Pope Abandons All Pretense of Being a Christian
Budikka666
"The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and
safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
authorized. "
So the hell with giving your coat and going the extra mile. I guess
the Pope knows better than Jesus, huh, with him being more modern an'
all?
Just another hypocritical Jackass-for-Christ™ is what he is.
Budikka
Patrick
PRB -- The Pope is merely copyrighting his image.
According to your reference:
"The Vatican has just declared the Pope a legally protected icon.
Don't you dare use it in a cartoon, you vandals, or slap the holy
name up on your soap-on-a-rope to gin up extra sales from the gullible."
And it makes sense to protect it. For one thing, it prevents people
from using it for fraudulent purposes. And, your introduction of the
"Papal Action Figures" now can't go forward.
Timothy 1:4a
comparison, could the world's remaining monarchies form a consortium
and claim all rights to the word "King"?
Popes are part of history, and the word entered the public domain
before we even had the concept of the public domain (ye publick
domaine?). It reminds me of that role-playing game in the 70's which
tried to copyright the word "Nazi".
On Dec 21, 4:55 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyri...
Mike Painter
a.. Pope Stephen VI (896-897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus
exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber[1]
b.. Pope John XII (937-964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several
people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
c.. Pope Benedict IX (1032-1044,1045,1047-1048), who "sold" the Papacy
d.. Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine
Comedy
e.. Pope Urban VI (1378-1389), who complained that he did not hear enough
screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
f.. Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism
and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a
coffin.[3]
g.. Pope Leo X (1513-1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who
once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
h.. Pope Clement VII (1523-1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking
with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
or http://hubpages.com/hub/Ten-Bad-Popes
duke
wrote:
>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyrighte.php
>"The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
>Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and
>safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
>expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
>authorized. "
>So the hell with giving your coat and going the extra mile. I guess
>the Pope knows better than Jesus, huh, with him being more modern an'
>all?
??????? Good grief - this post is a sign of a woman that had her butt
thoroughly handed to her by someone.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Patrick
>> "The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
>> Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and
>> safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
>> expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
>> authorized. "
> Please show them the respect they deserve
> a.. Pope Stephen VI (896-897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus
> exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber[1]
> b.. Pope John XII (937-964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered
> several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his
> wife.
> c.. Pope Benedict IX (1032-1044,1045,1047-1048), who "sold" the Papacy
> d.. Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine
> Comedy
> e.. Pope Urban VI (1378-1389), who complained that he did not hear enough
> screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
> f.. Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism
> and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a
> coffin.[3]
> g.. Pope Leo X (1513-1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who
> once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
> h.. Pope Clement VII (1523-1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking
> with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
> or http://hubpages.com/hub/Ten-Bad-Popes
Gee, Mikey.... couldn't you come up
with a bad pope .... say.... within the last 500 years?
Kenny McCormack
Patrick <bark...@erinot.com> wrote:
...
>> g.. Pope Leo X (1513-1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who
>> once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
>> h.. Pope Clement VII (1523-1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking
>> with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
>> or http://hubpages.com/hub/Ten-Bad-Popes
>
>
>Gee, Mikey.... couldn't you come up
>with a bad pope .... say.... within the last 500 years?
He did. 2 of them.
I would add the Pacelli, the Nazi lover to the list.
The point is, you don't really know everything that's going on, until
well after they've died.
Patrick
And you know that Pius XII was a nazi lover?
Lemme see..... 60 years ago?
Jimbo
> "Kenny McCormack" <gaze...@shell.xmission.com> wrote ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Patrick <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> > ...
> >>> g.. Pope Leo X (1513-1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family
> >>> who
> >>> once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
> >>> h.. Pope Clement VII (1523-1534), also a Medici, whose
> >>> power-politicking
> >>> with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
>
> >>Gee, Mikey.... couldn't you come up
> >>with a bad pope .... say.... within the last 500 years?
>
> > He did. 2 of them.
> > I would add the Pacelli, the Nazi lover to the list.
> > The point is, you don't really know everything that's going on, until
> > well after they've died.
