Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Stumbled upon an interesting Catholic sect.
2 views
Skip to first unread message
default
May 24, 2013, 8:04:19 AM5/24/13
to
That claims they have papal authorization and they mint their own
priests and that includes women....
http://www.spiritofhopecatholiccommunity.org/FAQ.html
They call themselves:
Old Catholic Church and Spirit of Hope Independent Catholic Community
this is like church sanctioned heretics....
Their charter:
Dominus Iesus
At the Vatican on 16 June 2000, Pope John Paul II ratified and ordered
the publication of Dominus Iesus. This Declaration of the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith was signed and published by Joseph
Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) in August of the same year.
In this Declaration, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the validity
of Orders and Sacraments of Old Catholic denominations: "The Churches
which, while not existing in perfect communion with the [Roman]
Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds,
that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true
particular Churches." "Therefore, these separated Churches and
communities as such ... have by no means been deprived of significance
and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ
has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive
their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to
the Catholic Church." IV. Unicity and Unity of the Church, 17
priests and that includes women....
http://www.spiritofhopecatholiccommunity.org/FAQ.html
They call themselves:
Old Catholic Church and Spirit of Hope Independent Catholic Community
this is like church sanctioned heretics....
Their charter:
Dominus Iesus
At the Vatican on 16 June 2000, Pope John Paul II ratified and ordered
the publication of Dominus Iesus. This Declaration of the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith was signed and published by Joseph
Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) in August of the same year.
In this Declaration, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the validity
of Orders and Sacraments of Old Catholic denominations: "The Churches
which, while not existing in perfect communion with the [Roman]
Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds,
that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true
particular Churches." "Therefore, these separated Churches and
communities as such ... have by no means been deprived of significance
and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ
has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive
their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to
the Catholic Church." IV. Unicity and Unity of the Church, 17
PATRICK
May 24, 2013, 8:15:42 AM5/24/13
to
default <no...@noname.net> wrote:
>That claims they have papal authorization and they mint their own
>priests and that includes women....
>http://www.spiritofhopecatholiccommunity.org/FAQ.html
>They call themselves:
>Old Catholic Church and Spirit of Hope Independent Catholic Community
>this is like church sanctioned heretics....
Catholics have long believed that they do not hold the ONLY keys to
>That claims they have papal authorization and they mint their own
>priests and that includes women....
>http://www.spiritofhopecatholiccommunity.org/FAQ.html
>They call themselves:
>Old Catholic Church and Spirit of Hope Independent Catholic Community
>this is like church sanctioned heretics....
heaven. There certainly must be many non-Catholics in heaven. Perhaps
there are EVEN some Baptists in heaven, along with Muslims, and Jews.
duke
May 25, 2013, 7:09:07 AM5/25/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:15:42 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> default <no...@noname.net> wrote:
>>That claims they have papal authorization and they mint their own
>>priests and that includes women....
>>http://www.spiritofhopecatholiccommunity.org/FAQ.html
>>They call themselves:
>>Old Catholic Church and Spirit of Hope Independent Catholic Community
>>this is like church sanctioned heretics....
>
>Catholics have long believed that they do not hold the ONLY keys to
>heaven.
Once a defo, always an idiot.
> default <no...@noname.net> wrote:
>>That claims they have papal authorization and they mint their own
>>priests and that includes women....
>>http://www.spiritofhopecatholiccommunity.org/FAQ.html
>>They call themselves:
>>Old Catholic Church and Spirit of Hope Independent Catholic Community
>>this is like church sanctioned heretics....
>
>Catholics have long believed that they do not hold the ONLY keys to
>heaven.
>There certainly must be many non-Catholics in heaven. Perhaps
>there are EVEN some Baptists in heaven, along with Muslims, and Jews.
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************
default
May 25, 2013, 7:58:37 AM5/25/13
to
salvation without belonging to "the one true church" (you guessed it
the rcc).
They tweaked that some 50 years ago to actually admit that people that
don't believe in "the one true church" but believe in Christ might
also be "saved."
That was extended to include other religions, that don't believe in
Christ.
In a very recent (last wednesday) about face (otherwise known as
doctrinal hypocrisy) they even allow that good people who have no
religion at all can go to their heaven.
(Washington Times) Pope Francis has sparked a religious debate with
comments made earlier this week confirming atheists can indeed go to
heaven.
Apparently infallibility is a big crock of feces.
AND now you don't even have to believe in a god to be saved by him!
BUT THIS IS A CATHOLIC, PAPALLY SANCTIONED CHURCH, THAT ORDAINS WOMEN
PRIESTS AND THAT IS A DIFFERENT KETTLE OF FISH ENTIRELY.
--
PATRICK
May 25, 2013, 9:13:42 AM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 07:58:37 -0400, default <def...@nowhere.net>
wrote:
>On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:15:42 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>> default <no...@noname.net> wrote:
>>>That claims they have papal authorization and they mint their own
>>>priests and that includes women....
>>>http://www.spiritofhopecatholiccommunity.org/FAQ.html
>>>They call themselves:
>>>Old Catholic Church and Spirit of Hope Independent Catholic Community
>>>this is like church sanctioned heretics....
>>
>>Catholics have long believed that they do not hold the ONLY keys to
>>heaven. There certainly must be many non-Catholics in heaven. Perhaps
>>there are EVEN some Baptists in heaven, along with Muslims, and Jews.
>
>Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus: for centuries meant that there was no
>salvation without belonging to "the one true church" (you guessed it
>the rcc).
I'm sure you could have referenced your little ditty .
For some reason you did not.
I wonder why.
>They tweaked that some 50 years ago to actually admit that people that
>don't believe in "the one true church" but believe in Christ might
>also be "saved."
>That was extended to include other religions, that don't believe in
>Christ.
>In a very recent (last wednesday) about face (otherwise known as
>doctrinal hypocrisy) they even allow that good people who have no
>religion at all can go to their heaven.
>(Washington Times) Pope Francis has sparked a religious debate with
>comments made earlier this week confirming atheists can indeed go to
>heaven.
Well then, I guess he has fallen in line with me.
He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
>Apparently infallibility is a big crock of feces.
Your "ditty" was not infallible dogma.
>AND now you don't even have to believe in a god to be saved by him!
Don't worry, you are not on the preferred list.
>BUT THIS IS A CATHOLIC, PAPALLY SANCTIONED CHURCH, THAT ORDAINS WOMEN
>PRIESTS AND THAT IS A DIFFERENT KETTLE OF FISH ENTIRELY.
Is that considered "infallible?
Infallibility
The Catholic Church's teaching on papal infallibility is one which is
generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular,
Fundamentalists, atheists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse
the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They
imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this
elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or
magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.
What is it that you believe?
Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that
belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the
body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope,
they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus
himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops,
the magisterium of the Church: "He who
hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the
bishops (Matt. 16:17-19; John 21:15-17). As Vatican II remarked, it is
a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the
supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his
brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act
some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of
themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held
irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy
Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared
in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the
early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has
developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the
doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John
21:15-17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you
that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . .
. ").
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
An infallible pronouncement-whether made by the pope alone or by an
ecumenical council-usually is made only when some doctrine has been
called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the
large majority of Catholics.
Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of
which have never been formally defined. But many points have been
defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many
major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an
infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible
pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium
(teaching authority) of the Church.
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.)
Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his
Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out
of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy,
then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus'
Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it
solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true.
wrote:
>On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:15:42 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>> default <no...@noname.net> wrote:
>>>That claims they have papal authorization and they mint their own
>>>priests and that includes women....
>>>http://www.spiritofhopecatholiccommunity.org/FAQ.html
>>>They call themselves:
>>>Old Catholic Church and Spirit of Hope Independent Catholic Community
>>>this is like church sanctioned heretics....
>>
>>Catholics have long believed that they do not hold the ONLY keys to
>>heaven. There certainly must be many non-Catholics in heaven. Perhaps
>>there are EVEN some Baptists in heaven, along with Muslims, and Jews.
>
>Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus: for centuries meant that there was no
>salvation without belonging to "the one true church" (you guessed it
>the rcc).
For some reason you did not.
I wonder why.
>They tweaked that some 50 years ago to actually admit that people that
>don't believe in "the one true church" but believe in Christ might
>also be "saved."
>That was extended to include other religions, that don't believe in
>Christ.
>In a very recent (last wednesday) about face (otherwise known as
>doctrinal hypocrisy) they even allow that good people who have no
>religion at all can go to their heaven.
>(Washington Times) Pope Francis has sparked a religious debate with
>comments made earlier this week confirming atheists can indeed go to
>heaven.
He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
>Apparently infallibility is a big crock of feces.
>AND now you don't even have to believe in a god to be saved by him!
