Catholicism weakens in South America. [URL]

[W.T.S.]

http://tinyurl.com/abtomm5

In Brazil, the population is slowly waking up to the sickness and
degeneracy of catholicism.

[John Locke]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:18:49 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>
>http://tinyurl.com/abtomm5
>
>In Brazil, the population is slowly waking up to the sickness and
>degeneracy of catholicism.
>

...one of these days we're gonna start seeing all those funny hats in
hock shops !

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

I hope the white one in this picture is sold with the scepter, it seems
to make the biggest statement:

http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/204-Silly-Hats-Only.jpg

Alternate link: http://www.moourl.com/tojoq

Which hat in that picture is your favourite, and why? (Or if you know
of a similar picture with better hats, please post the link in a reply.)

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"You can't vote for rain. What's real, is what's real, and like it or
not, no one can change the nature of reality ... except of course, with
mushrooms and Pabst Blue Ribbon [(beer)]."
-- Bill Maher

[Dakota]

On 2/14/2013 8:53 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:47:58 -0800
> John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:18:49 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/abtomm5
>>>
>>> In Brazil, the population is slowly waking up to the sickness and
>>> degeneracy of catholicism.
>>
>> ...one of these days we're gonna start seeing all those funny hats in
>> hock shops !
>
> I hope the white one in this picture is sold with the scepter, it seems
> to make the biggest statement:
>
> http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/204-Silly-Hats-Only.jpg
>
> Alternate link: http://www.moourl.com/tojoq
>
> Which hat in that picture is your favourite, and why? (Or if you know
> of a similar picture with better hats, please post the link in a reply.)
>

The big white one seems the most preposterous. Any idea which
particular mythology that guy favors?

[SkyEyes]

And joining the pentacostals instead. *Big* improvement. Not.

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

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

I don't know, but the top of the scepter he's holding looks like it
might be a small metallic skull that might provide a bit of a clue.

His hat is my favourite because he reminds me of some fun video games
(side-scroller platformers, mainly) from the 1980s. He certainly looks
the part for some sort of "mushroom man."

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"I love that smell of the emissions!"
-- Sarah Palin (May 29, 2011; at a motorcycle rally)

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <7801fc84-569a-47ce...@nu2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Feb 14, 5:18 pm, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/abtomm5
>>
>> In Brazil, the population is slowly waking up to the sickness and
>> degeneracy of catholicism.
>
>And joining the pentacostals instead. *Big* improvement. Not.

Well, it is an improvement. Not a big one, but ...

Sort of like switching from Coke to Pepsi. Nobody really cares except for
the Coke and Pepsi companies (and their stockholders).

--
(This discussion group is about C, ...)

Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...

[W.T.S.]

In article <kfl3if$l55$1...@news.xmission.com>, gaz...@shell.xmission.com
says...

> In article <7801fc84-569a-47ce...@nu2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Feb 14, 5:18 pm, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> http://tinyurl.com/abtomm5
> >>
> >> In Brazil, the population is slowly waking up to the sickness and
> >> degeneracy of catholicism.
> >
> >And joining the pentacostals instead. *Big* improvement. Not.
>
> Well, it is an improvement. Not a big one, but ...
>
> Sort of like switching from Coke to Pepsi. Nobody really cares except for
> the Coke and Pepsi companies (and their stockholders).
>

Good points. It's take time for people to realize that _all_ religious
belief is filth. Religion is a _universal_ scam.
>

Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://tinyurl.com/a887er9
>
http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
>
http://tinyurl.com/ayk7czf
>
http://tinyurl.com/43hp62x

[Andrew W]

"Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:kfkhvs$a97$1...@dont-email.me

The god of inflation?

The god of air balloons?

The god of mushroom clouds/atom bombs?


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

[duke]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:18:19 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Feb 14, 5:18�pm, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/abtomm5
>>
>> In Brazil, the population is slowly waking up to the sickness and
>> degeneracy of catholicism.
>
>And joining the pentacostals instead. *Big* improvement. Not.

Haahaahaa. You wankers are getting silly now.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[default]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:44:31 +0000 (UTC), gaz...@shell.xmission.com
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:

>In article <7801fc84-569a-47ce...@nu2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
>>On Feb 14, 5:18 pm, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/abtomm5
>>>
>>> In Brazil, the population is slowly waking up to the sickness and
>>> degeneracy of catholicism.
>>
>>And joining the pentacostals instead. *Big* improvement. Not.
>
>Well, it is an improvement. Not a big one, but ...
>
>Sort of like switching from Coke to Pepsi. Nobody really cares except for
>the Coke and Pepsi companies (and their stockholders).

Evangelical Pentecostal ain't Pepsi. Much worse IMO.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <9bhsh8lnqimdca6uo...@4ax.com>,

default <no...@noname.net> wrote:
...
>>Sort of like switching from Coke to Pepsi. Nobody really cares except for
>>the Coke and Pepsi companies (and their stockholders).
>
>Evangelical Pentecostal ain't Pepsi. Much worse IMO.

I guess you must be close enough to it to see a difference.
Dedicated cola drinkers feel the same way - they can definitely tell the
difference between Coke, Pepsi, and RC (in a blindfolded taste test).

But from my distant vantage point, they all look the same. All religions
are equally poisonous.

--
Given Bush and his insanely expensive wars (*), that we will be paying for
for generations to come, the only possible response a sensible person need
ever give, when a GOPer/TeaBagger says anything about "deficits", is a
polite snicker.

(*) Obvious money transfers between the taxpayers and Bush's moneyed
interests. Someday, we'll actually figure out a way to have a war where the
money just gets moved around and nobody (on either side) gets injured or
killed. That will be an accomplishment of which we will be justly proud.

[W.T.S.]