>
> And you know that Pius XII was a nazi lover?
>
He fully supported the NAZI's and Hitler, even to the point of sending
Hitler birthday presents.
Patrick
> And you know that Pius XII was a nazi lover?
> Lemme see..... 60 years ago?- Hide quoted text -
>
He fully supported the NAZI's and Hitler, even to the point of sending
Hitler birthday presents.
------------
PRB:
Pope Pius XII's (1876-1958) actions during the Holocaust remain
controversial. For much of the war, he maintained a public front of
indifference and remained silent while German atrocities were committed. He
refused pleas for help on the grounds of neutrality, while making statements
condemning injustices in general. Privately, he sheltered a small number of
Jews and spoke to a few select officials, encouraging them to help the Jews.
In recent years, the media have accused the Catholic Church of either
helping the Nazis or being silent during the Holocaust. As an example, the
January 26, 1998 issue of Time magazine on page 20 claims that the Catholic
Church apologized for "collaborating with the Nazis during World War II."
Even the new Holocaust Museum in New York unjustly criticized Pope Pius XII
for being silent during World War II. The Church has recently spoken on this
topic.
The Israeli consul, Pinchas E. Lapide, in his book, Three Popes and the Jews
(New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1967) critically examines Pope Pius XII.
According to his research, the Catholic Church under Pius XII was
instrumental in saving 860,000 Jews from Nazi death camps (p. 214). Could
Pius have saved more lives by speaking out more forcefully? According to
Lapide, the concentration camp prisoners did not want Pius to speak out
openly (p. 247). As one jurist from the Nuremberg Trials said on WNBC in New
York (Feb. 28, 1964), "Any words of Pius XII, directed against a madman like
Hitler, would have brought on an even worse catastrophe... [and] accelerated
the massacre of Jews and priests." (Ibid.) Yet Pius was not totally silent
either. Lapide notes a book by the Jewish historian, Jenoe Levai, entitled,
The Church Did Not Keep Silent (p. 256). He admits that everyone, including
himself, could have done more. If we condemn Pius, then justice would demand
condemning everyone else. He concludes by quoting from the Talmud that
"whosoever preserves one life, it is accounted to him by Scripture as if he
had preserved a whole world." With this he claims that Pius XII deserves a
memorial forest of 860,000 trees in the Judean hills (pp. 268-9). It should
be noted that six million Jews and three million Catholics were killed in
the Holocaust.
We must remember that the Holocaust was also anti-Christian. After Hitler
revealed his true intentions, the Catholic Church opposed him. Even the
famous Albert Einstein testified to that. According to the December 23, 1940
issue of Time magazine on page 38, Einstein said:
Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to
the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their
devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were
silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming
editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they,
like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...
Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for
suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before,
but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has
had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral
freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise
unreservedly.
In another, similar statement, Einstein referred explicitly to the Catholic
Church (Lapide, p. 251). This is an extraordinary testimony by an agnostic
German scientist of Jewish heritage. Even though there were traitors in her
ranks, the Church still opposed the Nazi movement.
The December 23, 1940 issue of Time magazine contains an interesting article
about Christians living in Germany, both Catholic and Protestant, who
opposed and suffered under the Nazis. On page 38, it claims that by late
1940 over 200,000 Christians were prisoners in Nazi concentration camps,
with some estimates as high as 800,000. On page 40, it reports on the
Archbishop of Munich, Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber, who led the Catholic
opposition in Germany against the Nazis. In an Advent 1933 sermon, he
preached: "Let us not forget that we were saved not by German blood but by
the blood of Christ!" in response to Nazi racism. In 1934 the Cardinal
"narrowly missed a Nazi bullet", while in 1938 a Nazi mob broke the windows
in his residence. Even though he was over seventy and in poor health, he
still led the Catholic German resistance against Hitler.
Not trusting the new regime, the Vatican signed a Concordat with the Reich
on July 20, 1933 in an attempt to protect the Church's rights in Germany.