>BUT THIS IS A CATHOLIC, PAPALLY SANCTIONED CHURCH, THAT ORDAINS WOMEN
>PRIESTS AND THAT IS A DIFFERENT KETTLE OF FISH ENTIRELY.
Infallibility
The Catholic Church's teaching on papal infallibility is one which is
generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular,
Fundamentalists, atheists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse
the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They
imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this
elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or
magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.
What is it that you believe?
Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that
belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the
body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope,
they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus
himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops,
the magisterium of the Church: "He who
hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the
bishops (Matt. 16:17-19; John 21:15-17). As Vatican II remarked, it is
a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the
supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his
brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act
some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of
themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held
irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy
Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared
in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the
early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has
developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the
doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John
21:15-17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you
that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . .
. ").
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
An infallible pronouncement-whether made by the pope alone or by an
ecumenical council-usually is made only when some doctrine has been
called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the
large majority of Catholics.
Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of
which have never been formally defined. But many points have been
defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many
major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an
infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible
pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium
(teaching authority) of the Church.
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.)
Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his
Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out
of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy,
then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus'
Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it
solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true.
ala...@hotmail.co.uk
May 25, 2013, 2:23:06 PM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 11:13 pm, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 07:58:37 -0400, default <defa...@nowhere.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:15:42 -0400, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com>
> >wrote:
> >They tweaked that some 50 years ago to actually admit that people that
> >don't believe in "the one true church" but believe in Christ might
> >also be "saved."
> >That was extended to include other religions, that don't believe in
> >Christ.
> >In a very recent (last wednesday) about face (otherwise known as
> >doctrinal hypocrisy) they even allow that good people who have no
> >religion at all can go to their heaven.
> >(Washington Times) Pope Francis has sparked a religious debate with
> >comments made earlier this week confirming atheists can indeed go to
> >heaven.
>
> Well then, I guess he has fallen in line with me.
> He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
So where does this leave Duke with his insistence that only those who
have been baptized can go to heaven? So who do we believe, you and the
pope? Or Duke?
>
> >AND now you don't even have to believe in a god to be saved by him!
>
Satan is licking his lips, eh, Dukie? Looks like you, Dukie, are gonna
be the only person in heaven. Not even the pope is gonna get there.
You people are cat-lady crazy, the whole effin lot of you.
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 07:58:37 -0400, default <defa...@nowhere.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:15:42 -0400, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com>
> >wrote:
> >They tweaked that some 50 years ago to actually admit that people that
> >don't believe in "the one true church" but believe in Christ might
> >also be "saved."
> >That was extended to include other religions, that don't believe in
> >Christ.
> >In a very recent (last wednesday) about face (otherwise known as
> >doctrinal hypocrisy) they even allow that good people who have no
> >religion at all can go to their heaven.
> >(Washington Times) Pope Francis has sparked a religious debate with
> >comments made earlier this week confirming atheists can indeed go to
> >heaven.
>
> Well then, I guess he has fallen in line with me.
> He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
have been baptized can go to heaven? So who do we believe, you and the
pope? Or Duke?
>
> >AND now you don't even have to believe in a god to be saved by him!
>
be the only person in heaven. Not even the pope is gonna get there.
You people are cat-lady crazy, the whole effin lot of you.
PATRICK
May 25, 2013, 5:51:12 PM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:23:06 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>On May 25, 11:13 pm, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 07:58:37 -0400, default <defa...@nowhere.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> >On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:15:42 -0400, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com>
>> >wrote:
>
>
>
>> >They tweaked that some 50 years ago to actually admit that people that
>> >don't believe in "the one true church" but believe in Christ might
>> >also be "saved."
>> >That was extended to include other religions, that don't believe in
>> >Christ.
>> >In a very recent (last wednesday) about face (otherwise known as
>> >doctrinal hypocrisy) they even allow that good people who have no
>> >religion at all can go to their heaven.
>> >(Washington Times) Pope Francis has sparked a religious debate with
>> >comments made earlier this week confirming atheists can indeed go to
>> >heaven.
>>
>> Well then, I guess he has fallen in line with me.
>> He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
>
>So where does this leave Duke with his insistence that only those who
>have been baptized can go to heaven? So who do we believe, you and the
>pope? Or Duke?
Listen to me.
>On May 25, 11:13 pm, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 07:58:37 -0400, default <defa...@nowhere.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> >On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:15:42 -0400, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com>
>> >wrote:
>
>
>
>> >They tweaked that some 50 years ago to actually admit that people that
>> >don't believe in "the one true church" but believe in Christ might
>> >also be "saved."
>> >That was extended to include other religions, that don't believe in
>> >Christ.
>> >In a very recent (last wednesday) about face (otherwise known as
>> >doctrinal hypocrisy) they even allow that good people who have no
>> >religion at all can go to their heaven.
>> >(Washington Times) Pope Francis has sparked a religious debate with
>> >comments made earlier this week confirming atheists can indeed go to
>> >heaven.
>>
>> Well then, I guess he has fallen in line with me.
>> He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
>
>So where does this leave Duke with his insistence that only those who
>have been baptized can go to heaven? So who do we believe, you and the
>pope? Or Duke?
Moses was not baptised by water.
I am pretty sure he is in heaven.
No one up to the time of Jesus was ever baptised by water.
I can't believe there is no one in heaven who lived before Jesus.
Hundreds of thousands of very good men have lived and died and have
never been informed about Jesus. I can't believe that none of them
ever made it to heaven.
But then, I do not speak for the RCC or for Duke.
I am merely telling you that I trust that my Creator has opened the
gates to those people who are worthy.
What have you done to be considered worthy?
Oh..... that's right. You act like an ass hole on this newsgroup.
Do you feel you are currying favor with the Big Guy?
Let me know about your thoughts on this....
>> >AND now you don't even have to believe in a god to be saved by him!
>>
>
>Satan is licking his lips, eh, Dukie? Looks like you, Dukie, are gonna
>be the only person in heaven. Not even the pope is gonna get there.
>
>You people are cat-lady crazy, the whole effin lot of you.
I have been know to be a cat person in the past.
However, not since 1997.
ala...@hotmail.co.uk
May 25, 2013, 9:37:31 PM5/25/13
to
On May 26, 7:51 am, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> Moses was not baptised by water.
> I am pretty sure he is in heaven.
Listen to me. How in heck would you know whether or not Moses is in
heaven? Serious question.
> No one up to the time of Jesus was ever baptised by water.
> I can't believe there is no one in heaven who lived before Jesus.
Seriously, what you believe, and what you WANT to believe, has no
effect whatsoever on who god decides to let into heaven.
> Hundreds of thousands of very good men have lived and died and have
> never been informed about Jesus. I can't believe that none of them
> ever made it to heaven.
See above. You don't get to make the rules, paddy. You get no say on
what ought to be, and what ought not to be, and god* is not influenced
in his decision-making by what you or any other human feels is right
or wrong.
> But then, I do not speak for the RCC or for Duke.
> I am merely telling you that I trust that my Creator has opened the
> gates to those people who are worthy.
But you have no idea at all. All you can do is make lame statements to
the effect that the traditional teaching of the RCC, that un-baptized
souls can't get into heaven, seems a little harsh to you. Well, boo
hoo, if you can't accept the traditional teachings of the RCC, then
get out. Just get out.
That's the same advice you give to other catholic dissenters, isn't
it? Take your own advice, Paddy.
> What have you done to be considered worthy?
> Oh..... that's right. You act like an ass hole on this newsgroup.
How is that any different to how YOU behave, Paddy?
> Do you feel you are currying favor with the Big Guy?
> Let me know about your thoughts on this....
There is no "big guy", Paddy. It's all a fairy story for children, and
for adults who have childish minds.
100 (and counting) breeding cats living with her in a small apartment
without any regard for practicality or hygiene or humane-ness or
anything else, hence "cat-lady crazy". Google can be your friend.
OK. I'll bite. What happened to you in 1997 to make you less enamored
of cats?
*assuming purely for the purposes of argument that it exists, which it
doesn't.
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:23:06 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On May 25, 11:13 pm, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 25 May 2013 07:58:37 -0400, default <defa...@nowhere.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:15:42 -0400, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com>
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >They tweaked that some 50 years ago to actually admit that people that
> >> >don't believe in "the one true church" but believe in Christ might
> >> >also be "saved."
> >> >That was extended to include other religions, that don't believe in
> >> >Christ.
> >> >In a very recent (last wednesday) about face (otherwise known as
> >> >doctrinal hypocrisy) they even allow that good people who have no
> >> >religion at all can go to their heaven.
> >> >(Washington Times) Pope Francis has sparked a religious debate with
> >> >comments made earlier this week confirming atheists can indeed go to
> >> >heaven.
