you stop, no one will want to shoot you.
>
>Why stop? It is more entertaining to watch you blow off
>steam.
I have no steam here. I am merely confronting a liar and a troll.
That would be you.
>>>>>>>I wonder if I could get your pope to send me a letter saying
>>>>>>>under no circumstances could I ever join. That would be
>>>>>>>better than nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You want a certificate?
>>>>>>Send me your address, bubba. I'll send you one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you the pope?
>>>>
>>>>He's my buddy.
>>>
>>>I am heroically refraining from the obvious response. No I
>>>won't.
>>>Asshole buddies?
>>
>>Is that what you call your own buddies?
>
>Nope but don't let that stop you.
I certainly have no intention of stopping you from calling any of your
buddies: Ass hole. Go for it.
>>>>>>Murder is not a belief. It is an action.
>>>>>>Would you like to discuss this, troll?
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>Of course not.
>>>>Troll.
>>>
>>>What's to discuss? The definition is clear.
>>
>>Murder is not a belief. It is an action.
>
>And has a clear definition.
So why do you think burning witches is a superstition?
>>What is an alter boy?
>
>Those who fill your shaman with so much joy.
We do not have "alter" boys or shamans.
You will have to look elsewhere.
>>>>>>So..........................
>>>>>>You claim we have superstitions.
>>>>>>And yet, you are unable to identify them.
>>>>>>Gotcha, bobbo.
>>>>>
>>>>>What I have said is that I lump anything pertaining to a
>>>>>god under the same label of silly superstition since they
>>>>>are basically all the same anyway. I neither know or care
>>>>>much about the details of any particular one.
>>>>
>>>>So, you don't know the superstition.
>>>
>>>No particular one, no. Why bother?
>>
>>So, you don't know the superstition.
>
>I have tried to make it clear. Aside from very general
>terms of a very limited number I know nothing of any of them
>and care even less. The subject never enters my mind except
>when I come here.
Yet... you claimed that catholics burned witches... and this was some
sort of superstition.
>>>>>>>I have no idea about any specifics, only the well known
>>>>>>>generalizations.
>>>>
>>>>get back to me when you have a specific.
>>>>Or stop yer whining.
>>>>bobbo.
>>>
>>>You do not tell me what to do about anything.
>>
>>get back to me when you have a specific.
>
>No need. All specifics are included. Including that one.
>On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 16:13:51 -0500, P+Barker
Major snipping involved.... I don't waste other people's time in
trying figure out what I am responding to. If I respond to a specific
attila whine>
>>>>>You lie more than Traitor Joe Biden.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
>>>
>>>If you don't that just makes you even more of an idiot.
>>
>>Huh?
>>You call me an idiot since I can't read your mind?
>>OK then.
>
>No, because the subject is glaring clear but I will spell
>>>>
>>>>Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
>>>
>>>If you don't that just makes you even more of an idiot.
>>
>>Huh?
>>You call me an idiot since I can't read your mind?
>>OK then.
>
>out in small words what you already know but are ignoring.
OK then.
>I consider anything connected to any god as a silly
>superstition.
OK then.
>You have mentioned the catholic church
>several times in such a way as to indicate your are
>catholic.
OK then.
>herefore it would follow you silly superstition
>is catholic and that is the silly superstition I was
>referring to in some of the dialog with you whenever you
>mention a specific example.
Ok then.
I didn't bring up a specific example.
You brought up the burning of witches.
I did not.
I do not consider burning witches as a "superstition."
That is stupid.
You brought it up.
Therefore you are stupid.
>But none of this is new is it?
Ok then.
I didn't bring up a specific example.
You brought up the burning of witches.
I did not.
I do not consider burning witches as a "superstition."
That is stupid.
You brought it up.
Therefore you are stupid.
>>>>>Since you clipped the exchange I have no idea what was
>>>>>involved.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously I do not know what superstition you are referring to.
>>>
>>>Of course you don't. Moron.
>>
>>Huh?
>>You call me a moron since I can't read your mind?
>>OK then.
>
Ok then.
I didn't bring up a specific example.
You brought up the burning of witches.
I did not.
I do not consider burning witches as a "superstition."
That is stupid.
You brought it up.
Therefore you are stupid.
>>>>>I cannot discuss what I know little to nothing about. And
>>>>>care less.
>>>>
>>>>If you know little to nothing about history, why do you tell me to
>>>>look up history.
>>>
>>>It's your silly superstition, not mine. I could not care
>>>less about any of the details.
>>
>>Huh?
>>You call me a moron since I can't read your mind?
>>OK then.
>
Ok then.
I didn't bring up a specific example.
You brought up the burning of witches.
I did not.
I do not consider burning witches as a "superstition."
That is stupid.
You brought it up.
Therefore you are stupid.
Troll.
Gotcha.
> It is nuts like you who shoot people
>>>>>and think they should not be punished because their god told
>>>>>them to do it.
>>>>
>>>>Why would someone wish to shoot you?
>>>
>>>Why do you want my address?
>>
>>To send you a certificate.
>>Have you forgotten?
>
Don't ask for a certificate if you don't really want it.
>>>>Could it be because you insult them, lie about them, poke them?
>>>>If you stop, no one will want to shoot you.
>>>
>>>IOW, just accept what you say as being true.
>>>Not a chance.
>>
>>If you stop, no one will want to shoot you.
>
>steam.
I have no steam here. I am merely confronting a liar and a troll.
That would be you.
>>>>>>>I wonder if I could get your pope to send me a letter saying
>>>>>>>under no circumstances could I ever join. That would be
>>>>>>>better than nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You want a certificate?
>>>>>>Send me your address, bubba. I'll send you one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you the pope?
>>>>
>>>>He's my buddy.
>>>
>>>I am heroically refraining from the obvious response. No I
>>>won't.
>>>Asshole buddies?
>>
>>Is that what you call your own buddies?
>
I certainly have no intention of stopping you from calling any of your
buddies: Ass hole. Go for it.
>>>>>>Murder is not a belief. It is an action.
>>>>>>Would you like to discuss this, troll?
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>Of course not.
>>>>Troll.
>>>
>>>What's to discuss? The definition is clear.
>>
>>Murder is not a belief. It is an action.
>
So why do you think burning witches is a superstition?
>>What is an alter boy?
>
We do not have "alter" boys or shamans.
You will have to look elsewhere.
>>>>>>So..........................
>>>>>>You claim we have superstitions.
>>>>>>And yet, you are unable to identify them.
>>>>>>Gotcha, bobbo.
>>>>>
>>>>>What I have said is that I lump anything pertaining to a
>>>>>god under the same label of silly superstition since they
>>>>>are basically all the same anyway. I neither know or care
>>>>>much about the details of any particular one.
>>>>
>>>>So, you don't know the superstition.
>>>
>>>No particular one, no. Why bother?
>>
>>So, you don't know the superstition.
>
>terms of a very limited number I know nothing of any of them
>and care even less. The subject never enters my mind except
>when I come here.
Yet... you claimed that catholics burned witches... and this was some
sort of superstition.
>>>>>>>I have no idea about any specifics, only the well known
>>>>>>>generalizations.
>>>>
>>>>get back to me when you have a specific.
>>>>Or stop yer whining.
>>>>bobbo.
>>>
>>>You do not tell me what to do about anything.
>>
>>get back to me when you have a specific.
>
P+Barker
Feb 15, 2023, 5:51:37 PM2/15/23
to
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
Major snipping involved.... I don't waste other people's time in
trying figure out what I am responding to. If I respond to a specific
attila whine>
Major snipping involved.... I don't waste other people's time in
trying figure out what I am responding to. If I respond to a specific
attila whine>
>>You brought up the burning of witches.
>>I did not.
>>I do not consider burning witches as a "superstition."
>>That is stupid.
>>You brought it up.
>>Therefore you are stupid.
>
>This is getting tiresome. Since you are too lazy or too
>>I did not.
>>I do not consider burning witches as a "superstition."
>>That is stupid.
>>You brought it up.
>>Therefore you are stupid.
>
>stupid to look yourself even when a message ID is provided I
>am reproducing the origional exchange below:
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Your comment:
>
>>>>>>Catholic teachings on abortion have changed over time. Many past and
>>>>>>present Catholic theologians have said abortion can be a moral choice.
>>>>>>Others disagree.
>>>>>
>
>My Comment:
>>>>>>Catholic teachings on abortion have changed over time. Many past and
>>>>>>present Catholic theologians have said abortion can be a moral choice.
>>>>>>Others disagree.
>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>It doesn't matter. Whatever the details the subject is
>>>>>still control and power.
>>>>
>
>You:
>>>>>It doesn't matter. Whatever the details the subject is
>>>>>still control and power.
>>>>
>
>
>>>>How do they use this control and power when they don't have civil
>>>>punishment authority?
>>>
>
>Me:
>>>>How do they use this control and power when they don't have civil
>>>>punishment authority?
>>>
>
>
>>>In the past they did.
>>
>
>You:
>>>In the past they did.
>>
>
>
>>ok.
>>sO YOU ARE SPEAKING OF THE PAST.
>>OK then.
>>How long ago?
>>100 years? 1000 years?
>
>This is my actual comment in context:
>>ok.
>>sO YOU ARE SPEAKING OF THE PAST.
>>OK then.
>>How long ago?
>>100 years? 1000 years?
>
>
>
>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>their particular superstition?