But the Nazis quickly violated its articles. In Lent 1937 Pope Pius XI
issued the encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge" (With burning sorrow) with the
help of German bishops and Cardinal Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII). It was
smuggled into Germany and read in all German Catholic churches at the same
hour on Palm Sunday 1937. It did not explicitly mention Hitler or Nazism,
but it firmly condemned the Nazi doctrines. On September 20, 1938, Pius XI
told German pilgrims that no Christian can take part in anti-Semitism, since
spiritually all Christians are Semites.
The recent slander against the Church and Pope Pius XII can be traced back
to 1963 with Rolf Hochhuth's play, "The Deputy." In this play Hochhuth
criticized Pius for being silent and portrayed his silence as cold
indifference. Even though fiction, people took it as fact.
Pope Pius XII was a diplomat and not a radical preacher. He knew that he
first needed to preserve Vatican neutrality so that Vatican City could be a
refuge for war victims. The International Red Cross also remained neutral.
Secondly, he knew how powerless he was against Hitler. Mussolini could
quickly shut off electrical power to Vatican Radio during his broadcast
(Lapide, p. 256). Finally the Nazis did not tolerate any protest and
responded severely. As an example, the Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht in
July 1942 protested in a pastoral letter against the Jewish persecutions in
Holland. Immediately the Nazis rounded up as many Jews and Catholic
non-Aryans as possible and deported them to death camps, including Blessed
Edith Stein (Lapide, p. 246). Pius knew that every time he spoke out against
Hitler, the Nazis could retaliate against the prisoners. His best attack
against the Nazis was quiet diplomacy and behind-the-scenes action.
According to The 1996 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia (V8.01) under Pius
XII, "Wishing to preserve Vatican neutrality, fearing reprisals, and
realizing his impotence to stop the Holocaust, Pius nonetheless acted on an
individual basis to save many Jews and others with church ransoms,
documents, and asylum."
The charity and work of Pope Pius XII during World War II so impressed the
Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, that in 1944 he was open to the grace of
God which led him into the Catholic faith. As his baptismal name, he took
the same one Pius had, Eugenio, as his own. Later Israel Eugenio Zolli wrote
a book entitled, Why I Became a Catholic.
But Pope Pius XII was not completely silent either, especially in his
Christmas messages. His 1941 and 1942 Christmas messages were both
translated and published in The New York Times (Dec. 25, 1941, p. 20 & Dec.
25, 1942, p. 10). To prevent retaliation, he did not refer to Nazism by
name, but people of that era still understood him, including the Nazis.
According to The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1941 (Late Day
edition, p. 24):
The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness
enveloping Europe this Christmas... he is about the only ruler left on the
Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all... the Pope put
himself squarely against Hitlerism... he left no doubt that the Nazi aims
are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace.
Also The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1942 (Late Day edition, p.
16) states:
This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence
of a continent... Pope Pius expresses as passionately as any leader on our
side the war aims of the struggle for freedom when he says that those who
aim at building a new world must fight for free choice of government and
religious order. They must refuse that the state should make of individuals
a herd of whom the state disposes as if they were lifeless things.
Both editorials recognize and highly praise Pius' words against Hitler and
totalitarianism.
Now there were traitors in the Church who were Nazis or helped Hitler. There
were Catholics who committed sins of bigotry. There were also Catholics,
who, out of fear or indifference, sinned through silence. The Church is full
of sinners for whom Christ died. We killed Jesus with our sins (Is. 53:
5-6). But Pope Pius XII and many Catholics did not remain "silent." Could
860,000 Jewish lives be saved by "silent" indifference? In our own day,
there are people who claim to be Catholic but promote and participate in
abortion, assisted-suicide and artificial birth control. In the next
century, will the world also falsely accuse the Church and the Pope for
being silent during the "culture of death" holocaust?
http://users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrotehttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyri...
> "The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
> Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and
> safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
> expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
> authorized. "
> So the hell with giving your coat and going the extra mile. I guess
> the Pope knows better than Jesus, huh, with him being more modern an'
> all?
> Just another hypocritical Jackass-for-Christ™ is what he is.