>
> >> Well then, I guess he has fallen in line with me.
> >> He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
>
> >So where does this leave Duke with his insistence that only those who
> >have been baptized can go to heaven? So who do we believe, you and the
> >pope? Or Duke?
>
> Listen to me.
I'm all ears, just for you, Paddy. I only have ears for you. :)
> >On May 25, 11:13 pm, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 25 May 2013 07:58:37 -0400, default <defa...@nowhere.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:15:42 -0400, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com>
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >They tweaked that some 50 years ago to actually admit that people that
> >> >don't believe in "the one true church" but believe in Christ might
> >> >also be "saved."
> >> >That was extended to include other religions, that don't believe in
> >> >Christ.
> >> >In a very recent (last wednesday) about face (otherwise known as
> >> >doctrinal hypocrisy) they even allow that good people who have no
> >> >religion at all can go to their heaven.
> >> >(Washington Times) Pope Francis has sparked a religious debate with
> >> >comments made earlier this week confirming atheists can indeed go to
> >> >heaven.
>
> >> Well then, I guess he has fallen in line with me.
> >> He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
>
> >So where does this leave Duke with his insistence that only those who
> >have been baptized can go to heaven? So who do we believe, you and the
> >pope? Or Duke?
>
> Listen to me.
> Moses was not baptised by water.
> I am pretty sure he is in heaven.
heaven? Serious question.
> No one up to the time of Jesus was ever baptised by water.
> I can't believe there is no one in heaven who lived before Jesus.
effect whatsoever on who god decides to let into heaven.
> Hundreds of thousands of very good men have lived and died and have
> never been informed about Jesus. I can't believe that none of them
> ever made it to heaven.
what ought to be, and what ought not to be, and god* is not influenced
in his decision-making by what you or any other human feels is right
or wrong.
> But then, I do not speak for the RCC or for Duke.
> I am merely telling you that I trust that my Creator has opened the
> gates to those people who are worthy.
the effect that the traditional teaching of the RCC, that un-baptized
souls can't get into heaven, seems a little harsh to you. Well, boo
hoo, if you can't accept the traditional teachings of the RCC, then
get out. Just get out.
That's the same advice you give to other catholic dissenters, isn't
it? Take your own advice, Paddy.
> What have you done to be considered worthy?
> Oh..... that's right. You act like an ass hole on this newsgroup.
> Do you feel you are currying favor with the Big Guy?
> Let me know about your thoughts on this....
for adults who have childish minds.
>
> >> >AND now you don't even have to believe in a god to be saved by him!
>
> >Satan is licking his lips, eh, Dukie? Looks like you, Dukie, are gonna
> >be the only person in heaven. Not even the pope is gonna get there.
>
> >You people are cat-lady crazy, the whole effin lot of you.
>
> Cat-lady?
> I have been know to be a cat person in the past.
> However, not since 1997.
A "cat-lady" is a middle-aged or elderly lady who has anywhere up to
> >> >AND now you don't even have to believe in a god to be saved by him!
>
> >Satan is licking his lips, eh, Dukie? Looks like you, Dukie, are gonna
> >be the only person in heaven. Not even the pope is gonna get there.
>
> >You people are cat-lady crazy, the whole effin lot of you.
>
> Cat-lady?
> I have been know to be a cat person in the past.
> However, not since 1997.
100 (and counting) breeding cats living with her in a small apartment
without any regard for practicality or hygiene or humane-ness or
anything else, hence "cat-lady crazy". Google can be your friend.
OK. I'll bite. What happened to you in 1997 to make you less enamored
of cats?
*assuming purely for the purposes of argument that it exists, which it
doesn't.
default
May 26, 2013, 7:19:33 AM5/26/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:13:42 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
knowledge. Or you are one of these idiots that only believe the last
thing the pope has said and conveniently forget what a pope said in
the past. Lot of those idiots in the faith I suppose.
believers went to hell. Don't try to change history, my memory is
stirling, and the Internet never forgets.
are: the profession of faith of Pope Innocent III (1208), the
profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the bull
Unam sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII (1302), and the profession of faith
of the Council of Florence (1442). The axiom "No salvation outside the
Church" has been frequently repeated over the centuries in different
terms by the ordinary magisterium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
am, death is not." A good expression for coming to terms with
mortality. Life goes on, we do not. The natural order of things.
understand.
since they discovered that no one on earth can accept the idea that
popes are infallible.
--
wrote:
>On Sat, 25 May 2013 07:58:37 -0400, default <def...@nowhere.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:15:42 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> default <no...@noname.net> wrote:
>>>>That claims they have papal authorization and they mint their own
>>>>priests and that includes women....
>>>>http://www.spiritofhopecatholiccommunity.org/FAQ.html
>>>>They call themselves:
>>>>Old Catholic Church and Spirit of Hope Independent Catholic Community
>>>>this is like church sanctioned heretics....
>>>
>>>Catholics have long believed that they do not hold the ONLY keys to
>>>heaven. There certainly must be many non-Catholics in heaven. Perhaps
>>>there are EVEN some Baptists in heaven, along with Muslims, and Jews.
>>
>>Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus: for centuries meant that there was no
>>salvation without belonging to "the one true church" (you guessed it
>>the rcc).
>
>I'm sure you could have referenced your little ditty .
>For some reason you did not.
>I wonder why.
Because you are old enough to know from experience and it is common
>On Sat, 25 May 2013 07:58:37 -0400, default <def...@nowhere.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:15:42 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> default <no...@noname.net> wrote:
>>>>That claims they have papal authorization and they mint their own
>>>>priests and that includes women....
>>>>http://www.spiritofhopecatholiccommunity.org/FAQ.html
>>>>They call themselves:
>>>>Old Catholic Church and Spirit of Hope Independent Catholic Community
>>>>this is like church sanctioned heretics....
>>>
>>>Catholics have long believed that they do not hold the ONLY keys to
>>>heaven. There certainly must be many non-Catholics in heaven. Perhaps
>>>there are EVEN some Baptists in heaven, along with Muslims, and Jews.
>>
>>Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus: for centuries meant that there was no
>>salvation without belonging to "the one true church" (you guessed it
>>the rcc).
>
>I'm sure you could have referenced your little ditty .
>For some reason you did not.
>I wonder why.
knowledge. Or you are one of these idiots that only believe the last
thing the pope has said and conveniently forget what a pope said in
the past. Lot of those idiots in the faith I suppose.
>
>
>>They tweaked that some 50 years ago to actually admit that people that
>>don't believe in "the one true church" but believe in Christ might
>>also be "saved."
>>That was extended to include other religions, that don't believe in
>>Christ.
>>In a very recent (last wednesday) about face (otherwise known as
>>doctrinal hypocrisy) they even allow that good people who have no
>>religion at all can go to their heaven.
>>(Washington Times) Pope Francis has sparked a religious debate with
>>comments made earlier this week confirming atheists can indeed go to
>>heaven.
>
>Well then, I guess he has fallen in line with me.
>He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
You are the BS artist that said more than once that you believe non
>
>>They tweaked that some 50 years ago to actually admit that people that
>>don't believe in "the one true church" but believe in Christ might
>>also be "saved."
>>That was extended to include other religions, that don't believe in
>>Christ.
>>In a very recent (last wednesday) about face (otherwise known as
>>doctrinal hypocrisy) they even allow that good people who have no
>>religion at all can go to their heaven.
>>(Washington Times) Pope Francis has sparked a religious debate with
>>comments made earlier this week confirming atheists can indeed go to
>>heaven.
>
>Well then, I guess he has fallen in line with me.
>He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
believers went to hell. Don't try to change history, my memory is
stirling, and the Internet never forgets.
>
>
>>Apparently infallibility is a big crock of feces.
>
>Your "ditty" was not infallible dogma.
>
Some of the most pertinent Roman Catholic expressions of this doctrine
>
>>Apparently infallibility is a big crock of feces.
>
>Your "ditty" was not infallible dogma.
>
are: the profession of faith of Pope Innocent III (1208), the
profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the bull
Unam sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII (1302), and the profession of faith
of the Council of Florence (1442). The axiom "No salvation outside the
Church" has been frequently repeated over the centuries in different
terms by the ordinary magisterium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
>
>
>>AND now you don't even have to believe in a god to be saved by him!
>
>Don't worry, you are not on the preferred list.
I have no cause to worry. "Where there is death, I am not. Where I
>
>>AND now you don't even have to believe in a god to be saved by him!
>
>Don't worry, you are not on the preferred list.
am, death is not." A good expression for coming to terms with
mortality. Life goes on, we do not. The natural order of things.
>
>
>>BUT THIS IS A CATHOLIC, PAPALLY SANCTIONED CHURCH, THAT ORDAINS WOMEN
>>PRIESTS AND THAT IS A DIFFERENT KETTLE OF FISH ENTIRELY.