>
> <v535uhprsj62vpivl...@4ax.com>
>
>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>their particular superstition?
>
>_________________________________________________
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>their particular superstition?
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>their particular superstition?
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>their particular superstition?
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>their particular superstition?
When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>their particular superstition?
>policies.
>I indicated the basic structure was for power and control.
You imply the Catholics policies were to burn witches.
This is your claim.
It is a lie.
It is stupid.
You are stupid.
>You implied disagreement by asking when this occurred saying
>the do not have this power.
>I said they did in the past.
So you actually admit the Catholic church used its power to burn
witches. Again, you are a liar.
You imply the Catholics policies were to burn witches.
This is your claim.
It is a lie.
It is stupid.
You are stupid.
>You replied when in the past? (A rather stupid question
>since anyone with any history education at all is aware of
>the power used by the church historically in eliminating
>competition, forced conversions, and erasing cultures in
>order to increase the power and wealth of the church.)
I asked when the Catholic church actually had policies to burn
witches. Since this never happened, I claim you are a liar.
And... you are stupid.
>I replied with the question "When did they stop burning
>witches and forcing conversion to
>their particular superstition?".
Since the Catholic church never had a policy to burn witches, your
queston was a starman, meant to lie about the church.
>You will note I never said or implied such burning was in
>and of itself a superstition. I indicated a sill
>superstition (ie. the catholic church) was the one doing the
>burning.
Now, you claim it was a policy.
Whuich was it? A superstition or a policy?
Pick one.
Then.......... PROVE your stupid allegation.
>Now I suppose you will respond saying it never did this. You
>will demand I prove what is common knowledge available with
>a few seconds of research on Google but if I did this it
>would only lead to more denials and demands.
If this is actual history, why can't you post a reference.
This is your claim.
I don't do your homework for you.
>I will end the discussion on this topic here and clip any
>further mention of it. I don't know the details of your
>silly superstition and I could not care less what they are.
>I have spent all of the time I intend to spend on this and
>have no interest in further involvement.
Yeah, that is what you do.
Make silly allegations and lie.
You expect others to look up your allegations.
You made them
You prove them.
P+Barker
Feb 16, 2023, 9:15:21 AM2/16/23
to
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 17:51:33 -0500, P+Barker
>>Major snipping involved.... I don't waste other people's time in
>>trying figure out what I am responding to. If I respond to a specific
>>attila whine>
>your silly superstition had a history of such practices. Or
>do you deny this?
What history?
What practices?
>That is a common position in history as shown by the
>Inquisition and Torquemada, among others. Do you deny this?
Prove it.
With references.
Why are you afraid to provide a reference?
Are you afraid I will prove it to be wrong?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_the_early_modern_period
Your ref states: "the concept of witchcraft (a person's collaboration
with the devil through the use of magic) was developed by Christian
theologians"
NOT CATHOLICS.
Beat feet over to the other religions.
Your ref states: "the concept of witchcraft (a person's collaboration
with the devil through the use of magic) was developed by Christian
theologians"
NOT CATHOLICS.
Beat feet over to the other religions.
>other than in general terms.
Then why do you make the claims?
Are you a liar?
Or are you just plain stupid?
Perhaps both.
> I simply expressed a
>generalization and I would not expect you to accept it. Do
>you really think I care?
You like generalizations?
There are 2 types of people in the world: Catholics and shit heads.
Which type are you?
>>Since the Catholic church never had a policy to burn witches, your
>>queston was a starman, meant to lie about the church.
>
>I don't need to lie about your silly superstition or any
>other silly superstitions. You are going to go about your
>merry way whatever it is without any interest from me.
>I simply object to an assertion of validity without
>supporting evidence.\
What assertion?
>I will continue to do so no mater how much you rant and
>rave.
What assertion?
>>Now, you claim it was a policy.
>>Whuich was it? A superstition or a policy?
>>Pick one.
>>Then.......... PROVE your stupid allegation.
>
>I never said it ws a superstition no matter how many times
>you lie about it and you would more know more about policy
>than I would ever care.
>
>I stand by my statements.
You like generalizations?
There are 2 types of people in the world: Catholics and shit heads.
Which type are you?
>On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 17:51:33 -0500, P+Barker
>>Major snipping involved.... I don't waste other people's time in
>>trying figure out what I am responding to. If I respond to a specific
>>attila whine>
>>When did they stop burning witches and forcing conversion to
>>>their particular superstition?
>
>I have no idea and care even less. The question was to show
>>>their particular superstition?
>
>your silly superstition had a history of such practices. Or
>do you deny this?
What history?
What practices?
>That is a common position in history as shown by the
>Inquisition and Torquemada, among others. Do you deny this?
Prove it.
With references.
Why are you afraid to provide a reference?
Are you afraid I will prove it to be wrong?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_the_early_modern_period
Your ref states: "the concept of witchcraft (a person's collaboration
with the devil through the use of magic) was developed by Christian
theologians"
NOT CATHOLICS.
Beat feet over to the other religions.
You imply the Catholics policies were to burn witches.
This is your claim.
It is a lie.
It is stupid.
You are stupid.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_the_early_modern_period
This is your claim.
It is a lie.
It is stupid.
You are stupid.
>
Your ref states: "the concept of witchcraft (a person's collaboration
with the devil through the use of magic) was developed by Christian
theologians"
NOT CATHOLICS.
Beat feet over to the other religions.
You imply the Catholics policies were to burn witches.
This is your claim.
It is a lie.
It is stupid.
You are stupid.
This is your claim.
It is a lie.
It is stupid.
You are stupid.
>>I asked when the Catholic church actually had policies to burn
>>witches. Since this never happened, I claim you are a liar.
>>And... you are stupid.
>
>I know nothing of what you silly superstition has for "laws"
>>witches. Since this never happened, I claim you are a liar.
>>And... you are stupid.
>
>other than in general terms.
Then why do you make the claims?
Are you a liar?
Or are you just plain stupid?
Perhaps both.
> I simply expressed a
>generalization and I would not expect you to accept it. Do
>you really think I care?
You like generalizations?
There are 2 types of people in the world: Catholics and shit heads.
Which type are you?
>>Since the Catholic church never had a policy to burn witches, your
>>queston was a starman, meant to lie about the church.
>
>other silly superstitions. You are going to go about your
>merry way whatever it is without any interest from me.
>I simply object to an assertion of validity without
>supporting evidence.\
What assertion?
>I will continue to do so no mater how much you rant and
>rave.
What assertion?
>>Now, you claim it was a policy.
>>Whuich was it? A superstition or a policy?
>>Pick one.
>>Then.......... PROVE your stupid allegation.
>
>you lie about it and you would more know more about policy
>than I would ever care.
>
>I stand by my statements.
You like generalizations?
There are 2 types of people in the world: Catholics and shit heads.
Which type are you?
P+Barker
Feb 17, 2023, 7:28:05 AM2/17/23
to
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>Since you clipped the discussion no answer is possible. I
>suspect this was deliberate.
>"In 1233, a papal bull by Gregory IX established a new
>branch of the inquisition in Toulouse, France, to be led by
>the Dominicans. It was intended to prosecute Christian
>groups considered heretical, such as the Cathars and the
>Waldensians.[12] The Dominicans eventually evolved into the
>most zealous prosecutors of persons accused of witchcraft in
>the years leading up to the Reformation."
Where did you pull up this reference?
With no ref, I cannot read the full context.
You pull out a quote from your ass and expect me to believe it?
If you want a reference, read the Bible.
>" The papacy of John XXII was another engine for witchcraft
>accusations"
>"The Roman Catholic subjects, farmers, winegrowers, and
>artisans in the episcopal lands are the most terrified
>people on earth, since the false witch trials affect the
>German episcopal lands incomparably more than France, Spain,
>Italy or Protestants.[39]"
>"The mass witch trials which took place in Southern Catholic
>Germany in waves between the 1560s and the 1620s. Some
>trials went on to continue for years and would result in
>hundreds of executions of all sexes, ages and classes. These
>included the Trier witch trials (1581–1593), the Fulda witch
>trials (1603–1606), the Eichstätt witch trials (1613–1630),
>the Würzburg witch trials (1626–1631), and the Bamberg witch
>trials (1626–1631)."
Where did you pull up this reference?
With no ref, I cannot read the full context.
You pull out a quote from your ass and expect me to believe it?
If you want a reference, read the Bible.
" many prosecutions were instigated not by the religious or secular
authorities, but by popular demands from within the population, thus
making it less likely that there were specific inter-denominational
reasons behind the accusations."
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_the_early_modern_period
>>
>>Your ref states: "the concept of witchcraft (a person's collaboration
>>with the devil through the use of magic) was developed by Christian
>>theologians"
>>
>>NOT CATHOLICS.
>>Beat feet over to the other religions.
>>You imply the Catholics policies were to burn witches.
>>This is your claim.
>>It is a lie.
>>It is stupid.
>>You are stupid.
>
>See above.
In the past, scholars have suggested that bad weather, decreased
income, and weak government could have contributed to the witch trial
period in Europe. But according to a new theory, these trials were a
way for Catholic and Protestant churches to compete with each other
for followers.
In a forthcoming Economic Journalarticle, economists Peter Leeson and
Jacob Russ lay out their argument that the two churches advertised
their finesse at persecuting witches as proof that they were the best
church to join if you wanted protection from Satan. Witches, after
all, were doing the bidding of Satan; so getting rid of them was a way
to protect people from him.