In article <e78sh8hpritmib8ab...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:18:19 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 14, 5:18 pm, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> http://tinyurl.com/abtomm5
> >>
> >> In Brazil, the population is slowly waking up to the sickness and
> >> degeneracy of catholicism.
> >
> >And joining the pentacostals instead. *Big* improvement. Not.
>
> Haahaahaa. You wankers are getting silly now.

Let me guess, "duke". You didn't read the article
>
> The pukester, CatholiKKK Stool.
> ********************************************
> You can't fix stupid, so I became a Catholic
> and now being stupid is a holy sacrement!
> ********************************************

[Dakota]

This 'Jesus and Moe' comic is particularly apt for this thread.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2013/02/13/aids2/

[Dakota]

On 2/15/2013 8:51 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <9bhsh8lnqimdca6uo...@4ax.com>,
> default <no...@noname.net> wrote:
> ...
>>> Sort of like switching from Coke to Pepsi. Nobody really cares except for
>>> the Coke and Pepsi companies (and their stockholders).
>>
>> Evangelical Pentecostal ain't Pepsi. Much worse IMO.
>
> I guess you must be close enough to it to see a difference.
> Dedicated cola drinkers feel the same way - they can definitely tell the
> difference between Coke, Pepsi, and RC (in a blindfolded taste test).
>
> But from my distant vantage point, they all look the same. All religions
> are equally poisonous.
>

American Evangelical Pentecostals are encouraging their African
counterparts to murder "witches" and gays like the Bible says. I'm not
sure if they're doing the same thing in South America but it wouldn't
surprise me.

[W.T.S.]

In article <kfme1p$3m5$1...@dont-email.me>, ma...@NOSPAMmail.com says...

It wouldn't surprise me either. Where religious belief goes, the light
of day goes out, doorways are darkened, lives are diminished, suffering
and death follows.
The news reports of the results of the special brands of hate,
intolerance and bigotry evangelicals pedal is sickening. It's almost
like reading the history of the dark ages.
One can only hope the populations of these countries come to their
senses someday. But, by that time, it'll be far too late for so very
many.

[Smiler]

It looks like a lampshade to me.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

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

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[default]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:40:21 -0600, Robert Parker
<robpa...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:44:31 +0000 (UTC), gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny
>McCormack) wrote:
>

>>In article <7801fc84-569a-47ce...@nu2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>>SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>On Feb 14, 5:18�pm, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/abtomm5
>>>>
>>>> In Brazil, the population is slowly waking up to the sickness and
>>>> degeneracy of catholicism.
>>>
>>>And joining the pentacostals instead. *Big* improvement. Not.
>>
>>Well, it is an improvement. Not a big one, but ...
>>
>>Sort of like switching from Coke to Pepsi. Nobody really cares except for
>>the Coke and Pepsi companies (and their stockholders).
>

>Actually having experience with both cults locally, I believe the
>catlickers are lesser evil.

You might want to qualify that with "in today's day and age," or
something similar. This kinder gentler Catholicism is relatively
recent given their long despicable history.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <fs4vh8tpajbfln5os...@4ax.com>, default

• My vote goes to Catholicism because I have never had a death threat
from a Catholic.

[Kenny McCormack]

Lucky you. Presumably, you were born in the 20th Century, quite late in RCC
history (as the previous poster was noting).

Also note this: Most mobsters are Catholic.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <kfoilv$ko8$1...@news.xmission.com>, gaz...@shell.xmission.com

• indeed Kenny, Had I been born in the 17th Century I'd be toast.

[Patrick]

Any organization with a billion members - that has lasted 2000 years
is sure to have some skeletons in the closet.
Tell me that you don't, defo.... Tell me.

[Tim Howard]

On 2/14/2013 10:18 PM, SkyEyes wrote:
> On Feb 14, 5:18 pm, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/abtomm5
>>
>> In Brazil, the population is slowly waking up to the sickness and
>> degeneracy of catholicism.
>
> And joining the pentacostals instead. *Big* improvement. Not.

right. Here is a graph showing the change in religious attitudes of
Brazilians.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/02/15/world/americas/15brazil-graphic.html

[•RLMeasures]

In article <1o40i8pel8nl8nptl...@4ax.com>, Patrick

• 2000-yrs? History tells us that it's centuries less. Mary wasn't
promoted to the "Mother of God" until the 5th Century.

[W.T.S.]

In article <1o40i8pel8nl8nptl...@4ax.com>, pbarker001
@woh.rr.com says...

Not too many organizations in the last 2,000 years have claimed to speak
with the voice of "God", to be the bedrock of morality, and other
exclusive claims, such as a direct line to "God" and of being error free
in all things. All of this has now been shown to be just so much crap.
How many other lies has the Church told, how many other mistakes has it
made?

[duke]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:47 +0000 (UTC), gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny

It all depends on how many skin wrinkles he has. Haahaahaa.

The dukester, American - American

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

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

[default]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 11:52:09 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

> I'd be toast.

Mutilated toast.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <rpr1i85pabqglqaco...@4ax.com>, default

• Not likely. Before 1830, when the Holy Office of the Inquisition was
in the business of burning people in public, the holy men were very
careful not to shed any of the victim's blood because that violated Canon
Law.

[Patrick]

Pick a year, any year.... it's your dime.

[Patrick]

W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Not too many organizations in the last 2,000 years have claimed to speak
>with the voice of "God", to be the bedrock of morality, and other
>exclusive claims, such as a direct line to "God" and of being error free
>in all things.

Not too many?
Hey, I don't know of any organization that has made those claims.
Maybe your fag buddies Jim Jones or David Koresch.

[W.T.S.]

In article <8092i8pof63gkhltf...@4ax.com>, pbarker001
@woh.rr.com says...

The Catholic Church has made each of those claims for the past 2,000
years. Do you dispute that?