>
>Is that considered "infallible?
Pope mutters regarding doctrine and it is infallible. Very simple to
>
>>BUT THIS IS A CATHOLIC, PAPALLY SANCTIONED CHURCH, THAT ORDAINS WOMEN
>>PRIESTS AND THAT IS A DIFFERENT KETTLE OF FISH ENTIRELY.
>
>Is that considered "infallible?
understand.
>
>Infallibility
>
>The Catholic Church's teaching on papal infallibility is one which is
>generally misunderstood by those outside the Church.
Snipped the copy and paste BS that the church has been using ever
>Infallibility
>
>The Catholic Church's teaching on papal infallibility is one which is
>generally misunderstood by those outside the Church.
since they discovered that no one on earth can accept the idea that
popes are infallible.
--
duke
May 26, 2013, 8:02:09 AM5/26/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:23:06 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>On May 25, 11:13 pm, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 07:58:37 -0400, default <defa...@nowhere.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> >On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:15:42 -0400, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com>
>> >wrote:
>
>
>
>> >They tweaked that some 50 years ago to actually admit that people that
>> >don't believe in "the one true church" but believe in Christ might
>> >also be "saved."
>> >That was extended to include other religions, that don't believe in
>> >Christ.
>> >In a very recent (last wednesday) about face (otherwise known as
>> >doctrinal hypocrisy) they even allow that good people who have no
>> >religion at all can go to their heaven.
>> >(Washington Times) Pope Francis has sparked a religious debate with
>> >comments made earlier this week confirming atheists can indeed go to
>> >heaven.
>>
>> Well then, I guess he has fallen in line with me.
>> He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
>So where does this leave Duke with his insistence that only those who
>have been baptized can go to heaven? So who do we believe, you and the
>pope? Or Duke?
Oh, that still holds. Jesus plainly said it. You're trying to divorce
>On May 25, 11:13 pm, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 07:58:37 -0400, default <defa...@nowhere.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> >On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:15:42 -0400, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com>
>> >wrote:
>
>
>
>> >They tweaked that some 50 years ago to actually admit that people that
>> >don't believe in "the one true church" but believe in Christ might
>> >also be "saved."
>> >That was extended to include other religions, that don't believe in
>> >Christ.
>> >In a very recent (last wednesday) about face (otherwise known as
>> >doctrinal hypocrisy) they even allow that good people who have no
>> >religion at all can go to their heaven.
>> >(Washington Times) Pope Francis has sparked a religious debate with
>> >comments made earlier this week confirming atheists can indeed go to
>> >heaven.
>>
>> Well then, I guess he has fallen in line with me.
>> He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
>So where does this leave Duke with his insistence that only those who
>have been baptized can go to heaven? So who do we believe, you and the
>pope? Or Duke?
"atheism" from "life style". A good person who lives the life style directed
by God, but who calls himself an atheist, "can" be saved. But not is you carry
a lifetime of unrepentant and un confessed sin dripping form your soul.
Remember, God well stated that "only the pure will stand face to face with him".
The rest are already in another "home", a very hot one.
>> >AND now you don't even have to believe in a god to be saved by him!
>Satan is licking his lips, eh, Dukie? Looks like you, Dukie, are gonna
>be the only person in heaven. Not even the pope is gonna get there.
>You people are cat-lady crazy, the whole effin lot of you.
PATRICK
May 26, 2013, 3:40:43 PM5/26/13
to
You sometimes think you are clever until I kick your ass.
Then you go and hide again for a while.
>> Moses was not baptised by water.
>> I am pretty sure he is in heaven.
>
>Listen to me. How in heck would you know whether or not Moses is in
>heaven? Serious question.
Serious Answer.
Matthew 17:3
Since I am pretty sure that Jesus is the Savior and the Son of God, I
am sure He would not meet here on earth with someone who had been sent
to Hell.
>> No one up to the time of Jesus was ever baptised by water.
>> I can't believe there is no one in heaven who lived before Jesus.
>
>Seriously, what you believe, and what you WANT to believe, has no
>effect whatsoever on who god decides to let into heaven.
Now, you are starting to get it.
I am merely one believer.
And you are less than that.
>> Hundreds of thousands of very good men have lived and died and have
>> never been informed about Jesus. �I can't believe that none of them
>> ever made it to heaven.
>
>See above. You don't get to make the rules, paddy. You get no say on
>what ought to be, and what ought not to be, and god* is not influenced
>in his decision-making by what you or any other human feels is right
>or wrong.
I am merely telling you what I personally believe.
I could give a rats ass whether this affects you at all.
Don't ask a question, if you can't stand the answer.
>> But then, I do not speak for the RCC or for Duke.
>> I am merely telling you that I trust that my Creator has opened the
>> gates to those people who are worthy.
>
>But you have no idea at all.
This seems very obvious.
You have no idea.
You don't have a clue bag to put a clue in if you ever had a clue.
That is why you are here.
Asking the wise ones.... looking for answers.....
Keep asking your questions. We will answer.
> All you can do is make lame statements to
>the effect that the traditional teaching of the RCC, that un-baptized
>souls can't get into heaven, seems a little harsh to you. Well, boo
>hoo, if you can't accept the traditional teachings of the RCC, then
>get out. Just get out.
always considered correct. These traditional teachers have fooled you
idiots throughout history about certain beliefs, and they will
continue to bedazzle you and show you shiney things that you will
chase after. I am entertained by it all.
Jump, alven, jump.
>That's the same advice you give to other catholic dissenters, isn't
Just because there is different discussions going on doesn't mean that
you should just give up. Make your own new group. Make up your own
rules. That is what the South did. We kicked their asses. Just as
we kicked yours in 1776 and 1812.
> What have you done to be considered worthy?
>> Oh..... that's right. �You act like an ass hole on this newsgroup.
>
>How is that any different to how YOU behave, Paddy?
Your purpose here is to insult, find fault, and pretend to be clever.
>> Do you feel you are currying favor with the Big Guy?
>> Let me know about your thoughts on this....
>
>There is no "big guy", Paddy. It's all a fairy story for children, and
Tell me that in a hunert years.
I'll be waiting.
>> >You people are cat-lady crazy, the whole effin lot of you.
>>
>> Cat-lady?
>> I have been know to be a cat person in the past.
>> However, not since 1997.
>
>A "cat-lady" is a middle-aged or elderly lady who has anywhere up to
>100 (and counting) breeding cats living with her in a small apartment
>without any regard for practicality or hygiene or humane-ness or
>anything else, hence "cat-lady crazy". Google can be your friend.
>OK. I'll bite. What happened to you in 1997 to make you less enamored
>of cats?>*assuming purely for the purposes of argument that it exists, which it
>doesn't.
I retired and moved.
And I travel too much treat a pet with what it should be given.
PATRICK
May 26, 2013, 3:57:45 PM5/26/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 07:19:33 -0400, default <def...@nowhere.net>
I am also old enough to know that some people use references that were
written 1000 years ago by someone claiming to have been knowledgeable.
During the Gulf War, I used to laugh at all the "experts" that CNN And
MSNBC used to throw at the screen, hoping we would swallow their crap.
I find that people who use a partial quote and don't provide the
reference also are hoping I won't look up that reference and make them
look like idiots when I prove the "rest of the story."
>>>They tweaked that some 50 years ago to actually admit that people that
>>>don't believe in "the one true church" but believe in Christ might
>>>also be "saved."
>>>That was extended to include other religions, that don't believe in
>>>Christ.
>>>In a very recent (last wednesday) about face (otherwise known as
>>>doctrinal hypocrisy) they even allow that good people who have no
>>>religion at all can go to their heaven.
>>>(Washington Times) Pope Francis has sparked a religious debate with
>>>comments made earlier this week confirming atheists can indeed go to
>>>heaven.
>>
>>Well then, I guess he has fallen in line with me.
>>He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
>
>You are the BS artist that said more than once that you believe non
>believers went to hell.
Some do.
In fact, many may go to Hell.
However, I certainly will not unequivocally state that all
non-believers will go to Hell. Unless you are the one and only
unbeliever....
> Don't try to change history, my memory is
>stirling, and the Internet never forgets.
And you are not always that accurate.
You are like the rest of the dork look-alikes here now.
You wait and hope and pray that I will say something that can be
twisted into something and then claim you are the "clever one" after
all. You have really gone down hill, defo.
I used to have a higher opinion of you.
Something must have happened in the last few years that has twisted
you into a bitter angry little toad.
I pity you.
>>>Apparently infallibility is a big crock of feces.
>>
>>Your "ditty" was not infallible dogma.