Beginning in 1517, the Reformation split the church into two factions:
Catholic and Protestant. Suddenly, these two churches had to compete
with each other for followers, and they did so by using the
attention-grabbing witch trials as perverse advertisements for their
brand.
https://www.history.com/news/how-medieval-churches-used-witch-hunts-to-gain-more-followers
Commoners simply wanted relief from the evildoers who, they believed,
were harming them, their children, their cattle, and their crops.
Grassroots complaints started most witch-hunts. If authorities were
too slow to act, peasants were quite capable of lynching suspected
neighbors.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/10/30/who-burned-the-witches-part-1/
I would dispute the figure of “50,000 witches burned.” I have spoken
with historians – and agnostic ones at that – who put the figure as
much, much lower, perhaps as few as 500 to 1,500 in the whole history
of Christian Europe and America. The essential thing to remember is
that this activity was a local phenomenon, often a spontaneous
outburst of irrational thoughts and fears, and nothing systematic or
resulting from deep theological reflection.
The presumption that catholic church was deeply involved in witch
hunting is not correct. Existence of witches was recognized by
contemporary civil law and most trials were done by local “secular”
courts or tribunals.
If you look where the witch trials were worst - you can see that these
were countries without strong central power (small german states), and
there was correlation with wars, famine, epidemics and so on. So when
desperate people were looking for culprits…
For example, the territory of current Italy was only lightly affected
by witch trials - and this contrary to expectations. Protestant
Germany were affected badly… and even in US there were some witch
trials and that was no catholic country at all.
For years, feminist scholars have argued that witch hunts were
inspired by a reactionary, misogynistic church. But new scholarship,
like Lyndal Roper's "Witch Craze," reveals that the real villains were
the neighbors.
The Inquisition was not greatly involved in witch burnings; it had its
hands full with Protestants and other heretics, whom the church
shrewdly perceived to be a far more serious threat to its power. In
fact, while the justification for condemning witches was religious,
and some religious figures joined in witch hunting campaigns, the
trials were not run by churches of any denomination. They were largely
held in civil courts and prosecuted by local authorities (some of whom
were also religious leaders) as criminal cases.
https://www.salon.com/2005/02/01/witch_craze/
Current popular history holds that the witch hunts were concerted
campaigns by a male-dominated church that felt its sway diminished by
stubborn pagan and folk traditions that gave too much respect to wise
old women. The persecution, the story goes, was designed to stamp out
those beliefs. However, when you look at actual cases, the picture is
quite the opposite. "In 1627," writes Roper, "in the town of
Ochsenfurt, rumors about witchcraft had involved the allegation that a
child had been eaten ... Later that same year, 150 citizens gathered
in force to complain about 'the enemies of their livelihood, and
vermin and witchcraft,'" and to demand action. Against the bishop's
express orders, the mayor and council arrested and tortured several
suspects, causing the death of one.
++++++++
In February 1692, several young Salem girls, after they were caught
practicing magic, claimed they had been afflicted by witches
Their parents began searching for the witches, and hysteria mounted,
especially as pastor Samuel Parris proclaimed, "In this very church,
God knows how many Devils there are!" A public witch-hunt led to the
arrest of 150 people; 19 were hanged for witchcraft, and one man was
executed for refusing to testify.
<<Not Catholic>>
https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-41/witch-hunting-in-salem.html
Puritans practiced the ritual of confession, and confession became
crucial to witch-hunting. To confess was to make visible the hidden
sin that lurked in everyone. This was a crucial step, and well
accepted, in the process of salvation. When men and women joined the
church in early New England, for instance, they were asked to confess
their sins.
The Black Death. The death of half the population was traumatic, and
caused a definite cultural shift in Europe. People were looking for
someone to blame for plague outbreaks.
The rise of the first inquisition against the Cathars. It is notable
that the witch hunts got started in the late fourteenth century, about
a generation after the final eradication of Catharism by the
Inquisition. The Dominican Order was prominent in both the inquisition
and the early witch-hunts. It is possible that, having vanquished the
enemy for which they were created, the Dominicans, like any
bureaucracy, had to find a reason to justify their continued
existence.
+++++++++++
These superstions had much more to do with power.... thAN RELIGION.
>>>>I asked when the Catholic church actually had policies to burn
>>>>witches. Since this never happened, I claim you are a liar.
>>>>And... you are stupid.
>>>
>>>I know nothing of what you silly superstition has for "laws"
>>>other than in general terms.
>>
>>
>>Then why do you make the claims?
>>Are you a liar?
>>Or are you just plain stupid?
>>Perhaps both.
>
>The above quotes prove you a liar.
MY above quotes prove you to be a liar.
>Since you clipped the discussion no answer is possible. I
>suspect this was deliberate.
>"In 1233, a papal bull by Gregory IX established a new
>branch of the inquisition in Toulouse, France, to be led by
>the Dominicans. It was intended to prosecute Christian
>groups considered heretical, such as the Cathars and the
>Waldensians.[12] The Dominicans eventually evolved into the
>most zealous prosecutors of persons accused of witchcraft in
>the years leading up to the Reformation."
Where did you pull up this reference?
With no ref, I cannot read the full context.
You pull out a quote from your ass and expect me to believe it?
If you want a reference, read the Bible.
>" The papacy of John XXII was another engine for witchcraft
>accusations"
>"The Roman Catholic subjects, farmers, winegrowers, and
>artisans in the episcopal lands are the most terrified
>people on earth, since the false witch trials affect the
>German episcopal lands incomparably more than France, Spain,
>Italy or Protestants.[39]"
>"The mass witch trials which took place in Southern Catholic
>Germany in waves between the 1560s and the 1620s. Some
>trials went on to continue for years and would result in
>hundreds of executions of all sexes, ages and classes. These
>included the Trier witch trials (1581–1593), the Fulda witch
>trials (1603–1606), the Eichstätt witch trials (1613–1630),
>the Würzburg witch trials (1626–1631), and the Bamberg witch
>trials (1626–1631)."
Where did you pull up this reference?
With no ref, I cannot read the full context.
You pull out a quote from your ass and expect me to believe it?
If you want a reference, read the Bible.
" many prosecutions were instigated not by the religious or secular
authorities, but by popular demands from within the population, thus
making it less likely that there were specific inter-denominational
reasons behind the accusations."
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_the_early_modern_period
>>
>>Your ref states: "the concept of witchcraft (a person's collaboration
>>with the devil through the use of magic) was developed by Christian
>>theologians"
>>
>>NOT CATHOLICS.
>>Beat feet over to the other religions.
>>You imply the Catholics policies were to burn witches.
>>This is your claim.
>>It is a lie.
>>It is stupid.
>>You are stupid.
>
In the past, scholars have suggested that bad weather, decreased
income, and weak government could have contributed to the witch trial
period in Europe. But according to a new theory, these trials were a
way for Catholic and Protestant churches to compete with each other
for followers.
In a forthcoming Economic Journalarticle, economists Peter Leeson and
Jacob Russ lay out their argument that the two churches advertised
their finesse at persecuting witches as proof that they were the best
church to join if you wanted protection from Satan. Witches, after
all, were doing the bidding of Satan; so getting rid of them was a way
to protect people from him.
Beginning in 1517, the Reformation split the church into two factions:
Catholic and Protestant. Suddenly, these two churches had to compete
with each other for followers, and they did so by using the
attention-grabbing witch trials as perverse advertisements for their
brand.
https://www.history.com/news/how-medieval-churches-used-witch-hunts-to-gain-more-followers
Commoners simply wanted relief from the evildoers who, they believed,
were harming them, their children, their cattle, and their crops.
Grassroots complaints started most witch-hunts. If authorities were
too slow to act, peasants were quite capable of lynching suspected
neighbors.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/10/30/who-burned-the-witches-part-1/
I would dispute the figure of “50,000 witches burned.” I have spoken
with historians – and agnostic ones at that – who put the figure as
much, much lower, perhaps as few as 500 to 1,500 in the whole history
of Christian Europe and America. The essential thing to remember is
that this activity was a local phenomenon, often a spontaneous
outburst of irrational thoughts and fears, and nothing systematic or
resulting from deep theological reflection.
The presumption that catholic church was deeply involved in witch
hunting is not correct. Existence of witches was recognized by
contemporary civil law and most trials were done by local “secular”
courts or tribunals.
If you look where the witch trials were worst - you can see that these
were countries without strong central power (small german states), and
there was correlation with wars, famine, epidemics and so on. So when
desperate people were looking for culprits…
For example, the territory of current Italy was only lightly affected
by witch trials - and this contrary to expectations. Protestant
Germany were affected badly… and even in US there were some witch
trials and that was no catholic country at all.
For years, feminist scholars have argued that witch hunts were
inspired by a reactionary, misogynistic church. But new scholarship,
like Lyndal Roper's "Witch Craze," reveals that the real villains were
the neighbors.