[Patrick]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:53:59 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>In article <8092i8pof63gkhltf...@4ax.com>, pbarker001
>@woh.rr.com says...
>> W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Not too many organizations in the last 2,000 years have claimed to speak
>> >with the voice of "God", to be the bedrock of morality, and other
>> >exclusive claims, such as a direct line to "God" and of being error free
>> >in all things.
>>
>> Not too many?
>> Hey, I don't know of any organization that has made those claims.
>> Maybe your fag buddies Jim Jones or David Koresch.
>The Catholic Church has made each of those claims for the past 2,000
>years. Do you dispute that?

Yup.
Prove it.
With evidence.
Verifiable evidence.
Any evidence whatsoever.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:38:33 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

It's hilarious to see you asking for evidence when you have such a long
history of ignoring all evidence that does not fit your dogma and making
false claims about what evidence is.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <nu82i89q4kd9qpb8n...@4ax.com>, Patrick

• The RCC became a force to be reasoned with during the reign of Pope
Gregory I, a.k.a. "Gregory the Great" (590-604). He invented Purgatory
and intoduced Latin into church rituals.

[Patrick]

What about Constantine?
He is the one who formulated the Bible.
I'll pick that year.

[Patrick]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:53:59 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>In article <8092i8pof63gkhltf...@4ax.com>, pbarker001
>@woh.rr.com says...
>> W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Not too many organizations in the last 2,000 years have claimed to speak
>> >with the voice of "God", to be the bedrock of morality, and other
>> >exclusive claims, such as a direct line to "God" and of being error free
>> >in all things.
>>
>> Not too many?
>> Hey, I don't know of any organization that has made those claims.
>> Maybe your fag buddies Jim Jones or David Koresch.

>The Catholic Church has made each of those claims for the past 2,000
>years. Do you dispute that?

Yup.
Prove it.

[Patrick]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:03:47 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

You are the one who demands evidence.
I am merely playing your game.
What's wrong?
Do you NOW wish to change the rules?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:33:44 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>

You mock only yourself with your hatred of knowledge and celebration of
ignorance and foolishness.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <g213i899mvg39a8ka...@4ax.com>, Patrick

• nothing like Gregory the Great.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <l513i8deljgc13h8h...@4ax.com>,

Evidence is not a game. Reality is not a game. Delusion is not a game.

> What's wrong?
> Do you NOW wish to change the rules?

I agree. If we demand evidence from someone, we should be prepared to
present our evidence if asked. We know the trolls think it's a game and
that they can score points (and deflect from the evidence they cannot
provide) by showing that we are hypocrites, too. And the snottier they
are about it, the more essential it is do what we expect them to, if for
no other reason than to show them how it's done.

Know where your evidence is when you participate in a conversation with
a troll and present it immediately when it's demanded. (Of course, it
will be ignored or misread due to brain damage.) But once you elimimate
the deflection attempt, you can go back to demanding evidence with a
clear conscience.



S

--
JD

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

[W.T.S.]

In article <3tf2i85o3r41bphns...@4ax.com>, pbarker001
@woh.rr.com says...

How about the pronouncements of the Catholic Church for the past 2,000
years?

[W.T.S.]

In article <dch2i8dt8p0gh1dvh...@4ax.com>,
lu...@nofreelunch.us says...

Excellent points.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:34:34 +0000
Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:45:22 -0600, Dakota wrote:
> > On 2/14/2013 8:53 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> > goddess wrote:
> >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:47:58 -0800
> >> John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:18:49 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>

> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/abtomm5
> >>>>
> >>>> In Brazil, the population is slowly waking up to the sickness and
> >>>> degeneracy of catholicism.
> >>>

> >>> ...one of these days we're gonna start seeing all those funny
> >>> hats in hock shops !
> >>
> >> I hope the white one in this picture is sold with the scepter, it
> >> seems to make the biggest statement:
> >>
> >> http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/204-Silly-Hats-Only.jpg
> >>
> >> Alternate link: http://www.moourl.com/tojoq
> >>
> >> Which hat in that picture is your favourite, and why? (Or if you
> >> know of a similar picture with better hats, please post the link
> >> in a reply.)
> >>
> > The big white one seems the most preposterous. Any idea which
> > particular mythology that guy favors?
>
> It looks like a lampshade to me.

Ha ha! Perhaps he sees too much light?

(Your comment reminds me of the South Park episode with the ATF and the
scene where Mr. Mackey wears an actual lamp shade at his own party.)

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Let us pray it is not so, or if it is, that it will not become widely
known."
-- Wife of the Bishop of Exeter [on hearing of Darwin's theory of
the common descent of humans and apes]

[Patrick]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:03:47 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

[Patrick]

I have provided evidence.
I have provided references.
I have informed you that I would be willing to mail you evidence.
You just whine and ignore all this.
This IS a Game to you.
When presented with evidence, you refuse to accept it.

>We know the trolls think it's a game and
>that they can score points (and deflect from the evidence they cannot
>provide) by showing that we are hypocrites, too.

Then, you must be a troll.
You ask for and then deny any evidence provided.
You can't even describe the type of evidence that you will accept.

>And the snottier they
>are about it, the more essential it is do what we expect them to, if for
>no other reason than to show them how it's done.

Since you accept NO evidence, why do you demand it?
I ask you what evidence you would accept, and you ignore me.
EVERY SINGLE TIME>

>Know where your evidence is when you participate in a conversation with
>a troll and present it immediately when it's demanded. (Of course, it
>will be ignored or misread due to brain damage.) But once you elimimate
>the deflection attempt, you can go back to demanding evidence with a
>clear conscience.

Present some evidence.
But............. be prepared to accept like evidence.
You are the hypocrite here.
You refuse the same type evidence that you provide.

And you wonder why I keep demanding that YOU provide evidence.
Your whining about just looking back at history....
What a crock.