>>
>Some of the most pertinent Roman Catholic expressions of this doctrine
>are: the profession of faith of Pope Innocent III (1208), the
>profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the bull
>Unam sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII (1302), and the profession of faith
>of the Council of Florence (1442). The axiom "No salvation outside the
>Church" has been frequently repeated over the centuries in different
>terms by the ordinary magisterium.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
Actually, that is a true statement.
There is no salvation outside Jesus.
However...........................................
Salvation and Entering Heaven are Not exactly the same thing, are
they? Think about it.
I know this will bug you once you've thought about it, but TOUGH SHIT.
Being "saved" and going to Heaven are two separate things.
I may be saved. However, I do not consider my particular situation
revolves around being saved. I need oxygen to live. I also need some
sort of food in my body to live. Some think they need love in order
to live.
Get back to me on this if you are still pondering.
>>>AND now you don't even have to believe in a god to be saved by him!
>>
>>Don't worry, you are not on the preferred list.
>
>I have no cause to worry. "Where there is death, I am not. Where I
>am, death is not." A good expression for coming to terms with
>mortality. Life goes on, we do not. The natural order of things.
<yawn>
Eat, drink and be merry, huh?
>>>BUT THIS IS A CATHOLIC, PAPALLY SANCTIONED CHURCH, THAT ORDAINS WOMEN
>>>PRIESTS AND THAT IS A DIFFERENT KETTLE OF FISH ENTIRELY.
>>
>>Is that considered "infallible?
>
>Pope mutters regarding doctrine and it is infallible. Very simple to
>understand.
You obviously missed what I wrote last time.
You should read it.
You non-believers like to pull out the ol chick tracts and make silly
claims about the RCC that just are not true. Do we reallly need to go
over this again?
written 1000 years ago by someone claiming to have been knowledgeable.
During the Gulf War, I used to laugh at all the "experts" that CNN And
MSNBC used to throw at the screen, hoping we would swallow their crap.
I find that people who use a partial quote and don't provide the
reference also are hoping I won't look up that reference and make them
look like idiots when I prove the "rest of the story."
>>>They tweaked that some 50 years ago to actually admit that people that
>>>don't believe in "the one true church" but believe in Christ might
>>>also be "saved."
>>>That was extended to include other religions, that don't believe in
>>>Christ.
>>>In a very recent (last wednesday) about face (otherwise known as
>>>doctrinal hypocrisy) they even allow that good people who have no
>>>religion at all can go to their heaven.
>>>(Washington Times) Pope Francis has sparked a religious debate with
>>>comments made earlier this week confirming atheists can indeed go to
>>>heaven.
>>
>>Well then, I guess he has fallen in line with me.
>>He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
>
>You are the BS artist that said more than once that you believe non
>believers went to hell.
In fact, many may go to Hell.
However, I certainly will not unequivocally state that all
non-believers will go to Hell. Unless you are the one and only
unbeliever....
> Don't try to change history, my memory is
>stirling, and the Internet never forgets.
You are like the rest of the dork look-alikes here now.
You wait and hope and pray that I will say something that can be
twisted into something and then claim you are the "clever one" after
all. You have really gone down hill, defo.
I used to have a higher opinion of you.
Something must have happened in the last few years that has twisted
you into a bitter angry little toad.
I pity you.
>>>Apparently infallibility is a big crock of feces.
>>
>>Your "ditty" was not infallible dogma.
>>
>Some of the most pertinent Roman Catholic expressions of this doctrine
>are: the profession of faith of Pope Innocent III (1208), the
>profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the bull
>Unam sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII (1302), and the profession of faith
>of the Council of Florence (1442). The axiom "No salvation outside the
>Church" has been frequently repeated over the centuries in different
>terms by the ordinary magisterium.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
There is no salvation outside Jesus.
However...........................................
Salvation and Entering Heaven are Not exactly the same thing, are
they? Think about it.
I know this will bug you once you've thought about it, but TOUGH SHIT.
Being "saved" and going to Heaven are two separate things.
I may be saved. However, I do not consider my particular situation
revolves around being saved. I need oxygen to live. I also need some
sort of food in my body to live. Some think they need love in order
to live.
Get back to me on this if you are still pondering.
>>>AND now you don't even have to believe in a god to be saved by him!
>>
>>Don't worry, you are not on the preferred list.
>
>I have no cause to worry. "Where there is death, I am not. Where I
>am, death is not." A good expression for coming to terms with
>mortality. Life goes on, we do not. The natural order of things.
Eat, drink and be merry, huh?
>>>BUT THIS IS A CATHOLIC, PAPALLY SANCTIONED CHURCH, THAT ORDAINS WOMEN
>>>PRIESTS AND THAT IS A DIFFERENT KETTLE OF FISH ENTIRELY.
>>
>>Is that considered "infallible?
>
>Pope mutters regarding doctrine and it is infallible. Very simple to
>understand.
You should read it.
You non-believers like to pull out the ol chick tracts and make silly
claims about the RCC that just are not true. Do we reallly need to go
over this again?
default
Jun 15, 2013, 7:09:57 AM6/15/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:57:45 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:
>>I have no cause to worry. "Where there is death, I am not. Where I
>>am, death is not." A good expression for coming to terms with
>>mortality. Life goes on, we do not. The natural order of things.
>
><yawn>
>Eat, drink and be merry, huh?
If that's what you infer from the statement, it only goes to show your
shallow lack of awareness. The statement is simplicity itself -
nothing additional is implied or warranted.
You seem to think that, the same church that by its actions condone
and protect child molesters, killed, maimed, robbed and swindled
throughout (it's less than illustrious history) is at the same time
the sole font of morality for human kind.
If that is your position, it only serves to exhibit your own lack of
innate (or intrinsic) kindness, mercy, compassion, empathy, etc..
Without a soul and without threat of hell, more people would be like
you. I get that.
--
wrote:
>>I have no cause to worry. "Where there is death, I am not. Where I
>>am, death is not." A good expression for coming to terms with
>>mortality. Life goes on, we do not. The natural order of things.
>
><yawn>
>Eat, drink and be merry, huh?
shallow lack of awareness. The statement is simplicity itself -
nothing additional is implied or warranted.
You seem to think that, the same church that by its actions condone
and protect child molesters, killed, maimed, robbed and swindled
throughout (it's less than illustrious history) is at the same time
the sole font of morality for human kind.
If that is your position, it only serves to exhibit your own lack of
innate (or intrinsic) kindness, mercy, compassion, empathy, etc..
Without a soul and without threat of hell, more people would be like
you. I get that.
--
PATRICK
Jun 15, 2013, 8:34:53 AM6/15/13
to
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 07:09:57 -0400, default <def...@nowhere.net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:57:45 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>I have no cause to worry. "Where there is death, I am not. Where I
>>>am, death is not." A good expression for coming to terms with
>>>mortality. Life goes on, we do not. The natural order of things.
>>
>><yawn>
>>Eat, drink and be merry, huh?
>
>If that's what you infer from the statement, it only goes to show your
>shallow lack of awareness. The statement is simplicity itself -
>nothing additional is implied or warranted.
Oh?
Do you mean that you have to go pee once in a while?
>You seem to think that, the same church that by its actions condone
>and protect child molesters, killed, maimed, robbed and swindled
>throughout (it's less than illustrious history) is at the same time
>the sole font of morality for human kind.
No one has ever made that claim.
Except for you whiners outside the window - looking in.
>If that is your position, it only serves to exhibit your own lack of
>innate (or intrinsic) kindness, mercy, compassion, empathy, etc..
Not my position.
Strawman.
>Without a soul and without threat of hell, more people would be like
>you. I get that.
We all have souls.
Didn't you know?
Would you like a definition?
wrote:
>On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:57:45 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>I have no cause to worry. "Where there is death, I am not. Where I
>>>am, death is not." A good expression for coming to terms with
>>>mortality. Life goes on, we do not. The natural order of things.
>>
>><yawn>
>>Eat, drink and be merry, huh?
>
>If that's what you infer from the statement, it only goes to show your
>shallow lack of awareness. The statement is simplicity itself -
>nothing additional is implied or warranted.
Do you mean that you have to go pee once in a while?
>You seem to think that, the same church that by its actions condone
>and protect child molesters, killed, maimed, robbed and swindled
>throughout (it's less than illustrious history) is at the same time
>the sole font of morality for human kind.
Except for you whiners outside the window - looking in.
>If that is your position, it only serves to exhibit your own lack of
>innate (or intrinsic) kindness, mercy, compassion, empathy, etc..
Strawman.
>Without a soul and without threat of hell, more people would be like
>you. I get that.
Didn't you know?