The Inquisition was not greatly involved in witch burnings; it had its
hands full with Protestants and other heretics, whom the church
shrewdly perceived to be a far more serious threat to its power. In
fact, while the justification for condemning witches was religious,
and some religious figures joined in witch hunting campaigns, the
trials were not run by churches of any denomination. They were largely
held in civil courts and prosecuted by local authorities (some of whom
were also religious leaders) as criminal cases.
https://www.salon.com/2005/02/01/witch_craze/
Current popular history holds that the witch hunts were concerted
campaigns by a male-dominated church that felt its sway diminished by
stubborn pagan and folk traditions that gave too much respect to wise
old women. The persecution, the story goes, was designed to stamp out
those beliefs. However, when you look at actual cases, the picture is
quite the opposite. "In 1627," writes Roper, "in the town of
Ochsenfurt, rumors about witchcraft had involved the allegation that a
child had been eaten ... Later that same year, 150 citizens gathered
in force to complain about 'the enemies of their livelihood, and
vermin and witchcraft,'" and to demand action. Against the bishop's
express orders, the mayor and council arrested and tortured several
suspects, causing the death of one.
++++++++
In February 1692, several young Salem girls, after they were caught
practicing magic, claimed they had been afflicted by witches
Their parents began searching for the witches, and hysteria mounted,
especially as pastor Samuel Parris proclaimed, "In this very church,
God knows how many Devils there are!" A public witch-hunt led to the
arrest of 150 people; 19 were hanged for witchcraft, and one man was
executed for refusing to testify.
<<Not Catholic>>
https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-41/witch-hunting-in-salem.html
Puritans practiced the ritual of confession, and confession became
crucial to witch-hunting. To confess was to make visible the hidden
sin that lurked in everyone. This was a crucial step, and well
accepted, in the process of salvation. When men and women joined the
church in early New England, for instance, they were asked to confess
their sins.
The Black Death. The death of half the population was traumatic, and
caused a definite cultural shift in Europe. People were looking for
someone to blame for plague outbreaks.
The rise of the first inquisition against the Cathars. It is notable
that the witch hunts got started in the late fourteenth century, about
a generation after the final eradication of Catharism by the
Inquisition. The Dominican Order was prominent in both the inquisition
and the early witch-hunts. It is possible that, having vanquished the
enemy for which they were created, the Dominicans, like any
bureaucracy, had to find a reason to justify their continued
existence.
+++++++++++
These superstions had much more to do with power.... thAN RELIGION.
>>>>I asked when the Catholic church actually had policies to burn
>>>>witches. Since this never happened, I claim you are a liar.
>>>>And... you are stupid.
>>>
>>>I know nothing of what you silly superstition has for "laws"
>>>other than in general terms.
>>
>>
>>Then why do you make the claims?
>>Are you a liar?
>>Or are you just plain stupid?
>>Perhaps both.
>
MY above quotes prove you to be a liar.
P+Barker
Feb 17, 2023, 1:03:24 PM2/17/23
to
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 07:27:59 -0500, P+Barker
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>"In 1233, a papal bull by Gregory IX established a new
>>>branch of the inquisition in Toulouse, France, to be led by
>>>the Dominicans. It was intended to prosecute Christian
>>>groups considered heretical, such as the Cathars and the
>>>Waldensians.[12] The Dominicans eventually evolved into the
>>>most zealous prosecutors of persons accused of witchcraft in
>>>the years leading up to the Reformation."
>>
>>Where did you pull up this reference?
>>With no ref, I cannot read the full context.
>>You pull out a quote from your ass and expect me to believe it?
>>If you want a reference, read the Bible.
>you obviously have not read.
>1400 to 1782, around 40,000 to 60,000[1][2] were killed due
>to suspicion that they were practicing witchcraft. These
>trials occurred primarily in Europe, and were particularly
>severe in some parts of the Holy Roman Empire."
You are merely stating history.
I have no problems with history.
>>>>NOT CATHOLICS.
>
>"The Empire was considered by the Roman Catholic Church to
>be the only legal successor of the Roman Empire during the
>Middle Ages and the early modern period.[citation needed]
>Since Charlemagne, the realm was merely referred to as the
>Roman Empire.[44] The term sacrum ("holy", in the sense of
>"consecrated") in connection with the medieval Roman Empire
>was used beginning in 1157 under Frederick I Barbarossa
>("Holy Empire"): the term was added to reflect Frederick's
>ambition to dominate Italy and the Papacy.[45] The form
>"Holy Roman Empire" is attested from 1254 onward.[46]"
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
OK then.
History.
What does this have to do with burning witches?
>>>>You imply the Catholics policies were to burn witches.
>>>>This is your claim.
>>>>It is a lie.
>>>>It is stupid.
>>>>You are stupid.
>
>You are a proven liar.
You imply the Catholics policies were to burn witches.
This is your claim.
It is a lie.
It is stupid.
You are stupid.
>I never said any one superstition did it all. While it is
>common knowledge that one particular one took the lead and
>was the most publicized (guess which one) (Hint:
>Torquemada) many of theme were guilty. As I have said
>basically all of the silly superstitions are alike.
Just like you are just like yer cuzins, sadam, putin, and kim.
Yeah, right.
>>MY above quotes prove you to be a liar.
>
>I will leave it to outside observers to decide who is the
>liar. As well as deciding what I actually said as opposed
>to you wild claims.
>That's OK. You are not the first one to claim your silly
>superstition is always correct and never makes mistakes.
You made up a superstition, then you claimed it was mine, and then
you.......
Wait........ isn't that a strawman?
>On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 07:27:59 -0500, P+Barker
>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>"In 1233, a papal bull by Gregory IX established a new
>>>branch of the inquisition in Toulouse, France, to be led by
>>>the Dominicans. It was intended to prosecute Christian
>>>groups considered heretical, such as the Cathars and the
>>>Waldensians.[12] The Dominicans eventually evolved into the
>>>most zealous prosecutors of persons accused of witchcraft in
>>>the years leading up to the Reformation."
>>
>>Where did you pull up this reference?
>>With no ref, I cannot read the full context.
>>You pull out a quote from your ass and expect me to believe it?
>>If you want a reference, read the Bible.
>>" many prosecutions were instigated not by the religious or secular
>>authorities, but by popular demands from within the population, thus
>>making it less likely that there were specific inter-denominational
>>reasons behind the accusations."
>Every one of the quotes came from the reference below which
>>authorities, but by popular demands from within the population, thus
>>making it less likely that there were specific inter-denominational
>>reasons behind the accusations."
>you obviously have not read.
>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_the_early_modern_period
>>>>
>>>>Your ref states: "the concept of witchcraft (a person's collaboration
>>>>with the devil through the use of magic) was developed by Christian
>>>>theologians"
>
>"Witch trials in the early modern period saw that between
>>>>
>>>>Your ref states: "the concept of witchcraft (a person's collaboration
>>>>with the devil through the use of magic) was developed by Christian
>>>>theologians"
>
>1400 to 1782, around 40,000 to 60,000[1][2] were killed due
>to suspicion that they were practicing witchcraft. These
>trials occurred primarily in Europe, and were particularly
>severe in some parts of the Holy Roman Empire."
You are merely stating history.
I have no problems with history.
>>>>NOT CATHOLICS.
>
>"The Empire was considered by the Roman Catholic Church to
>be the only legal successor of the Roman Empire during the
>Middle Ages and the early modern period.[citation needed]
>Since Charlemagne, the realm was merely referred to as the
>Roman Empire.[44] The term sacrum ("holy", in the sense of
>"consecrated") in connection with the medieval Roman Empire
>was used beginning in 1157 under Frederick I Barbarossa
>("Holy Empire"): the term was added to reflect Frederick's
>ambition to dominate Italy and the Papacy.[45] The form
>"Holy Roman Empire" is attested from 1254 onward.[46]"
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
OK then.
History.
What does this have to do with burning witches?
>>>>You imply the Catholics policies were to burn witches.
>>>>This is your claim.
>>>>It is a lie.
>>>>It is stupid.
>>>>You are stupid.
>
You imply the Catholics policies were to burn witches.
This is your claim.
It is a lie.
It is stupid.
You are stupid.
>common knowledge that one particular one took the lead and
>was the most publicized (guess which one) (Hint:
>Torquemada) many of theme were guilty. As I have said
>basically all of the silly superstitions are alike.
Just like you are just like yer cuzins, sadam, putin, and kim.
Yeah, right.
>>MY above quotes prove you to be a liar.
>
>liar. As well as deciding what I actually said as opposed
>to you wild claims.
>That's OK. You are not the first one to claim your silly
>superstition is always correct and never makes mistakes.
You made up a superstition, then you claimed it was mine, and then
you.......
Wait........ isn't that a strawman?
Matt
Feb 17, 2023, 1:16:14 PM2/17/23
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 07:27:59 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>
>>Since you clipped the discussion no answer is possible. I
>>suspect this was deliberate.
>
>>"In 1233, a papal bull by Gregory IX established a new
>>branch of the inquisition in Toulouse, France, to be led by
>>the Dominicans. It was intended to prosecute Christian
>>groups considered heretical, such as the Cathars and the
>>Waldensians.[12] The Dominicans eventually evolved into the
>>most zealous prosecutors of persons accused of witchcraft in
>>the years leading up to the Reformation."
>
>Where did you pull up this reference?
>With no ref, I cannot read the full context.
>You pull out a quote from your ass and expect me to believe it?
>If you want a reference, read the Bible.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06796a.htm
wrote:
>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>
>>Since you clipped the discussion no answer is possible. I
>>suspect this was deliberate.
>
>>"In 1233, a papal bull by Gregory IX established a new
>>branch of the inquisition in Toulouse, France, to be led by
>>the Dominicans. It was intended to prosecute Christian
>>groups considered heretical, such as the Cathars and the
>>Waldensians.[12] The Dominicans eventually evolved into the
>>most zealous prosecutors of persons accused of witchcraft in
>>the years leading up to the Reformation."