[Patrick]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:32:00 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>

wrote:

>In article <3tf2i85o3r41bphns...@4ax.com>, pbarker001
>@woh.rr.com says...
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:53:59 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <8092i8pof63gkhltf...@4ax.com>, pbarker001
>> >@woh.rr.com says...
>> >> W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Not too many organizations in the last 2,000 years have claimed to speak
>> >> >with the voice of "God", to be the bedrock of morality, and other
>> >> >exclusive claims, such as a direct line to "God" and of being error free
>> >> >in all things.
>> >>
>> >> Not too many?
>> >> Hey, I don't know of any organization that has made those claims.
>> >> Maybe your fag buddies Jim Jones or David Koresch.
>> >The Catholic Church has made each of those claims for the past 2,000
>> >years. Do you dispute that?
>>
>> Yup.
>> Prove it.
>> With evidence.
>> Verifiable evidence.
>> Any evidence whatsoever.
>How about the pronouncements of the Catholic Church for the past 2,000
>years?

Do you have any references to your claims?
Or... are you like the others.... demanding evidence but unable to
provide any of your own. You are the loozer here.

[duke]

This doctrine that many who have died are still in a place of purification and
that prayers avail to help the dead is part of the very earliest Christian
tradition.

[duke]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:31:34 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>>• The RCC became a force to be reasoned with during the reign of Pope
>>Gregory I, a.k.a. "Gregory the Great" (590-604). He invented Purgatory
>>and intoduced Latin into church rituals.
>
>What about Constantine?
>He is the one who formulated the Bible.
>I'll pick that year.

This doctrine that many who have died are still in a place of purification and
that prayers avail to help the dead is part of the very earliest Christian
tradition.

RL has a really serious problem with making up stories.

[duke]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:33:09 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

>

>I agree. If we demand evidence from someone, we should be prepared to
>present our evidence if asked.

You as major troll can only ask questions like a 3 year old.

[W.T.S.]

In article <a184i8trro4sgom4v...@4ax.com>, pbarker001
@woh.rr.com says...

That is exactly like trying to prove the sun rises and sets. If you
dispute the character of the Catholic Church and its observed behavior,
you must be out of your mind.

[W.T.S.]

In article <fd84i85vaie1e3tiu...@4ax.com>, pbarker001

Anyone who uses birth control or condoms will go to Hell, pronouncement
of the Catholic Church

[•RLMeasures]

In article <1a94i89quleaehfb8...@4ax.com>, duke

• Latin became the RC's universal tongue in the year 600 when Gregory the
Great was on the throne of Peter.

[Patrick]

W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> Do you have any references to your claims?
>> Or... are you like the others.... demanding evidence but unable to
>> provide any of your own. You are the loozer here.

>Anyone who uses birth control or condoms will go to Hell, pronouncement
>of the Catholic Church

Since I know you are lying, you should stop right here.
You make a claim with no evidence.
Go pound sand.

[default]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 08:27:33 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <rpr1i85pabqglqaco...@4ax.com>, default
><no...@noname.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 11:52:09 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>> > I'd be toast.
>>
>> Mutilated toast.
>
>• Not likely. Before 1830, when the Holy Office of the Inquisition was
>in the business of burning people in public, the holy men were very
>careful not to shed any of the victim's blood because that violated Canon
>Law.

That may have been in the protocol, but would a little blood slow down
an inquisitor hot on the trail of heresy? And some of the tools look
like they were specifically designed to puncture skin.

I know they transferred the execution of sentence to the civil
authorities so they could pretend their hands were clean, but the idea
that no blood was shed is hard to swallow.

[default]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 08:27:33 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <rpr1i85pabqglqaco...@4ax.com>, default
><no...@noname.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 11:52:09 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>> > I'd be toast.
>>
>> Mutilated toast.
>
>• Not likely. Before 1830, when the Holy Office of the Inquisition was
>in the business of burning people in public, the holy men were very
>careful not to shed any of the victim's blood because that violated Canon
>Law.

The ministers of religion, the spiritual courts, the Inquisition
itself rendered no judgments of blood. Any ecclesiastic who might be
concerned in them incurred "irregularity" requiring a dispensation
before he could validly perform his functions or obtain preferment.
The execution of heretics was a matter purely of secular law and
burning them alive is not prescribed in canon or decretal

" No cleric shall utter or dictate a sentence of blood, or exercise
capital jurisdiction, or be present where it is exercised. Nor shall a
cleric write or dictate letters concerning judgements of blood. Nor
shall a subdeacon, deacon or priest practise surgery involving cutting
or cautery."--Ibid. Cap. 9 (Concil. Lateran. IV).


In time the cardinals of the Roman Inquisition were beset with similar
scruples and, to relieve their consciences, Pius V, October 9, 1567,
granted a decree empowering them to participate in sentences of blood
without incurring irregularity. (24) This applied only to Italy....

http://libro.uca.edu/lea3/7lea4.htm


Makes it sound like the basic precept is that clerics did not engage
in blood letting, but then they just need a "dispensation" to do so.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:20:47 +0000 (UTC)
gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
> In article <r-1602130...@10.0.1.3>, RLMeasures <r...@somis.org>
> wrote:
> >In article <fs4vh8tpajbfln5os...@4ax.com>, default

> ><no...@noname.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:40:21 -0600, Robert Parker
> >> <robpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:44:31 +0000 (UTC),
> >> >gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
> >> >>In article
> ><7801fc84-569a-47ce...@nu2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >>SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >>>On Feb 14, 5:18 pm, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/abtomm5
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> In Brazil, the population is slowly waking up to the sickness
> >> >>>> and degeneracy of catholicism.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>And joining the pentacostals instead. *Big* improvement. Not.
> >> >>
> >> >>Well, it is an improvement. Not a big one, but ...
> >> >>
> >> >>Sort of like switching from Coke to Pepsi. Nobody really cares
> >> >>except for the Coke and Pepsi companies (and their stockholders).
> >> >
> >> >Actually having experience with both cults locally, I believe the
> >> >catlickers are lesser evil.
> >>
> >> You might want to qualify that with "in today's day and age," or
> >> something similar. This kinder gentler Catholicism is relatively
> >> recent given their long despicable history.
> >

> >• My vote goes to Catholicism because I have never had a death
> >threat from a Catholic.
>
> Lucky you. Presumably, you were born in the 20th Century, quite late
> in RCC history (as the previous poster was noting).
>
> Also note this: Most mobsters are Catholic.