Would you like a definition?
ala...@hotmail.co.uk
Jun 17, 2013, 8:09:10 PM6/17/13
to
On May 27, 5:40 am, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
BAAHAA!! Paddy, you never kick anyone's ass here. That's not your
purpose here, you are only here to demonstrate how much of a dickhead
the average catholic believe-bot is. And you (and duke) always do a
sterling job of that, I must say.
> Then you go and hide again for a while.
"Hide"? Get over yaself loon!
Unlike you and duke, I have a life. OTOH, you and dookie both spend
every day writing dozens of nonsense messages into a usenet group
because you foolishly believe that your god would approve of your
doing so.
Check the Google archives and see just how many articles you pair of
loons post every day.
> >> Moses was not baptised by water.
> >> I am pretty sure he is in heaven.
>
> >Listen to me. How in heck would you know whether or not Moses is in
> >heaven? Serious question.
>
> OK then.
> Serious Answer.
> Matthew 17:3
Don't quote stuff at me from your garbage "holy book".
> Since I am pretty sure that Jesus is the Savior and the Son of God, I
> am sure He would not meet here on earth with someone who had been sent
> to Hell.
You have no evidence that Moses or heaven or jesus or any of that is
anything but figments of imagination.
> >> No one up to the time of Jesus was ever baptised by water.
> >> I can't believe there is no one in heaven who lived before Jesus.
And what you choose to believe or choose not to believe relates to
actual reality how?
This is what you fools are too stupid to understand. You cannot simply
believe things into existence like that!
> >Seriously, what you believe, and what you WANT to believe, has no
> >effect whatsoever on who god decides to let into heaven.
Read it again! And try to understand it.
> Yup.
> Now, you are starting to get it.
Oh, I get it. But you, poor fool, don't have a chance.
> I am merely one believer.
Exactly. And your beliefs and flights of sheer fantasy amount to
exactly nothing as far as reality is concerned.
> And you are less than that.
Not at all. I, who admit to knowing nothing about gods and angels and
demons and heaven and Valhalla etc, am far better off than someone
like you who just makes stuff up, or swallows whole stuff that someone
else has made up.
>
> >> Hundreds of thousands of very good men have lived and died and have
> >> never been informed about Jesus. I can't believe that none of them
> >> ever made it to heaven.
Again, what the hell difference does it make what fantasies you choose
to entertain your miserable psyche with?
None of it has any validity outside the confines of your skull.
Understand that.
> >See above. You don't get to make the rules, paddy. You get no say on
> >what ought to be, and what ought not to be, and god* is not influenced
> >in his decision-making by what you or any other human feels is right
> >or wrong.
Read the above again, and again, until you understand it.
> I don't make any rules.
> I am merely telling you what I personally believe.
> I could give a rats ass whether this affects you at all.
> Don't ask a question, if you can't stand the answer.
But the things you personally believe are utterly absurd, Paddy. They
have no connection at all with reality.
Don't you see that how ever much your fantasies comfort you, they are
at best only a temporary shield from reality.
> >> But then, I do not speak for the RCC or for Duke.
> >> I am merely telling you that I trust that my Creator has opened the
> >> gates to those people who are worthy.
>
> >But you have no idea at all.
>
> Noooooooooooooo.... it is you who has no idea.
We both have no idea whether or not there's more to the universe, or
multiverse, than we mere humans can see. And we have no idea that by
"dying", we will suddenly be able to see that which was hidden from
all of us when we were "alive".
Whatever, none of the nonsense in the OT or the NT or the bagavad gita
has any chance whatever of enlightening us beforehand.
> This seems very obvious.
> You have no idea.
> You don't have a clue bag to put a clue in if you ever had a clue.
> That is why you are here.
> Asking the wise ones.... looking for answers.....
Wise ones? You and Duke? You cannot be serious.
> Keep asking your questions. We will answer.
I hope so. Keep answering. The eventual collapse of the RCC and all
other false belief systems depends on fools like you and Duke
continuing to provide "answers".
> > All you can do is make lame statements to
> >the effect that the traditional teaching of the RCC, that un-baptized
> >souls can't get into heaven, seems a little harsh to you. Well, boo
> >hoo, if you can't accept the traditional teachings of the RCC, then
> >get out. Just get out.
>
> Traditional teachings by traditional teacher human beings is not
> always considered correct.
So get into a religion that teaches what is correct, instead of
remaining in one that teaches stuff that is not correct.
> These traditional teachers have fooled you
> idiots throughout history about certain beliefs,
No, I'm an atheist. You are the type of gullible idiot that has always
been fooled by priests and shamans and gurus and charismatic dictators
etc.
> and they will
> continue to bedazzle you and show you shiney things that you will
> chase after.
No paddy.
I'm an atheist, Paddy. I don't chase shiney [sic] things that are
utterly impossible fantasies. I try to enjoy the here and now, or at
least, try to make the best of it.
> I am entertained by it all.
No, you are one of the dupes. You are comforted by it all. Temporarily
and intermittently. Most of the time, though, you are a miserable,
confused sad individual terrified by and obsessed with the thought of
his own eventual demise. Your desperate aggressive petulant responses
here are ample proof of that.
Snipped some of Paddy's desperate whining.
Till we meet again, bye for now, Paddy, and may your god go with you.
Dave Allen, we miss you. :)
purpose here, you are only here to demonstrate how much of a dickhead
the average catholic believe-bot is. And you (and duke) always do a
sterling job of that, I must say.
> Then you go and hide again for a while.
Unlike you and duke, I have a life. OTOH, you and dookie both spend
every day writing dozens of nonsense messages into a usenet group
because you foolishly believe that your god would approve of your
doing so.
Check the Google archives and see just how many articles you pair of
loons post every day.
> >> Moses was not baptised by water.
> >> I am pretty sure he is in heaven.
>
> >Listen to me. How in heck would you know whether or not Moses is in
> >heaven? Serious question.
>
> OK then.
> Serious Answer.
> Matthew 17:3
> Since I am pretty sure that Jesus is the Savior and the Son of God, I
> am sure He would not meet here on earth with someone who had been sent
> to Hell.
anything but figments of imagination.
> >> No one up to the time of Jesus was ever baptised by water.
> >> I can't believe there is no one in heaven who lived before Jesus.
actual reality how?
This is what you fools are too stupid to understand. You cannot simply
believe things into existence like that!
> >Seriously, what you believe, and what you WANT to believe, has no
> >effect whatsoever on who god decides to let into heaven.
> Yup.
> Now, you are starting to get it.
> I am merely one believer.
exactly nothing as far as reality is concerned.
> And you are less than that.
demons and heaven and Valhalla etc, am far better off than someone
like you who just makes stuff up, or swallows whole stuff that someone
else has made up.
>
> >> Hundreds of thousands of very good men have lived and died and have
> >> never been informed about Jesus. I can't believe that none of them
> >> ever made it to heaven.
to entertain your miserable psyche with?
None of it has any validity outside the confines of your skull.
Understand that.
> >See above. You don't get to make the rules, paddy. You get no say on
> >what ought to be, and what ought not to be, and god* is not influenced
> >in his decision-making by what you or any other human feels is right
> >or wrong.
> I don't make any rules.
> I am merely telling you what I personally believe.
> I could give a rats ass whether this affects you at all.
> Don't ask a question, if you can't stand the answer.
have no connection at all with reality.
Don't you see that how ever much your fantasies comfort you, they are
at best only a temporary shield from reality.
> >> But then, I do not speak for the RCC or for Duke.
> >> I am merely telling you that I trust that my Creator has opened the
> >> gates to those people who are worthy.
>
> >But you have no idea at all.
>
> Noooooooooooooo.... it is you who has no idea.
multiverse, than we mere humans can see. And we have no idea that by
"dying", we will suddenly be able to see that which was hidden from
all of us when we were "alive".
Whatever, none of the nonsense in the OT or the NT or the bagavad gita
has any chance whatever of enlightening us beforehand.
> This seems very obvious.
> You have no idea.
> You don't have a clue bag to put a clue in if you ever had a clue.
> That is why you are here.
> Asking the wise ones.... looking for answers.....
> Keep asking your questions. We will answer.
other false belief systems depends on fools like you and Duke
continuing to provide "answers".
> > All you can do is make lame statements to
> >the effect that the traditional teaching of the RCC, that un-baptized
> >souls can't get into heaven, seems a little harsh to you. Well, boo
> >hoo, if you can't accept the traditional teachings of the RCC, then
> >get out. Just get out.
>
> Traditional teachings by traditional teacher human beings is not
> always considered correct.
remaining in one that teaches stuff that is not correct.
> These traditional teachers have fooled you
> idiots throughout history about certain beliefs,
been fooled by priests and shamans and gurus and charismatic dictators
etc.
> and they will
> continue to bedazzle you and show you shiney things that you will
> chase after.