>
>Where did you pull up this reference?
>With no ref, I cannot read the full context.
>You pull out a quote from your ass and expect me to believe it?
>If you want a reference, read the Bible.
P+Barker
Feb 18, 2023, 12:41:36 PM2/18/23
to
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 13:03:18 -0500, P+Barker
>>>>" many prosecutions were instigated not by the religious or secular
>>>>authorities, but by popular demands from within the population, thus
>>>>making it less likely that there were specific inter-denominational
>>>>reasons behind the accusations."
>>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_the_early_modern_period
>>>"Witch trials in the early modern period saw that between
>>>1400 to 1782, around 40,000 to 60,000[1][2] were killed due
>>>to suspicion that they were practicing witchcraft. These
>>>trials occurred primarily in Europe, and were particularly
>>>severe in some parts of the Holy Roman Empire."
>>
>>You are merely stating history.
>>I have no problems with history.
>
>A history of witchcraft trials.
Most trials were done in civil courts, not the inquisiiton.
Most punishment was dealt out by civil authorities, not a religion.
>>>"The Empire was considered by the Roman Catholic Church to
>>>be the only legal successor of the Roman Empire during the
>>>Middle Ages and the early modern period.[citation needed]
>>>Since Charlemagne, the realm was merely referred to as the
>>>Roman Empire.[44] The term sacrum ("holy", in the sense of
>>>"consecrated") in connection with the medieval Roman Empire
>>>was used beginning in 1157 under Frederick I Barbarossa
>>>("Holy Empire"): the term was added to reflect Frederick's
>>>ambition to dominate Italy and the Papacy.[45] The form
>>>"Holy Roman Empire" is attested from 1254 onward.[46]"
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
>>
>>OK then.
>>History.
>>What does this have to do with burning witches?
>
>It shows the catholic church was deeply and directly
>involved with witchcraft trials over many years.
No, it does not.
>If you refuse to admit this I am sure others are aware of
>this and are not so pigheaded.
Most catholic bashers love to make this claim.
>>You imply the Catholics policies were to burn witches.
>>This is your claim.
>>It is a lie.
>>It is stupid.
>>You are stupid.
>>>>https://www.history.com/news/how-medieval-churches-used-witch-hunts-to-gain-more-followers
>>>>https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/10/30/who-burned-the-witches-part-1/
>admit your superstition is anything but perfect. You
>probably won't be the last.
>Thanks for the laughs.
Keep laughing, shit-head.
The halocaust DID take place.
Witch Burnings did take place.
However, you can't blame Catholics for all the ills of the world.
Did I mention that it must suck to be you?
>On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 13:03:18 -0500, P+Barker
>>>>" many prosecutions were instigated not by the religious or secular
>>>>authorities, but by popular demands from within the population, thus
>>>>making it less likely that there were specific inter-denominational
>>>>reasons behind the accusations."
>>>"Witch trials in the early modern period saw that between
>>>1400 to 1782, around 40,000 to 60,000[1][2] were killed due
>>>to suspicion that they were practicing witchcraft. These
>>>trials occurred primarily in Europe, and were particularly
>>>severe in some parts of the Holy Roman Empire."
>>
>>You are merely stating history.
>>I have no problems with history.
>
Most trials were done in civil courts, not the inquisiiton.
Most punishment was dealt out by civil authorities, not a religion.
>>>"The Empire was considered by the Roman Catholic Church to
>>>be the only legal successor of the Roman Empire during the
>>>Middle Ages and the early modern period.[citation needed]
>>>Since Charlemagne, the realm was merely referred to as the
>>>Roman Empire.[44] The term sacrum ("holy", in the sense of
>>>"consecrated") in connection with the medieval Roman Empire
>>>was used beginning in 1157 under Frederick I Barbarossa
>>>("Holy Empire"): the term was added to reflect Frederick's
>>>ambition to dominate Italy and the Papacy.[45] The form
>>>"Holy Roman Empire" is attested from 1254 onward.[46]"
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
>>
>>OK then.
>>History.
>>What does this have to do with burning witches?
>
>involved with witchcraft trials over many years.
No, it does not.
>If you refuse to admit this I am sure others are aware of
>this and are not so pigheaded.
Most catholic bashers love to make this claim.
>>You imply the Catholics policies were to burn witches.
>>This is your claim.
>>It is a lie.
>>It is stupid.
>>You are stupid.
>>>>https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/10/30/who-burned-the-witches-part-1/
>
>>>>If you look where the witch trials were worst - you can see that these
>>>>were countries without strong central power (small german states), and
>>>>there was correlation with wars, famine, epidemics and so on. So when
>>>>desperate people were looking for culprits…
>>>>
>>>>For example, the territory of current Italy was only lightly affected
>>>>by witch trials - and this contrary to expectations. Protestant
>>>>Germany were affected badly… and even in US there were some witch
>>>>trials and that was no catholic country at all.
>>>>
>>>>For years, feminist scholars have argued that witch hunts were
>>>>inspired by a reactionary, misogynistic church. But new scholarship,
>>>>like Lyndal Roper's "Witch Craze," reveals that the real villains were
>>>>the neighbors.
>>>>
>>>>The Inquisition was not greatly involved in witch burnings; it had its
>>>>hands full with Protestants and other heretics, whom the church
>>>>shrewdly perceived to be a far more serious threat to its power. In
>>>>fact, while the justification for condemning witches was religious,
>>>>and some religious figures joined in witch hunting campaigns, the
>>>>trials were not run by churches of any denomination. They were largely
>>>>held in civil courts and prosecuted by local authorities (some of whom
>>>>were also religious leaders) as criminal cases.
>>>>https://www.salon.com/2005/02/01/witch_craze/
>>>>If you look where the witch trials were worst - you can see that these
>>>>were countries without strong central power (small german states), and
>>>>there was correlation with wars, famine, epidemics and so on. So when
>>>>desperate people were looking for culprits…
>>>>
>>>>For example, the territory of current Italy was only lightly affected
>>>>by witch trials - and this contrary to expectations. Protestant
>>>>Germany were affected badly… and even in US there were some witch
>>>>trials and that was no catholic country at all.
>>>>
>>>>For years, feminist scholars have argued that witch hunts were
>>>>inspired by a reactionary, misogynistic church. But new scholarship,
>>>>like Lyndal Roper's "Witch Craze," reveals that the real villains were
>>>>the neighbors.
>>>>
>>>>The Inquisition was not greatly involved in witch burnings; it had its
>>>>hands full with Protestants and other heretics, whom the church
>>>>shrewdly perceived to be a far more serious threat to its power. In
>>>>fact, while the justification for condemning witches was religious,
>>>>and some religious figures joined in witch hunting campaigns, the
>>>>trials were not run by churches of any denomination. They were largely
>>>>held in civil courts and prosecuted by local authorities (some of whom
>>>>were also religious leaders) as criminal cases.
>>>>https://www.salon.com/2005/02/01/witch_craze/
>>>>In February 1692, several young Salem girls, after they were caught
>>>>practicing magic, claimed they had been afflicted by witches
>>>>Their parents began searching for the witches, and hysteria mounted,
>>>>especially as pastor Samuel Parris proclaimed, "In this very church,
>>>>God knows how many Devils there are!" A public witch-hunt led to the
>>>>arrest of 150 people; 19 were hanged for witchcraft, and one man was
>>>>executed for refusing to testify.
>>>><<Not Catholic>>
>>>>https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-41/witch-hunting-in-salem.html
>>>>practicing magic, claimed they had been afflicted by witches
>>>>Their parents began searching for the witches, and hysteria mounted,
>>>>especially as pastor Samuel Parris proclaimed, "In this very church,
>>>>God knows how many Devils there are!" A public witch-hunt led to the
>>>>arrest of 150 people; 19 were hanged for witchcraft, and one man was
>>>>executed for refusing to testify.
>>>><<Not Catholic>>
>>>>https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-41/witch-hunting-in-salem.html
>>>I never said any one superstition did it all. While it is
>>>common knowledge that one particular one took the lead and
>>>was the most publicized (guess which one) (Hint:
>>>Torquemada) many of theme were guilty. As I have said
>>>basically all of the silly superstitions are alike.
>>>common knowledge that one particular one took the lead and
>>>was the most publicized (guess which one) (Hint:
>>>Torquemada) many of theme were guilty. As I have said
>>>basically all of the silly superstitions are alike.
MY above quotes prove you to be a liar.
>You are not the first one I have run across who refuses to
>admit your superstition is anything but perfect. You
>probably won't be the last.
>Thanks for the laughs.
Keep laughing, shit-head.
The halocaust DID take place.
Witch Burnings did take place.
However, you can't blame Catholics for all the ills of the world.
Did I mention that it must suck to be you?
P+Barker
Feb 19, 2023, 10:53:08 AM2/19/23
to
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
Patrich (re witch burnings)
>>Most trials were done in civil courts, not the inquisiiton.
>>Most punishment was dealt out by civil authorities, not a religion.
>for ridicule - I feel equally amused by each and every one.
Which ones?
Why are you afraid to name a single one?
Is it because I proved you are a liar when you claimed Catholic burned
witches?
>other but I could be wrong. Fundamentalists of any stripe
>are frequently quick to attack me,
People don't like to be insulted.
We also don't like liars and trolls.
Does this upset you?