Admiration for the world's largest crime syndicate may be an additional
factor in their choice of religion as well.

> --
> (This discussion group is about C, ...)
>
> Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
> about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
> off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood
> traumas of the participants...

Nice insight! And indeed there are many childhood traumas to be
discussed, a good portion of which involve religious imposition.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"To you, she's beautiful. To me, there's only my wife and son."
-- Vito Corleone (while watching an Italian opera)

[Patrick]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:01:50 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net>

In other words, your proof is unverifiable.
Your proof isn't even observable.
Except (perhaps) by people who are wearing rose tinted glasses.
Besides, you.... who makes such outrageous claims?
In writing? In texts? In peer reviewed documents?

[Dakota]

On 2/18/2013 10:28 AM, default wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 08:27:33 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>
>> In article <rpr1i85pabqglqaco...@4ax.com>, default
>> <no...@noname.net> wrote:
>>

>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 11:52:09 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd be toast.
>>>
>>> Mutilated toast.
>>

>> � Not likely. Before 1830, when the Holy Office of the Inquisition was

>> in the business of burning people in public, the holy men were very
>> careful not to shed any of the victim's blood because that violated Canon
>> Law.
>
> That may have been in the protocol, but would a little blood slow down
> an inquisitor hot on the trail of heresy? And some of the tools look
> like they were specifically designed to puncture skin.
>
> I know they transferred the execution of sentence to the civil
> authorities so they could pretend their hands were clean, but the idea
> that no blood was shed is hard to swallow.
>

The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology exhaustively covers the
Inquisition's rules and tools. Many of the tools did indeed puncture
the skin.

http://tinyurl.com/bjz2chc

[duke]

Purgatory has been mentioned since 33AD.

The dukester, American - American

[•RLMeasures]

In article <m5l4i8d4jiljqcrcv...@4ax.com>, default

<no...@noname.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 08:27:33 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <rpr1i85pabqglqaco...@4ax.com>, default
> ><no...@noname.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 11:52:09 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'd be toast.
> >>
> >> Mutilated toast.
> >
> >• Not likely. Before 1830, when the Holy Office of the Inquisition was
> >in the business of burning people in public, the holy men were very
> >careful not to shed any of the victim's blood because that violated Canon
> >Law.
>
> That may have been in the protocol, but would a little blood slow down
> an inquisitor hot on the trail of heresy?

• when he slipped on it?

>And some of the tools look
> like they were specifically designed to puncture skin.
>
> I know they transferred the execution of sentence to the civil
> authorities so they could pretend their hands were clean, but the idea
> that no blood was shed is hard to swallow.

• burning required 2 cords of wood, decapitation would have been cheaper.
There was a reason they spent more money?

[�RLMeasures]

In article <nql4i817d9forroq6...@4ax.com>, default

� the gladiator sport's popularity made them okay with it?

>
> http://libro.uca.edu/lea3/7lea4.htm
>
>
> Makes it sound like the basic precept is that clerics did not engage
> in blood letting, but then they just need a "dispensation" to do so.

� chortle.

[Don Martin]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:01:12 -0600, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/18/2013 10:28 AM, default wrote:

>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 08:27:33 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <rpr1i85pabqglqaco...@4ax.com>, default
>>> <no...@noname.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 11:52:09 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd be toast.
>>>>
>>>> Mutilated toast.
>>>

>>> � Not likely. Before 1830, when the Holy Office of the Inquisition was

>>> in the business of burning people in public, the holy men were very
>>> careful not to shed any of the victim's blood because that violated Canon
>>> Law.
>>
>> That may have been in the protocol, but would a little blood slow down
>> an inquisitor hot on the trail of heresy? And some of the tools look
>> like they were specifically designed to puncture skin.
>>
>> I know they transferred the execution of sentence to the civil
>> authorities so they could pretend their hands were clean, but the idea
>> that no blood was shed is hard to swallow.
>>
>The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology exhaustively covers the
>Inquisition's rules and tools. Many of the tools did indeed puncture
>the skin.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/bjz2chc

And some, without puncturing skin, created other anatomical
amusements, like forcing the eyeballs out of their sockets and onto
the cheeks of the "person of interest."

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Dakota]

On 2/18/2013 1:44 PM, Don Martin wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:01:12 -0600, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/18/2013 10:28 AM, default wrote:

>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 08:27:33 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <rpr1i85pabqglqaco...@4ax.com>, default
>>>> <no...@noname.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 11:52:09 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd be toast.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mutilated toast.
>>>>

>>>> � Not likely. Before 1830, when the Holy Office of the Inquisition was

>>>> in the business of burning people in public, the holy men were very
>>>> careful not to shed any of the victim's blood because that violated Canon
>>>> Law.
>>>
>>> That may have been in the protocol, but would a little blood slow down
>>> an inquisitor hot on the trail of heresy? And some of the tools look
>>> like they were specifically designed to puncture skin.
>>>
>>> I know they transferred the execution of sentence to the civil
>>> authorities so they could pretend their hands were clean, but the idea
>>> that no blood was shed is hard to swallow.
>>>
>> The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology exhaustively covers the
>> Inquisition's rules and tools. Many of the tools did indeed puncture
>> the skin.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/bjz2chc
>
> And some, without puncturing skin, created other anatomical
> amusements, like forcing the eyeballs out of their sockets and onto
> the cheeks of the "person of interest."
>
> --
>
> aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
> BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
> Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
> The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
>

Waterboarding was one of their inventions as well.