I'm an atheist, Paddy. I don't chase shiney [sic] things that are
utterly impossible fantasies. I try to enjoy the here and now, or at
least, try to make the best of it.
> I am entertained by it all.
and intermittently. Most of the time, though, you are a miserable,
confused sad individual terrified by and obsessed with the thought of
his own eventual demise. Your desperate aggressive petulant responses
here are ample proof of that.
Snipped some of Paddy's desperate whining.
Till we meet again, bye for now, Paddy, and may your god go with you.
Dave Allen, we miss you. :)
PATRICK
Jun 18, 2013, 8:00:48 AM6/18/13
to
Instead of standing face to face with me, you insult me and turn away.
>> Then you go and hide again for a while.
>
>"Hide"? Get over yaself loon!
week.
>Unlike you and duke, I have a life. OTOH, you and dookie both spend
>every day writing dozens of nonsense messages into a usenet group
>because you foolishly believe that your god would approve of your
>doing so.
How is your Muslim take-over going there in London?
>Check the Google archives and see just how many articles you pair of
>loons post every day.
>> >> Moses was not baptised by water.
>> >> I am pretty sure he is in heaven.
>>
>> >Listen to me. How in heck would you know whether or not Moses is in
>> >heaven? Serious question.
>>
>> OK then.
>> Serious Answer.
>> Matthew 17:3
>
>Don't quote stuff at me from your garbage "holy book".
>And what you choose to believe or choose not to believe relates to
>actual reality how?
>This is what you fools are too stupid to understand. You cannot simply
>believe things into existence like that!
> I, who admit to knowing nothing about gods and angels and
>demons and heaven and Valhalla etc, am far better off than someone
>like you who just makes stuff up, or swallows whole stuff that someone
>else has made up.
Now, you must take responsibility for your own actions.
>> Don't ask a question, if you can't stand the answer.
>
>But the things you personally believe are utterly absurd, Paddy. They
>have no connection at all with reality.
>Whatever, none of the nonsense in the OT or the NT or the bagavad gita
>has any chance whatever of enlightening us beforehand.
>I'm an atheist, Paddy. I don't chase shiney [sic] things that are
>utterly impossible fantasies. I try to enjoy the here and now, or at
>least, try to make the best of it.
Take responsibility for your actions then.
I don't care.
duke
Jun 18, 2013, 8:50:36 AM6/18/13
to
>> >> >> Well then, I guess he has fallen in line with me.
>> >> >> He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
>>
>> >> >So where does this leave Duke with his insistence that only those who
>> >> >have been baptized can go to heaven? So who do we believe, you and the
>> >> >pope? Or Duke?
>>
>> >> Listen to me.
>>
>> >I'm all ears, just for you, Paddy. I only have ears for you. :)
>>
>> I know.
>> You sometimes think you are clever until I kick your ass.
>
>BAAHAA!! Paddy, you never kick anyone's ass here. That's not your
>purpose here, you are only here to demonstrate how much of a dickhead
>the average catholic believe-bot is. And you (and duke) always do a
>sterling job of that, I must say.
>
>> Then you go and hide again for a while.
>
>"Hide"? Get over yaself loon!
>Unlike you and duke, I have a life.
God mandates that we admonish you in this life. What life do you have?
>> >> >> He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
>>
>> >> >So where does this leave Duke with his insistence that only those who
>> >> >have been baptized can go to heaven? So who do we believe, you and the
>> >> >pope? Or Duke?
>>
>> >> Listen to me.
>>
>> >I'm all ears, just for you, Paddy. I only have ears for you. :)
>>
>> I know.
>> You sometimes think you are clever until I kick your ass.
>
>BAAHAA!! Paddy, you never kick anyone's ass here. That's not your
>purpose here, you are only here to demonstrate how much of a dickhead
>the average catholic believe-bot is. And you (and duke) always do a
>sterling job of that, I must say.
>
>> Then you go and hide again for a while.
>
>"Hide"? Get over yaself loon!
>Unlike you and duke, I have a life.
>> >> Moses was not baptised by water.
>> >> I am pretty sure he is in heaven.
>> >Listen to me. How in heck would you know whether or not Moses is in
>> >heaven? Serious question.
>> OK then.
>> Serious Answer.
>> Matthew 17:3
>Don't quote stuff at me from your garbage "holy book".
>> Since I am pretty sure that Jesus is the Savior and the Son of God, I
>> am sure He would not meet here on earth with someone who had been sent
>> to Hell.
>You have no evidence that Moses or heaven or jesus or any of that is
>anything but figments of imagination.
>> >> No one up to the time of Jesus was ever baptised by water.
>> >> I can't believe there is no one in heaven who lived before Jesus.
>And what you choose to believe or choose not to believe relates to
>actual reality how?
>This is what you fools are too stupid to understand. You cannot simply
>believe things into existence like that!
>> And you are less than that.
>Not at all. I, who admit to knowing nothing about gods and angels and
>demons and heaven and Valhalla etc, am far better off than someone
>like you who just makes stuff up, or swallows whole stuff that someone
>else has made up.
>> I don't make any rules.
>> I am merely telling you what I personally believe.
>> I could give a rats ass whether this affects you at all.
>> Don't ask a question, if you can't stand the answer.
>But the things you personally believe are utterly absurd, Paddy. They
>have no connection at all with reality.
no connection with reality. Heeheehee. Give them a chance and every day at
noon, they WILL open mouth and change feet.
>We both have no idea whether or not there's more to the universe
astrophysicists are allowing for a wide open belief in God.
>Whatever, none of the nonsense in the OT or the NT or the bagavad gita
>has any chance whatever of enlightening us beforehand.
>> > All you can do is make lame statements to
>> >the effect that the traditional teaching of the RCC, that un-baptized
>> >souls can't get into heaven, seems a little harsh to you. Well, boo
>> >hoo, if you can't accept the traditional teachings of the RCC, then
>> >get out. Just get out.
>>
>> Traditional teachings by traditional teacher human beings is not
>> always considered correct.
>
>So get into a religion that teaches what is correct, instead of
>remaining in one that teaches stuff that is not correct.
need.
Your goose is cooked.
>No, I'm an atheist. You are the type of gullible idiot that has always
>been fooled by priests and shamans and gurus and charismatic dictators
>etc.
If there is no God: We - no win, you - no win.
And to think you call us gullible.
>No paddy.
>I'm an atheist, Paddy. I don't chase shiney [sic] things
the only way you an no-win.
>No, you are one of the dupes. You are comforted by it all. Temporarily
>and intermittently. Most of the time, though, you are a miserable,
>confused sad individual terrified by and obsessed with the thought of
>his own eventual demise. Your desperate aggressive petulant responses
>here are ample proof of that.
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
********************************************
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
ala...@hotmail.co.uk
Jun 18, 2013, 2:02:55 PM6/18/13
to
On Jun 18, 10:00 pm, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
Not really. Should I?
> Instead of standing face to face with me, you insult me and turn away.
Violins now, Paddy?
> >> Then you go and hide again for a while.
>
> >"Hide"? Get over yaself loon!
>
> We know yer mum takes away your internet privileges at least once a
> week.
Let me guess... This is you, kicking butt, right? Is that what you
believe?
> >Unlike you and duke, I have a life. OTOH, you and dookie both spend
> >every day writing dozens of nonsense messages into a usenet group
> >because you foolishly believe that your god would approve of your
> >doing so.
>
> Tell me about yer life, alven.
> How is your Muslim take-over going there in London?
Again... The above is your idea of "kicking butt" or "winning the
argument"? See what I mean about you and Duke proving yourselves to be
dickheads?
> >Check the Google archives and see just how many articles you pair of
> >loons post every day.
>
> I certainly allow myself an hour a day to be entertained.
You and Dukie are on some sort of usenet crusade, you feel that your
"work" here helps guarantee you a berth in "heaven", right?
> >> >> Moses was not baptised by water.
> >> >> I am pretty sure he is in heaven.
>
> >> >Listen to me. How in heck would you know whether or not Moses is in
> >> >heaven? Serious question.
>
> >> OK then.
> >> Serious Answer.
> >> Matthew 17:3
>
> >Don't quote stuff at me from your garbage "holy book".
>
> Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer.
That's 1.
> >And what you choose to believe or choose not to believe relates to
> >actual reality how?
>
> Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer.
That's 2.
> >This is what you fools are too stupid to understand. You cannot simply
> >believe things into existence like that!
>
> Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer.
That's 3.
>
> > I, who admit to knowing nothing about gods and angels and
> >demons and heaven and Valhalla etc, am far better off than someone
> >like you who just makes stuff up, or swallows whole stuff that someone
> >else has made up.
>
> You have been warned.
> Now, you must take responsibility for your own actions.