>As far as court involvement is concerned I would submit to
>you that without the influence of religion the entire issue
>of witchcraft would not exist.
DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
>I see you finally admit witch burnings did take place, and
>yes I agree the holocaust did occur, especially since my
>father toured one of the camps shortly after it was
>liberated. Although what that has to do with the
>conversation eludes me.
My dad din't tour a camp.
I toured a few camps.
Patrich (re witch burnings)
>>Most trials were done in civil courts, not the inquisiiton.
>>Most punishment was dealt out by civil authorities, not a religion.
>>>It shows the catholic church was deeply and directly
>>>involved with witchcraft trials over many years.
>>
>>No, it does not.
>>>involved with witchcraft trials over many years.
>>
>>No, it does not.
>>>>>>The Inquisition was not greatly involved in witch burnings; it had its
>>>>>>hands full with Protestants and other heretics, whom the church
>>>>>>shrewdly perceived to be a far more serious threat to its power. In
>>>>>>fact, while the justification for condemning witches was religious,
>>>>>>and some religious figures joined in witch hunting campaigns, the
>>>>>>trials were not run by churches of any denomination. They were largely
>>>>>>held in civil courts and prosecuted by local authorities (some of whom
>>>>>>were also religious leaders) as criminal cases.
>>>>>>https://www.salon.com/2005/02/01/witch_craze/
>>
>>
>>>>>>In February 1692, several young Salem girls, after they were caught
>>>>>>practicing magic, claimed they had been afflicted by witches
>>>>>>Their parents began searching for the witches, and hysteria mounted,
>>>>>>especially as pastor Samuel Parris proclaimed, "In this very church,
>>>>>>God knows how many Devils there are!" A public witch-hunt led to the
>>>>>>arrest of 150 people; 19 were hanged for witchcraft, and one man was
>>>>>>executed for refusing to testify.
>>>>>><<Not Catholic>>
>>>>>>https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-41/witch-hunting-in-salem.html
>>>>>I never said any one superstition did it all. While it is
>>>>>common knowledge that one particular one took the lead and
>>>>>was the most publicized (guess which one) (Hint:
>>>>>Torquemada) many of theme were guilty. As I have said
>>>>>basically all of the silly superstitions are alike.
>Yawn. I do not single out any particular silly superstition
>>>>>>hands full with Protestants and other heretics, whom the church
>>>>>>shrewdly perceived to be a far more serious threat to its power. In
>>>>>>fact, while the justification for condemning witches was religious,
>>>>>>and some religious figures joined in witch hunting campaigns, the
>>>>>>trials were not run by churches of any denomination. They were largely
>>>>>>held in civil courts and prosecuted by local authorities (some of whom
>>>>>>were also religious leaders) as criminal cases.
>>>>>>https://www.salon.com/2005/02/01/witch_craze/
>>
>>
>>>>>>In February 1692, several young Salem girls, after they were caught
>>>>>>practicing magic, claimed they had been afflicted by witches
>>>>>>Their parents began searching for the witches, and hysteria mounted,
>>>>>>especially as pastor Samuel Parris proclaimed, "In this very church,
>>>>>>God knows how many Devils there are!" A public witch-hunt led to the
>>>>>>arrest of 150 people; 19 were hanged for witchcraft, and one man was
>>>>>>executed for refusing to testify.
>>>>>><<Not Catholic>>
>>>>>>https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-41/witch-hunting-in-salem.html
>>>>>I never said any one superstition did it all. While it is
>>>>>common knowledge that one particular one took the lead and
>>>>>was the most publicized (guess which one) (Hint:
>>>>>Torquemada) many of theme were guilty. As I have said
>>>>>basically all of the silly superstitions are alike.
>for ridicule - I feel equally amused by each and every one.
Which ones?
Why are you afraid to name a single one?
Is it because I proved you are a liar when you claimed Catholic burned
witches?
I didn't hear you.
>It does seem catholics appear to be riled easier then most
>other but I could be wrong. Fundamentalists of any stripe
>are frequently quick to attack me,
People don't like to be insulted.
We also don't like liars and trolls.
Does this upset you?
>As far as court involvement is concerned I would submit to
>you that without the influence of religion the entire issue
>of witchcraft would not exist.
DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
>I see you finally admit witch burnings did take place, and
>yes I agree the holocaust did occur, especially since my
>father toured one of the camps shortly after it was
>liberated. Although what that has to do with the
>conversation eludes me.
My dad din't tour a camp.
I toured a few camps.
P+Barker
Feb 20, 2023, 7:25:00 AM2/20/23
to
, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 10:53:05 -0500, P+Barker
>>>>>>>I never said any one superstition did it all. While it is
>>>>>>>common knowledge that one particular one took the lead and
>>>>>>>was the most publicized (guess which one) (Hint:
>>>>>>>Torquemada) many of theme were guilty. As I have said
>>>>>>>basically all of the silly superstitions are alike.
>>
>>
>>>Yawn. I do not single out any particular silly superstition
>>>for ridicule - I feel equally amused by each and every one.
>>
>>Which ones?
>>Why are you afraid to name a single one?
>
>Are you really that dense? What part of "I do not single
>out any particular silly superstition" is beyond your
>understanding?
Which ones?
Why are you afraid to name a single one?
Since you are here in a Catholic newsgroup, how about a specific
superstion that we follow?
>On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 10:53:05 -0500, P+Barker
>>>>>>>I never said any one superstition did it all. While it is
>>>>>>>common knowledge that one particular one took the lead and
>>>>>>>was the most publicized (guess which one) (Hint:
>>>>>>>Torquemada) many of theme were guilty. As I have said
>>>>>>>basically all of the silly superstitions are alike.
>>
>>
>>>Yawn. I do not single out any particular silly superstition
>>>for ridicule - I feel equally amused by each and every one.
>>
>>Which ones?
>>Why are you afraid to name a single one?
>
>out any particular silly superstition" is beyond your
>understanding?
Which ones?
Why are you afraid to name a single one?
superstion that we follow?
Mitchell Holman
Feb 20, 2023, 9:06:59 AM2/20/23
to
P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ggp6vhl12uj2larjl...@4ax.com:
Eucharist.
Confession.
Prayer.
Baptism.
Anointing the sick.
Sign of the Cross.
news:ggp6vhl12uj2larjl...@4ax.com:
Confession.
Prayer.
Baptism.
Anointing the sick.
Sign of the Cross.
David Keeting
Feb 20, 2023, 11:21:43 AM2/20/23
to
stupid question, even a child knows that
--
instead of buying liquor , i buy
nyquill cause it's 80 proof just
like liquor , but nyquill makes me
feel squzzier and i like that, and
its usually the lesser intelligent
person , that comments on the more
intelligent person's , lack of intelligents
and we all think what we do has major significants
%
Feb 20, 2023, 11:24:08 AM2/20/23
to
David Keeting wrote:
> P+Barker wrote:
>> , Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 10:53:05 -0500, P+Barker
>>
>>>>>>>>> I never said any one superstition did it all. While it is
>>>>>>>>> common knowledge that one particular one took the lead and
>>>>>>>>> was the most publicized (guess which one) (Hint:
>>>>>>>>> Torquemada) many of theme were guilty. As I have said
>>>>>>>>> basically all of the silly superstitions are alike.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yawn. I do not single out any particular silly superstition
>>>>> for ridicule - I feel equally amused by each and every one.
>>>>
>>>> Which ones?
>>>> Why are you afraid to name a single one?
>>>
>>> Are you really that dense? What part of "I do not single
>>> out any particular silly superstition" is beyond your
>>> understanding?
>>
>> Which ones?
>> Why are you afraid to name a single one?
>> Since you are here in a Catholic newsgroup, how about a specific
>> superstion that we follow?
>>
> >
> what does the scrotum of a catholic priest look like
>
> stupid question, even a child knows that
>
it's a twin to your face
> P+Barker wrote:
>> , Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 10:53:05 -0500, P+Barker
>>
>>>>>>>>> I never said any one superstition did it all. While it is
>>>>>>>>> common knowledge that one particular one took the lead and
>>>>>>>>> was the most publicized (guess which one) (Hint:
>>>>>>>>> Torquemada) many of theme were guilty. As I have said
>>>>>>>>> basically all of the silly superstitions are alike.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yawn. I do not single out any particular silly superstition
>>>>> for ridicule - I feel equally amused by each and every one.
>>>>
>>>> Which ones?
>>>> Why are you afraid to name a single one?
>>>
>>> Are you really that dense? What part of "I do not single
>>> out any particular silly superstition" is beyond your
>>> understanding?
>>
>> Which ones?
>> Why are you afraid to name a single one?
>> Since you are here in a Catholic newsgroup, how about a specific
>> superstion that we follow?
>>
> >
> what does the scrotum of a catholic priest look like
>
> stupid question, even a child knows that
>
%
Feb 20, 2023, 11:26:32 AM2/20/23
to
P+Barker
Feb 20, 2023, 11:51:11 AM2/20/23
to
Then explain why you feel this is a superstition.
Then we can discuss it.
P+Barker
Feb 20, 2023, 11:51:50 AM2/20/23
to
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:21:40 -0500, David Keeting <per...@yahoo.net>
wrote:
>P+Barker wrote:
>> , Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 10:53:05 -0500, P+Barker
>>
>>>>>>>>> I never said any one superstition did it all. While it is
>>>>>>>>> common knowledge that one particular one took the lead and
>>>>>>>>> was the most publicized (guess which one) (Hint:
>>>>>>>>> Torquemada) many of theme were guilty. As I have said
>>>>>>>>> basically all of the silly superstitions are alike.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yawn. I do not single out any particular silly superstition
>>>>> for ridicule - I feel equally amused by each and every one.