[Don Martin]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:23:47 -0600, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>

wrote:

>On 2/18/2013 1:44 PM, Don Martin wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:01:12 -0600, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/18/2013 10:28 AM, default wrote:

>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 08:27:33 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <rpr1i85pabqglqaco...@4ax.com>, default
>>>>> <no...@noname.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 11:52:09 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd be toast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mutilated toast.
>>>>>

>>>>> � Not likely. Before 1830, when the Holy Office of the Inquisition was

>>>>> in the business of burning people in public, the holy men were very
>>>>> careful not to shed any of the victim's blood because that violated Canon
>>>>> Law.
>>>>
>>>> That may have been in the protocol, but would a little blood slow down
>>>> an inquisitor hot on the trail of heresy? And some of the tools look
>>>> like they were specifically designed to puncture skin.
>>>>
>>>> I know they transferred the execution of sentence to the civil
>>>> authorities so they could pretend their hands were clean, but the idea
>>>> that no blood was shed is hard to swallow.
>>>>
>>> The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology exhaustively covers the
>>> Inquisition's rules and tools. Many of the tools did indeed puncture
>>> the skin.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/bjz2chc
>>
>> And some, without puncturing skin, created other anatomical
>> amusements, like forcing the eyeballs out of their sockets and onto
>> the cheeks of the "person of interest."

>>

>Waterboarding was one of their inventions as well.

Some of the liveliest minds of the renaissance were devoted to
extracting the truth from heretics. Not necessarily the whole truth,
but an amount sufficient for turning them over to the secular
authorities.

[Andrew W]

"Patrick" <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4nf4i8tvpsim3uigs...@4ax.com

Patrick pretends ignorance regarding the claims of his church, but doesn't
realise that he's relegating his church to standing for absolutely nothing.
What a dumbo.
Ever heard of Papal bulls etc?


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

[•RLMeasures]

In article <41v4i8ddn8f0p049i...@4ax.com>, duke

• So why did Gregory the Great announce it in the year 600CE?

[Patrick]

Cough one up that comes close to the outrageous claims you spew.
Oh.......... that's right... you don't know any.
You are merely lying ONE MORE TIME.

[Smiler]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:25:15 -0800, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent

If you tweek his nose, does the light come on?

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

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

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[duke]

I don't know. It's clearly revealed in scripture 600 years before. And of
course referenced in Abraham's Bosom some 1000 years before that.

[vivapa...@aol.com]

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:18:49 PM UTC-8, W.T.S. wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/abtomm5
>
>
>
> In Brazil, the population is slowly waking up to the sickness and
>
> degeneracy of catholicism.

http://www.exorcism.com

[�RLMeasures]

In article <jkv6i89of2qjtqrvk...@4ax.com>, duke

� so popes are semi-infallible.

[duke]

100% so when speaking from the Chair of Peter.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <4iv9i8dfvjukc2gp0...@4ax.com>, duke

• is the pope 100/% infallible in matters of morals?

[Patrick]

(�RLMeasures) wrote:

>� is the pope 100/% infallible in matters of morals?

C'mon, arl....

[duke]

You're terribly confused, rl. Well, nothing new there unfortunately.

The Pope can ONLY speak infallibly if addressing issues of faith and morals. And
the ex-cathedra statement MUST fully be in accordance with REVEALED Holy
Scripture. That's why the ONLY two statements ever both involve the BVM.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <op5ci895nbbjhtbqo...@4ax.com>, Patrick

• no way out?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <os6ci817ud3fnculs...@4ax.com>, duke

• a yes or a no would have worked.

>
> The Pope can ONLY speak infallibly if addressing issues of faith and
morals. And
> the ex-cathedra statement MUST fully be in accordance with REVEALED Holy
> Scripture. That's why the ONLY two statements ever both involve the BVM.
>
>

• so the pope could be wrong about morals?

[Mike Painter]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 05:42:27 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:

<snip>

>> >>
>> >> 100% so when speaking from the Chair of Peter.
>> >>
>> >� is the pope 100/% infallible in matters of morals?
>>
>> You're terribly confused, rl. Well, nothing new there unfortunately.
>
>� a yes or a no would have worked.
>>
>> The Pope can ONLY speak infallibly if addressing issues of faith and
>morals. And
>> the ex-cathedra statement MUST fully be in accordance with REVEALED Holy
>> Scripture. That's why the ONLY two statements ever both involve the BVM.
>>
>>
>� so the pope could be wrong about morals?

Relying on Earl for what the church teaches is like relying on Patrick
for what the church teaches.

E.G. It is faith OR morals.

" Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesi� Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define
that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he
speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor
and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic
authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held
by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in
Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the
Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining
doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such
definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the
consent of the Church irreformable."

He did get it right when he said that Mary was the only time it's been
done.

That includes the revelation of the pope being infallible "This
doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of
1869�1870, but had been defended before that, appearing already in
medieval tradition and becoming the majority opinion at the time of
the Counter-Reformation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

So it was an opinion before they decided it was not.
Women priests, birth control, married priests, meat on Friday,
touching the consecrated host...
all were or are forbidden by the church but if those claims do not
fall under faith or morals what can be said about them.

The church is an experienced political body and will never speak on
such matters, only on past events that can't be verified.

[default]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 05:42:27 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:

>> >� is the pope 100/% infallible in matters of morals?

>>
>> You're terribly confused, rl. Well, nothing new there unfortunately.
>
>� a yes or a no would have worked.

Not when one is defending a losing position.

>>
>> The Pope can ONLY speak infallibly if addressing issues of faith and
>morals. And
>> the ex-cathedra statement MUST fully be in accordance with REVEALED Holy
>> Scripture. That's why the ONLY two statements ever both involve the BVM.
>>
>>
>� so the pope could be wrong about morals?