>
> PRB -- The Pope is merely copyrighting his image.
> According to your reference:
> "The Vatican has just declared the Pope a legally protected icon.
> Don't you dare use it in a cartoon, you vandals, or slap the holy
> name up on your soap-on-a-rope to gin up extra sales from the gullible."
>
> And it makes sense to protect it. For one thing, it prevents people
> from using it for fraudulent purposes. And, your introduction of the
> "Papal Action Figures" now can't go forward.
It makes sense for a church leader to protect his business interests?
Where's his faitht hat his god will protect him? NOWHERE!
And what of the directive from Jesus to give up all of that and follow
him? To take no thought for tomorrow? Yes, for any smart person, his
move makes sense, but it betrays everything he stands for.
The Pope sold out to commercialism and abandoned Jesus. Period.
Budikka
Budikka666
> Budikka666 wrote:
> >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyri...
Yes, but none of them copyrighted it! ; )
Budikka
Budikka666
> "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>
> Gee, Mikey.... couldn't you come up
> with a bad pope .... say.... within the last 500 years?
How about Pius XII who let six million Jews and countless thousands -
if not millions - of others be slaughtered without saying a word and
without lifting a finger? hell he even made a deal with Hitler,
pathetic coward that he was. Where was *his* faith?
That a little closer to home?
Budikka
Patrick
> "The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
> Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and
> safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
> expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
> authorized. "
> So the hell with giving your coat and going the extra mile. I guess
> the Pope knows better than Jesus, huh, with him being more modern an'
> all?
> Just another hypocritical Jackass-for-Christ� is what he is.
>
> PRB -- The Pope is merely copyrighting his image.
> According to your reference:
> "The Vatican has just declared the Pope a legally protected icon.
> Don't you dare use it in a cartoon, you vandals, or slap the holy
> name up on your soap-on-a-rope to gin up extra sales from the gullible."
>
> And it makes sense to protect it. For one thing, it prevents people
> from using it for fraudulent purposes. And, your introduction of the
> "Papal Action Figures" now can't go forward.
It makes sense for a church leader to protect his business interests?
PRB> didn't say that.
The Pope should be able to protect himself against your recently
advertised papal action figure.... and the ol pope on a rope.
-=---------
Where's his faitht hat his god will protect him? NOWHERE!
PRB: When did the pope ever claim that God would protect him?
------------
And what of the directive from Jesus to give up all of that and follow
him? To take no thought for tomorrow? Yes, for any smart person, his
move makes sense, but it betrays everything he stands for.
PRB - The old pope-on-the-rope deal.... you give it up first.
-------------
The Pope sold out to commercialism and abandoned Jesus. Period.
PRB - The image of the papacy needs protection from you
and your papal watches, special holy water, blessed rosaries, etc.
Patrick
How about Pius XII who let six million Jews and countless thousands -
if not millions - of others be slaughtered without saying a word and
without lifting a finger? hell he even made a deal with Hitler,
pathetic coward that he was. Where was *his* faith?
That a little closer to home?
PRB - Excellent BS.
What was the deal with Hitler?
Patrick
How about Pius XII who let six million Jews and countless thousands -
if not millions - of others be slaughtered without saying a word and
without lifting a finger? hell he even made a deal with Hitler,
pathetic coward that he was. Where was *his* faith?
--------\
PB -
But Pope Pius XII was not completely silent, especially in his
Timothy 1:4a
> Budikka666 wrote:
> >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyri...
I like Pope Christopher, who reigned 903-904. He was recognized by his
successors (with the possible exception of Pope Sergius III, who was
accused of murdering both Christopher and Leo V) and is depicted as
Pope in many Catholic church pictures and frescoes in the subsequent
1000 years.
But Christopher is no longer Pope, having been demoted from the job in
the 20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_Christopher
So, take heart - they may yet ditch Ratzinger.
fasgnadh
> On Dec 21, 5:46 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrotehttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyri...
>> "The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
>> Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and
>> safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
>> expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
>> authorized. "
>
> him? To take no thought for tomorrow?