>>>>
>>>> Which ones?
>>>> Why are you afraid to name a single one?
>>>
>>> Are you really that dense? What part of "I do not single
>>> out any particular silly superstition" is beyond your
>>> understanding?
>>
>> Which ones?
>> Why are you afraid to name a single one?
>> Since you are here in a Catholic newsgroup, how about a specific
>> superstion that we follow?
>>
> >
>what does the scrotum of a catholic priest look like
>stupid question, even a child knows that
Then tell us, keet-hole.
wrote:
>P+Barker wrote:
>> , Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 10:53:05 -0500, P+Barker
>>
>>>>>>>>> I never said any one superstition did it all. While it is
>>>>>>>>> common knowledge that one particular one took the lead and
>>>>>>>>> was the most publicized (guess which one) (Hint:
>>>>>>>>> Torquemada) many of theme were guilty. As I have said
>>>>>>>>> basically all of the silly superstitions are alike.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yawn. I do not single out any particular silly superstition
>>>>> for ridicule - I feel equally amused by each and every one.
>>>>
>>>> Which ones?
>>>> Why are you afraid to name a single one?
>>>
>>> Are you really that dense? What part of "I do not single
>>> out any particular silly superstition" is beyond your
>>> understanding?
>>
>> Which ones?
>> Why are you afraid to name a single one?
>> Since you are here in a Catholic newsgroup, how about a specific
>> superstion that we follow?
>>
> >
>what does the scrotum of a catholic priest look like
>stupid question, even a child knows that
Mitchell Holman
Feb 20, 2023, 1:52:19 PM2/20/23
to
P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2697vh5ql5quboa7h...@4ax.com:
superstition:
: a belief or way of behaving that is
based on fear of the unknown and faith
in magic or luck
: a belief that certain events or things
will bring good or bad luck
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/superstition
All your quaint little rituals
are based on superstition.
news:2697vh5ql5quboa7h...@4ax.com:
: a belief or way of behaving that is
based on fear of the unknown and faith
in magic or luck
: a belief that certain events or things
will bring good or bad luck
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/superstition
All your quaint little rituals
are based on superstition.
P+Barker
Feb 20, 2023, 4:14:48 PM2/20/23
to
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 18:52:11 +0000, Mitchell Holman
P+Barker
Feb 20, 2023, 4:18:15 PM2/20/23
to
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 07:24:58 -0500, P+Barker
>>>>>Yawn. I do not single out any particular silly superstition
>>>>>for ridicule - I feel equally amused by each and every one.
>>>>
>>>>Which ones?
>>>>Why are you afraid to name a single one?
>dealing with fundies for so many years here nothing any of
>you do really surprises me any more. I posted a long list
>of gods that of course must have had some kind of silly
>superstition involving them because that is the only way
>anyone would have ever heard of any of them.
And I could respond to any of them if they were a "superstition"
believed and held by Catholics.
Howver, since you are unable to list one, I understand.
The last time you tried to list a Catholic superstition (burning
wirches), I kicked your ass with facts.
And then you crawl away pretending not to have said it.
>You removed the list containing multiple names and then
>demand one name. A classic example of a mind on
>superstition.
You listed a bunch of names of "gods" that have nothing to do with the
Roman Catholic superstitions that you whine about.
>On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 07:24:58 -0500, P+Barker
>>>>>Yawn. I do not single out any particular silly superstition
>>>>>for ridicule - I feel equally amused by each and every one.
>>>>
>>>>Which ones?
>>>>Why are you afraid to name a single one?
>>Why are you afraid to name a single one?
>>Since you are here in a Catholic newsgroup, how about a specific
>>superstion that we follow?
>
>I would normally be stunned at your response but after
>>Since you are here in a Catholic newsgroup, how about a specific
>>superstion that we follow?
>
>dealing with fundies for so many years here nothing any of
>you do really surprises me any more. I posted a long list
>of gods that of course must have had some kind of silly
>superstition involving them because that is the only way
>anyone would have ever heard of any of them.
And I could respond to any of them if they were a "superstition"
believed and held by Catholics.
Howver, since you are unable to list one, I understand.
The last time you tried to list a Catholic superstition (burning
wirches), I kicked your ass with facts.
And then you crawl away pretending not to have said it.
>You removed the list containing multiple names and then
>demand one name. A classic example of a mind on
>superstition.
You listed a bunch of names of "gods" that have nothing to do with the
Roman Catholic superstitions that you whine about.
Mitchell Holman
Feb 20, 2023, 9:42:09 PM2/20/23
to
P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:vlo7vh5mman624e63...@4ax.com:
How is making the "sign of the cross"
on yourself any different than knocking on
wood or crossing your fingers or blowing on
dice before you throw them?
news:vlo7vh5mman624e63...@4ax.com:
on yourself any different than knocking on
wood or crossing your fingers or blowing on
dice before you throw them?
P+Barker
Feb 21, 2023, 5:34:13 AM2/21/23
to
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 02:42:00 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>>superstition:
>>>
>>>: a belief or way of behaving that is
>>>based on fear of the unknown and faith
>>>in magic or luck
>>>
>>>: a belief that certain events or things
>>>will bring good or bad luck
>>>
>>>https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/superstition
>>>
>>>
>>> All your quaint little rituals
>>>are based on superstition.
>>
>> Pick one, any one.
>> Then explain why you feel this is a superstition.
>> Then we can discuss it.
> How is making the "sign of the cross"
>on yourself any different than knocking on
>wood or crossing your fingers or blowing on
>dice before you throw them?
ACTUALLY, THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.
I especially wonder when a basketball player makes the sign of the
cross just before he makes a free throw. Or when two teams pray
separately that they will win. Who do they think God will listen to?
I guess you could consider this as a superstition.
Or some sign of prayer that they will be successful.
I believe that believers have forgotten the meaning of the symbols
that take place during the various rites. It shows that they are not
interested in getting to know the rules, history, the renovations, and
current problems of such sport. Anyone who does not want nor seeks to
understand the deepest meaning of the symbols he celebrates, has to
question himself to change this attitude. Otherwise, he is devoid of
the rite as a cold mechanism, repetitive, and devoid of sense.
Actually, the Sign of the Cross is the most common Catholic prayer. We
use it at the beginning and end of prayers, in the Mass, when we pass
by a Church, cemetery, or abortion clinic, and when we hear an
emergency vehicle siren.
Anyone can make the Sign of the Cross! You don’t have to be Catholic.
But it would be best if you believed in the trinity and the saving
power of Christ as this is a profession of these teachings.
++++++++++
What Are the Purposes and Meaning?
Many things go into the prayer of the Sign of the Cross; it is a:
Confession of faith in the trinity and saving work of Christ on the
cross
Invoking of the Power of God’s name
Opening to Grace
Renewal of baptism
Mark of discipleship
Acceptance of suffering
Asking for support in our suffering
Defense against the devil
Tool for evangelization
Claiming of ourselves for Christ
When used before a prayer, it helps call Christ into space, the
moment, our hearts. When you make the Sign of the Cross at the end of
a prayer, you say that you want to go forth in him and for him.
https://catholic-link.org/why-do-catholics-make-the-sign-of-the-cross/
As Catholics, we have a desire to know the Lord, to deepen our
relationship with God. To somehow invite Jesus Christ, who pursues us
each personally, into every part of our lives. I give you a new
commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also...
>>>superstition:
>>>
>>>: a belief or way of behaving that is
>>>based on fear of the unknown and faith
>>>in magic or luck
>>>
>>>: a belief that certain events or things
>>>will bring good or bad luck
>>>
>>>https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/superstition
>>>
>>>
>>> All your quaint little rituals
>>>are based on superstition.
>>
>> Pick one, any one.
>> Then explain why you feel this is a superstition.
>> Then we can discuss it.
> How is making the "sign of the cross"
>on yourself any different than knocking on
>wood or crossing your fingers or blowing on
>dice before you throw them?
I especially wonder when a basketball player makes the sign of the
cross just before he makes a free throw. Or when two teams pray
separately that they will win. Who do they think God will listen to?
I guess you could consider this as a superstition.
Or some sign of prayer that they will be successful.
I believe that believers have forgotten the meaning of the symbols
that take place during the various rites. It shows that they are not
interested in getting to know the rules, history, the renovations, and
current problems of such sport. Anyone who does not want nor seeks to
understand the deepest meaning of the symbols he celebrates, has to
question himself to change this attitude. Otherwise, he is devoid of
the rite as a cold mechanism, repetitive, and devoid of sense.
Actually, the Sign of the Cross is the most common Catholic prayer. We
use it at the beginning and end of prayers, in the Mass, when we pass
by a Church, cemetery, or abortion clinic, and when we hear an
emergency vehicle siren.
Anyone can make the Sign of the Cross! You don’t have to be Catholic.
But it would be best if you believed in the trinity and the saving
power of Christ as this is a profession of these teachings.
++++++++++
What Are the Purposes and Meaning?