The religiously inculcated don't/won't engage in rational discourse.
Their "argument" is only to bolster and justify their own delusion, it
isn't meant to be an honest attempt to understand another('s)
position.

If you can get P to admit that the pope could be wrong that would open
the field to other admissions that might threaten his "faith." Good
luck with that.

[Patrick]

default <no...@noname.net> wrote:
>If you can get P to admit that the pope could be wrong that would open
>the field to other admissions that might threaten his "faith." Good
>luck with that.

If you are speaking about me, I openly admit that the pope could be
wrong. about the weather, his memory, etc.
An infallible pronouncement made by the pope is made only when some
doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been
doubted by the large majority of Catholics.
Some (such as yourself) ask how popes can be infallible if some of
them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the
common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no
guarantee that popes won't sin or give bad example. (The truly
remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy
throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they
are so rare.)

[duke]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 05:42:27 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:

>> The Pope can ONLY speak infallibly if addressing issues of faith and
>morals. And
>> the ex-cathedra statement MUST fully be in accordance with REVEALED Holy
>> Scripture. That's why the ONLY two statements ever both involve the BVM.

>� so the pope could be wrong about morals?

Is his statement in line with scripture? Answer that one and we can discuss.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <9osei8lns463quban...@4ax.com>, default

• chortle. TBRC's let the Church do their thinking for them. They
interpret any detailed discussion their beliefs as "Catholic bashing" -
and that is definitely a faith-builder, so few escape their psychological
grip.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <ss4fi8hehssm63rtq...@4ax.com>, Patrick

• if "God" directs the RCC as claimed, there would have been no
philandering popes like John XII et cetera.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <r17fi8pp4nqjcnspo...@4ax.com>, duke

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

> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 05:42:27 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >> The Pope can ONLY speak infallibly if addressing issues of faith and
> >morals. And
> >> the ex-cathedra statement MUST fully be in accordance with REVEALED Holy
> >> Scripture. That's why the ONLY two statements ever both involve the BVM.
>
> >� so the pope could be wrong about morals?
>
> Is his statement in line with scripture? Answer that one and we can discuss.
>
>

� There is nothing in Scripture about the BVM being miraculously beamed
up to Heaven. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that Mary was
conceived without semen.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4iv9i8dfvjukc2gp0...@4ax.com

> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:48:22 -0800, r...@somis.org (.RLMeasures) wrote:
>
>> In article <jkv6i89of2qjtqrvk...@4ax.com>, duke
>> <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>

>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:17:50 -0800, r...@somis.org (.RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <41v4i8ddn8f0p049i...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>> <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 06:48:09 -0800, r...@somis.org (.RLMeasures)

>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <1a94i89quleaehfb8...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>>>> <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:32:32 -0800, r...@somis.org (.RLMeasures)
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Purgatory has been mentioned since 33AD.
>>>>>

>>>> . So why did Gregory the Great announce it in the year 600CE?

>>>
>>> I don't know. It's clearly revealed in scripture 600 years before.
>>> And of course referenced in Abraham's Bosom some 1000 years before
>>> that.
>

>> . so popes are semi-infallible.

>
> 100% so when speaking from the Chair of Peter.
>

Oh yes, the magic chair.
Thank goodness for that magic chair of infallibility!
Chortle.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:r17fi8pp4nqjcnspo...@4ax.com

> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 05:42:27 -0800, r...@somis.org (.RLMeasures) wrote:
>
>>> The Pope can ONLY speak infallibly if addressing issues of faith
>>> and morals. And the ex-cathedra statement MUST fully be in
>>> accordance with REVEALED Holy Scripture. That's why the ONLY two
>>> statements ever both involve the BVM.
>

>> . so the pope could be wrong about morals?

>
> Is his statement in line with scripture? Answer that one and we can
> discuss.
>

That will never be answered by you or anyone.
That means the credibility of the Vatican will forever be up in the air.

[Andrew W]

"Patrick" <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message

news:ss4fi8hehssm63rtq...@4ax.com

> default <no...@noname.net> wrote:
>> If you can get P to admit that the pope could be wrong that would
>> open the field to other admissions that might threaten his "faith."
>> Good luck with that.
>
> If you are speaking about me, I openly admit that the pope could be
> wrong. about the weather, his memory, etc.
>

Everything, just like every other human.

>
> An infallible pronouncement made by the pope is made only when some
> doctrine has been called into question.
>

And how does he achive this magical infalibility?
And how can it be verified?

>
Most doctrines have never been
> doubted by the large majority of Catholics.
>

Of course they haven't. Most Catholics just gullibly believe everything he
says in these matters even though there's no way to tell how true they are.
Only the intelligent person questions.

>
> Some (such as yourself) ask how popes can be infallible if some of
> them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the
> common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no
> guarantee that popes won't sin or give bad example. (The truly
> remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy
> throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they
> are so rare.)
>

They weren't so rare.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:os6ci817ud3fnculs...@4ax.com

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:44:07 -0800, r...@somis.org (.RLMeasures) wrote:
>
>> In article <4iv9i8dfvjukc2gp0...@4ax.com>, duke
>> <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>

>>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:48:22 -0800, r...@somis.org (.RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <jkv6i89of2qjtqrvk...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>> <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:17:50 -0800, r...@somis.org (.RLMeasures)

>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <41v4i8ddn8f0p049i...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>>>> <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 06:48:09 -0800, r...@somis.org (.RLMeasures)

>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <1a94i89quleaehfb8...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>>>>>> <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:32:32 -0800, r...@somis.org (.RLMeasures)
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pick a year, any year.... it's your dime.
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> . The RCC became a force to be reasoned with during the

>>>>>>>>>> reign
>> of Pope
>>>>>>>>>> Gregory I, a.k.a. "Gregory the Great" (590-604). He
>>>>>>>>>> invented Purgatory and intoduced Latin into church rituals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This doctrine that many who have died are still in a place of
>>>>>>>>> purification and that prayers avail to help the dead is part
>>>>>>>>> of the very earliest Christian tradition.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> . Latin became the RC's universal tongue in the year 600 when

>> Gregory the
>>>>>>>> Great was on the throne of Peter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Purgatory has been mentioned since 33AD.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>> . So why did Gregory the Great announce it in the year 600CE?