OOOH, now that's sheer dukism there, how pathetic. This weak response
is meant to kick my butt, eh?
> >> Don't ask a question, if you can't stand the answer.
>
> >But the things you personally believe are utterly absurd, Paddy. They
> >have no connection at all with reality.
>
> Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer.
That's 4.
> >Whatever, none of the nonsense in the OT or the NT or the bagavad gita
> >has any chance whatever of enlightening us beforehand.
>
> Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer.
That's 5. Wow, how devastating. Really, that's your best shot? What a
brilliant debater you are.
I miss the old days when the .net christians had a bit of fire in the
belly. These days, all we see is lameness.
> >I'm an atheist, Paddy. I don't chase shiney [sic] things that are
> >utterly impossible fantasies. I try to enjoy the here and now, or at
> >least, try to make the best of it.
>
> Good for you.
> Take responsibility for your actions then.
> I don't care.
I know you don't. No passion left in you, just mindless feeble
protestations and deflections, followed by lame declarations of
victory. Yawn. No wonder I'm spending less and less time responding to
your idiocy.
I'm glad Google Groups got rid of that silly, unnecessary capcha
nonsense. I mean, how was it ever gonna stop spammers? I doubt if
spammers ever used Google Groups to post spam anyway.
> Instead of standing face to face with me, you insult me and turn away.
> >> Then you go and hide again for a while.
>
> >"Hide"? Get over yaself loon!
>
> We know yer mum takes away your internet privileges at least once a
> week.
believe?
> >Unlike you and duke, I have a life. OTOH, you and dookie both spend
> >every day writing dozens of nonsense messages into a usenet group
> >because you foolishly believe that your god would approve of your
> >doing so.
>
> Tell me about yer life, alven.
> How is your Muslim take-over going there in London?
argument"? See what I mean about you and Duke proving yourselves to be
dickheads?
> >Check the Google archives and see just how many articles you pair of
> >loons post every day.
>
> I certainly allow myself an hour a day to be entertained.
"work" here helps guarantee you a berth in "heaven", right?
> >> >> Moses was not baptised by water.
> >> >> I am pretty sure he is in heaven.
>
> >> >Listen to me. How in heck would you know whether or not Moses is in
> >> >heaven? Serious question.
>
> >> OK then.
> >> Serious Answer.
> >> Matthew 17:3
>
> >Don't quote stuff at me from your garbage "holy book".
>
> Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer.
> >And what you choose to believe or choose not to believe relates to
> >actual reality how?
>
> Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer.
> >This is what you fools are too stupid to understand. You cannot simply
> >believe things into existence like that!
>
> Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer.
>
> > I, who admit to knowing nothing about gods and angels and
> >demons and heaven and Valhalla etc, am far better off than someone
> >like you who just makes stuff up, or swallows whole stuff that someone
> >else has made up.
>
> You have been warned.
> Now, you must take responsibility for your own actions.
is meant to kick my butt, eh?
> >> Don't ask a question, if you can't stand the answer.
>
> >But the things you personally believe are utterly absurd, Paddy. They
> >have no connection at all with reality.
>
> Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer.
> >Whatever, none of the nonsense in the OT or the NT or the bagavad gita
> >has any chance whatever of enlightening us beforehand.
>
> Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer.
brilliant debater you are.
I miss the old days when the .net christians had a bit of fire in the
belly. These days, all we see is lameness.
> >I'm an atheist, Paddy. I don't chase shiney [sic] things that are
> >utterly impossible fantasies. I try to enjoy the here and now, or at
> >least, try to make the best of it.
>
> Good for you.
> Take responsibility for your actions then.
> I don't care.
protestations and deflections, followed by lame declarations of
victory. Yawn. No wonder I'm spending less and less time responding to
your idiocy.
I'm glad Google Groups got rid of that silly, unnecessary capcha
nonsense. I mean, how was it ever gonna stop spammers? I doubt if
spammers ever used Google Groups to post spam anyway.
ala...@hotmail.co.uk
Jun 18, 2013, 2:15:06 PM6/18/13
to
On Jun 18, 10:50 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
This is god.
Thou art doing a wonderful job here my child.
Thou hath smited all the unbelievers, just as I commandedeth thee to.
Snippeth.
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:09:10 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> >> >> Well then, I guess he has fallen in line with me.
> >> >> >> He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
>
> >> >> >So where does this leave Duke with his insistence that only those who
> >> >> >have been baptized can go to heaven? So who do we believe, you and the
> >> >> >pope? Or Duke?
>
> >> >> Listen to me.
>
> >> >I'm all ears, just for you, Paddy. I only have ears for you. :)
>
> >> I know.
> >> You sometimes think you are clever until I kick your ass.
>
> >BAAHAA!! Paddy, you never kick anyone's ass here. That's not your
> >purpose here, you are only here to demonstrate how much of a dickhead
> >the average catholic believe-bot is. And you (and duke) always do a
> >sterling job of that, I must say.
>
> >> Then you go and hide again for a while.
>
> >"Hide"? Get over yaself loon!
> >Unlike you and duke, I have a life.
>
> God mandates that we admonish you in this life. What life do you have?
Earl my son.
> >> >> >> Well then, I guess he has fallen in line with me.
> >> >> >> He should have listened to me 60 years ago.
>
> >> >> >So where does this leave Duke with his insistence that only those who
> >> >> >have been baptized can go to heaven? So who do we believe, you and the
> >> >> >pope? Or Duke?
>
> >> >> Listen to me.
>
> >> >I'm all ears, just for you, Paddy. I only have ears for you. :)
>
> >> I know.
> >> You sometimes think you are clever until I kick your ass.
>
> >BAAHAA!! Paddy, you never kick anyone's ass here. That's not your
> >purpose here, you are only here to demonstrate how much of a dickhead
> >the average catholic believe-bot is. And you (and duke) always do a
> >sterling job of that, I must say.
>
> >> Then you go and hide again for a while.
>
> >"Hide"? Get over yaself loon!
> >Unlike you and duke, I have a life.
>
> God mandates that we admonish you in this life. What life do you have?
This is god.
Thou art doing a wonderful job here my child.
Thou hath smited all the unbelievers, just as I commandedeth thee to.
Snippeth.
ala...@hotmail.co.uk
Jun 18, 2013, 2:16:59 PM6/18/13
to
ala...@hotmail.co.uk
Jun 18, 2013, 2:36:44 PM6/18/13
to
Harry Potter Wiki
Transfiguration
11,009 pages on
this wiki
Alchemycard "We must've been through hundreds of books already and we
can't find him anywhere —"
This article is lacking a section listing all of its known appearances
in canon. Please help the Harry Potter Wiki by adding such a section,
so that it conforms with our layout guide.
"Point me!"
This article is about transfiguration in general. You may be looking
for the Hogwarts subject.
Hermione Granger: "I do hope they start right away, there's so
much to learn, I'm particularly interested in Transfiguration, you
know, turning something into something else, of course, it's supposed
to be very difficult —"
Percy Weasley: "You'll be starting small, just matches into
needles and that sort of thing —"
— Hermione Granger and Percy Weasley talk about lessons during the
1991 Start-of-Term Feast[src]
Vera Verto 400pxMinerva McGonagall turns a bird into a water goblet.
Transfiguration is a branch of magic that focuses on the alteration of
the form or appearance of an object, via the alteration of the
object's molecular structure.[1]. Transfiguration can be done to most
(if not all) objects and, as with most forms of magic, it includes -
but is hardly limited to - Transfiguration spells.
PATRICK
Jun 19, 2013, 7:03:00 AM6/19/13
to
ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> See what I mean about you and Duke proving yourselves to be
>dickheads?
>
> See what I mean about you and Duke proving yourselves to be
>dickheads?
>You and Dukie are on some sort of usenet crusade, you feel that your
>"work" here helps guarantee you a berth in "heaven", right?
>"work" here helps guarantee you a berth in "heaven", right?
>OOOH, now that's sheer dukism there, how pathetic. This weak response
>is meant to kick my butt, eh?
>is meant to kick my butt, eh?
>I miss the old days when the .net christians had a bit of fire in the
>belly. These days, all we see is lameness.
>belly. These days, all we see is lameness.
>I'm glad Google Groups got rid of that silly, unnecessary capcha
>nonsense. I mean, how was it ever gonna stop spammers? I doubt if
>spammers ever used Google Groups to post spam anyway.
Did you have any real concerns here?
>nonsense. I mean, how was it ever gonna stop spammers? I doubt if
>spammers ever used Google Groups to post spam anyway.
I suppose you feel you are winning some argument?
Let me know if you have anything substitutive to say.
duke
Jun 19, 2013, 7:37:35 AM6/19/13
to
enemies.
duke
Jun 19, 2013, 7:38:30 AM6/19/13
to
0 new messages