Many things go into the prayer of the Sign of the Cross; it is a:
Confession of faith in the trinity and saving work of Christ on the
cross
Invoking of the Power of God’s name
Opening to Grace
Renewal of baptism
Mark of discipleship
Acceptance of suffering
Asking for support in our suffering
Defense against the devil
Tool for evangelization
Claiming of ourselves for Christ
When used before a prayer, it helps call Christ into space, the
moment, our hearts. When you make the Sign of the Cross at the end of
a prayer, you say that you want to go forth in him and for him.
https://catholic-link.org/why-do-catholics-make-the-sign-of-the-cross/
As Catholics, we have a desire to know the Lord, to deepen our
relationship with God. To somehow invite Jesus Christ, who pursues us
each personally, into every part of our lives. I give you a new
commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also...
P+Barker
Feb 21, 2023, 5:38:17 AM2/21/23
to
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>Evidently you are hopeless. I keep telling you I don't
>bother with any particular superstition and you keep
>demanding to discuss one of them.
You don't bother with any particular superstition?
Yet you post in the Catholic newsgroup.
You asked when Catholics stopped burning witches (a superstition you
claimed exists.)
>For the last time I lump them all together and dismiss them
>all as being nothing more than silly superstitions.
Go lump them elsewhere.
You are a liar and a troll.
>I neither know or care about the details of any of them. That
>would be like an argument over how to kill a vampire when
>the existence of vampires has not been established.
Go tell that to the vampire newsgroup.
>I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
>existence of any god.
Everyone knows this.
People who believe need no evidence.
Jerks who do not believe will not accept any evidence.
>Evidently you are hopeless. I keep telling you I don't
>bother with any particular superstition and you keep
>demanding to discuss one of them.
You don't bother with any particular superstition?
Yet you post in the Catholic newsgroup.
You asked when Catholics stopped burning witches (a superstition you
claimed exists.)
>For the last time I lump them all together and dismiss them
>all as being nothing more than silly superstitions.
Go lump them elsewhere.
You are a liar and a troll.
>I neither know or care about the details of any of them. That
>would be like an argument over how to kill a vampire when
>the existence of vampires has not been established.
Go tell that to the vampire newsgroup.
>I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
>existence of any god.
People who believe need no evidence.
Jerks who do not believe will not accept any evidence.
P+Barker
Feb 21, 2023, 8:11:50 AM2/21/23
to
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 07:16:52 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 05:38:14 -0500, P+Barker
Yet, you lied with the wirch burning.
Have you forgotten?
>>Yet you post in the Catholic newsgroup.
>
>Actually I am posting in alt.atheism. It goes to you as a
>cross-post, something you clearly do not understand.
I post ONLY to and answer ONLY to the Catholic newsgroup.
>>You asked when Catholics stopped burning witches (a superstition you
>>claimed exists.)
>
>I have covered that previously. I am not going to do it
>again just so you can clip it away.
I kicked your ass and you want to forget this.
I understand.
>>>I neither know or care about the details of any of them. That
>>>would be like an argument over how to kill a vampire when
>>>the existence of vampires has not been established.
>>
>>Go tell that to the vampire newsgroup.
>
>Why am I not surprised when you clearly are unfamiliar with
>an analogy? It was apparent before this in this thread.
Why are you trying to be specific now?
I thought you only liked to generalize.
Make up my mind.
>>>I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
>>>existence of any god.
>>
>>Everyone knows this.
>
>Evidently you don't.
>requires any evidence as long as it is expressed as a
>belief. If it is expressed as something other than a belief
>it has moved into an area requiring evidence. The area in
>which I live.
wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 05:38:14 -0500, P+Barker
><PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
><sh79vhpr35hd30cmk...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Evidently you are hopeless. I keep telling you I don't
>>>bother with any particular superstition and you keep
>>>demanding to discuss one of them.
>>
>>You don't bother with any particular superstition?
>
>That is what I have said over and over and over.
>
>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Evidently you are hopeless. I keep telling you I don't
>>>bother with any particular superstition and you keep
>>>demanding to discuss one of them.
>>
>>You don't bother with any particular superstition?
>
Yet, you lied with the wirch burning.
Have you forgotten?
>>Yet you post in the Catholic newsgroup.
>
>cross-post, something you clearly do not understand.
I post ONLY to and answer ONLY to the Catholic newsgroup.
>>You asked when Catholics stopped burning witches (a superstition you
>>claimed exists.)
>
>again just so you can clip it away.
I kicked your ass and you want to forget this.
I understand.
>>>I neither know or care about the details of any of them. That
>>>would be like an argument over how to kill a vampire when
>>>the existence of vampires has not been established.
>>
>>Go tell that to the vampire newsgroup.
>
>an analogy? It was apparent before this in this thread.
Why are you trying to be specific now?
I thought you only liked to generalize.
Make up my mind.
>>>I have yet to see any valid evidence supporting the
>>>existence of any god.
>>
>>Everyone knows this.
>
>
>>People who believe need no evidence.
>
>I have never questioned this. No belief of any kind
>>People who believe need no evidence.
>
>requires any evidence as long as it is expressed as a
>belief. If it is expressed as something other than a belief
>it has moved into an area requiring evidence. The area in
>which I live.
Mitchell Holman
Feb 21, 2023, 8:58:04 AM2/21/23
to
P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3p69vh9d86b20lp7b...@4ax.com:
"Various rites" that are superstitions.
> It shows that they are not
> interested in getting to know the rules, history, the renovations, and
> current problems of such sport. Anyone who does not want nor seeks to
> understand the deepest meaning of the symbols he celebrates, has to
> question himself to change this attitude. Otherwise, he is devoid of
> the rite as a cold mechanism, repetitive, and devoid of sense.
>
> Actually, the Sign of the Cross is the most common Catholic prayer.
It is still a superstition.
> We
> use it at the beginning and end of prayers, in the Mass, when we pass
> by a Church, cemetery, or abortion clinic, and when we hear an
> emergency vehicle siren.
>
> Anyone can make the Sign of the Cross! You don’t have to be Catholic.
Ditto for the other superstitions I listed.
> But it would be best if you believed in the trinity and the saving
> power of Christ as this is a profession of these teachings.
>
Even Jesus didn't use this "sign of the cross" thing.
news:3p69vh9d86b20lp7b...@4ax.com:
> It shows that they are not
> interested in getting to know the rules, history, the renovations, and
> current problems of such sport. Anyone who does not want nor seeks to
> understand the deepest meaning of the symbols he celebrates, has to
> question himself to change this attitude. Otherwise, he is devoid of
> the rite as a cold mechanism, repetitive, and devoid of sense.
>
> Actually, the Sign of the Cross is the most common Catholic prayer.
> We
> use it at the beginning and end of prayers, in the Mass, when we pass
> by a Church, cemetery, or abortion clinic, and when we hear an
> emergency vehicle siren.
>
> Anyone can make the Sign of the Cross! You don’t have to be Catholic.
> But it would be best if you believed in the trinity and the saving
> power of Christ as this is a profession of these teachings.
>
P+Barker
Feb 22, 2023, 7:18:42 AM2/22/23
to
Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>I would never assume you have a mind to make up.
>You didn't like my reply? Is that why you removed it
>without comment?
Your idiotic entertainment is tiring.
You claim you don't believe in God.
OK then.
Don't believe.
Why do you troll the newsgroups to insult those who do?
>I would never assume you have a mind to make up.
>You didn't like my reply? Is that why you removed it
>without comment?
Your idiotic entertainment is tiring.
You claim you don't believe in God.
OK then.
Don't believe.
Why do you troll the newsgroups to insult those who do?
P+Barker
Feb 22, 2023, 9:30:40 AM2/22/23
to
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 09:03:31 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 07:18:38 -0500, P+Barker
>believe in god".
>Assuming I am in fact trolling anyone, which I deny.
>
>I see you consider a comment which you judge as "tiring" and
>with which you do not agree as sufficient reason to remove
>it. I suspect you remove most of the posts you respond to.
Just the trolls and liars.
wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 07:18:38 -0500, P+Barker
><PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
><rs1cvht6jvug1mcln...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>I would never assume you have a mind to make up.
>>>You didn't like my reply? Is that why you removed it
>>>without comment?
>>
>>Your idiotic entertainment is tiring.
>>You claim you don't believe in God.
>
>Amusing. While I have several times said "I have yet to see
>
>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>I would never assume you have a mind to make up.
>>>You didn't like my reply? Is that why you removed it
>>>without comment?
>>
>>Your idiotic entertainment is tiring.
>>You claim you don't believe in God.
>
>any valid evidence supporting the existence of any god."
>please provide a reference to where I have claimed I "don't
>believe in god".
>
>>OK then.
>>Don't believe.
>>Why do you troll the newsgroups to insult those who do?
>
>Because you are too ignorant to recognize what is occurring.
>>OK then.
>>Don't believe.
>>Why do you troll the newsgroups to insult those who do?
>
>Assuming I am in fact trolling anyone, which I deny.
>
>I see you consider a comment which you judge as "tiring" and
>with which you do not agree as sufficient reason to remove
>it. I suspect you remove most of the posts you respond to.
Just the trolls and liars.
P+Barker
Feb 23, 2023, 7:35:06 AM2/23/23
to
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 11:20:23 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 09:30:38 -0500, P+Barker
>Meaning anyone who disagrees with you.
Meaning you, bobbo, sTinky, mikey, and a few others.
wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 09:30:38 -0500, P+Barker
><PBa...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
Meaning you, bobbo, sTinky, mikey, and a few others.
0 new messages