>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know. It's clearly revealed in scripture 600 years
>>>>> before. And of course referenced in Abraham's Bosom some 1000
>>>>> years before that.
>>>

>>>> . so popes are semi-infallible.

>>>
>>> 100% so when speaking from the Chair of Peter.
>>>

>> . is the pope 100/% infallible in matters of morals?

>
> You're terribly confused, rl. Well, nothing new there unfortunately.
>
> The Pope can ONLY speak infallibly if addressing issues of faith and
> morals.
>

Any proof of this magical infallibly?

>
And the ex-cathedra statement MUST fully be in accordance
> with REVEALED Holy Scripture.
>

Scripture is highly open to interpretation so that would be rather flimsy.

>
That's why the ONLY two statements
> ever both involve the BVM.
>

Whatever that is.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <kg95r8$a2s$1...@dont-email.me>, "Andrew W"

� Hubris, the humanoid's Achilles' heel.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <kg971h$eqr$1...@dont-email.me>, "Andrew W"

• "Take it as a rule, the nearer a nation dwells to the Roman Curia, the
less religion it has." -- Niccolò Machiavelli

[�RLMeasures]

In article <kg98ej$ktp$1...@dont-email.me>, "Andrew W"

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

> "Patrick" <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:ss4fi8hehssm63rtq...@4ax.com
> > default <no...@noname.net> wrote:
> >> If you can get P to admit that the pope could be wrong that would
> >> open the field to other admissions that might threaten his "faith."
> >> Good luck with that.
> >
> > If you are speaking about me, I openly admit that the pope could be
> > wrong. about the weather, his memory, etc.
> >
>
> Everything, just like every other human.
>
> >
> > An infallible pronouncement made by the pope is made only when some
> > doctrine has been called into question.
> >
>
> And how does he achive this magical infalibility?
> And how can it be verified?
>
> >
>> Most doctrines have never been
> > doubted by the large majority of Catholics.
> >
>
> Of course they haven't. Most Catholics just gullibly believe everything he
> says in these matters even though there's no way to tell how true they are.

� Birth Control seems to be the exception with the RC women I know since
they know what actually works and what does not.

>
> >
> > Some (such as yourself) ask how popes can be infallible if some of
> > them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the
> > common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no
> > guarantee that popes won't sin or give bad example. (The truly
> > remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy
> > throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they
> > are so rare.)
> >
>
> They weren't so rare.

� Indeed. The number of anti-popes is in the dozens prior to 1439.
[Vicars of Christ, Peter Derosa]

[�RLMeasures]

In article <kg99qg$qdr$1...@dont-email.me>, "Andrew W"

� Blessed Virgin Mary - however there is nothing in Scripture to indicate
that she ever switched from Judaism to Catholicism or that she was beamed
up into Heaven.

[Patrick]

Who makes this claim?
Do you have a reference?

[Patrick]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:11:14 +1100, "Andrew W" >

>>
>> An infallible pronouncement made by the pope is made only when some
>> doctrine has been called into question.
>>
>
>And how does he achive this magical infalibility?
>And how can it be verified?

When you become a Catholic, we'll give you the answer.
And, we might even give you the "secret" handshake.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <e9ghi8p2v3ren14jf...@4ax.com>, Patrick

• the Church of Rome.

> Do you have a reference?
>

• The RCC advertises the pope as the "Vicar of Christ."

[Patrick]

OK then.
Any more?

[Mike Painter]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:52:16 -0500, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

"CCC, 80�81, 84�86". is one place.


I must agree with Patrick's confused idea about the RCC. Thee are no
Gods so man is the only director of the church.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <7u3ii85fr13gn7s6f...@4ax.com>, Patrick

• "the vicar of Christ" means there is for damn sure there only one.
The RCC also clsims to be the one true apostolic church.
"By their fruits you will know them".

[SkyEyes]

On Feb 23, 4:02 am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> In article <kg95r8$a2...@dont-email.me>, "Andrew W"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <remove_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message

> >news:4iv9i8dfvjukc2gp0...@4ax.com
> > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:48:22 -0800, r...@somis.org (.RLMeasures) wrote:
>

> > >> In article <jkv6i89of2qjtqrvk5bdb6bj656441n...@4ax.com>, duke

> > >> <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:17:50 -0800, r...@somis.org (.RLMeasures) wrote:
>

> > >>>> In article <41v4i8ddn8f0p049itbfm65v678k6n9...@4ax.com>, duke

> > >>>> <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 06:48:09 -0800, r...@somis.org (.RLMeasures)
> > >>>>> wrote:
>

> > >>>>>> In article <1a94i89quleaehfb89lleuhfi4vpbe9...@4ax.com>, duke

> > >>>>>> <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:32:32 -0800, r...@somis.org (.RLMeasures)
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Purgatory has been mentioned since 33AD.
>
> > >>>> .  So why did Gregory the Great announce it in the year 600CE?
>
> > >>> I don't know.  It's clearly revealed in scripture 600 years before.
> > >>> And of course referenced in Abraham's Bosom some 1000 years before
> > >>> that.
>
> > >> .  so popes are semi-infallible.
>
> > > 100% so when speaking from the Chair of Peter.
>
> > Oh yes, the magic chair.
> > Thank goodness for that magic chair of infallibility!
> > Chortle.
>
>  Hubris, the humanoid's Achilles' heel.

Like Al Pacino's character - the Devil - said in _Devil's Advocate_,
"Pride has always been my favorite sin!"

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