Wonderful to see atheists acknowledging the spiritual leadership of Jesus!
Keep up the good work spreading the word of your Messiah, Bukakke!
> The Pope sold out to commercialism
Actually he prevented the commercial exploitation in
breach of copyright by atheists and other thieves who
routinely steal intellectual property.
> and abandoned Jesus.
How is lawful copyright in breach of the teachings of
Jesus?
It is just an extension of 'thou shalt not steal' you
poor ignorant simpleton! B^D
What explains your mad ranting, you hate-filled bitch?
> Period.
But it seems to last ALL MONTH! 8^o
> Budikka
The atheist Chumpion is still running away 235 days
after defending the atheist murder of innocent children
and day 4 since Budikka exposed the atheist lie that
'atheism is mere non-belief in God' ..it is militant,
hate-filled anti-theism:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/874776cb72b43b60?hl=en&dmode=source
# From: Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,
# alt.agnosticism
# Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:38:16 -0800 (PST)
# Message-ID:
<bfcf3a9d-9711-449a...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
#
# You can keep your spiritual values.
# I'll piss on them
#
# Budikka
# Subject: Bukakke debunks the atheist lie that "atheism is no more than
# disbelief in God" .. it is militant ANTI-THEISM was Re"
# The atheist dilemma - the unanswerable questions atheists flee from
# From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
# Message-ID: <cLoXm.63535$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:27:52 GMT
#
# Budikka666 demonstrated that militant atheism is anti-theism:
#
# > "Morton Lucifer" wrote:
# >>
# >> Atheism makes many claims - "Atheism is a rational
# >> position", "Atheism is free of the dogma of primitive
# >> superstition"..
#
# and their most common lie, the only defence they have to
# the accusation that EVERY atheist regime has been a totalitarian
# tyranny.. the claim that 'pure' atheism is "no more than the belief
# that there is no God"
#
# > You can keep your spiritual values. I'll piss on them and pass on
# > them.
#
#
# So there we have it, (and not for the first time), the hate-filled
# bigotry and violent (toilet fetishist) anti-theism of the militant
# atheists.
Her response, typical of irrational atheists, was to snip all the facts
all the properly cited evidence of atheist crimes against humanity,
and RUN AWAY, leaving only abuse, lies, slander and ranting bile-filled
hatred;
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/c68682218c1b6d2a?hl=en&dmode=source
# From: Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
# Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.agnosticism
# Subject: Flatnads is LYING SCUM. End of Story.
# Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:43:04 -0800 (PST)
# Message-ID:
<3e60edc9-1a86-42e6...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
#
# Your LIES were refuted several months ago. The fact that you're still
# SPAMMING ten news groups with this juvenile horseshit when they're
# nothing but your own manufactured jerk-off inanity proves what a
# useless piece of cowardly, vacuous hypocritical trash you truly are.
#
# End of story. End of you.
#
# Budikka
How could she have 'refuted' a day old post showing her hate filled
anti-theism 'months ago? Psycho powers? B^D
This is clear evidence of the consistently GUTLESS COWARDLY AND
INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST practice of atheists of SNIPPING the FACTS,
RUNNING AWAY, and leaving Nothing but hate-filled abuse and bare faced LIES!
as I detailed in the subsequent post:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/843e0abd1f13fe7b?hl=en&dmode=source
# Subject: Re: Bukakke debunks the atheist lie that "atheism is no
# more than disbelief, in God" .. it is militant ANTI-THEISM
# was Re: The atheist dilemma - the, unanswerable questions atheists
flee from
# From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,
# alt.agnosticism,alt.religion.Islam,alt.politics.democrats,
# alt.politics.republicans,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics
# Message-ID: <ogpXm.63546$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:03:16 GMT
#
# Budikka666 wrote:
# > fasgnadh wrote:
# >> Budikka666 demonstrated that militant atheism is anti-theism:
# >>
# >>> "Morton Lucifer" who looks remarkably like a Flatnads sock puppet on
# >>> Dec 18, 2:48 pm wrote:
# >>>> Atheism makes many claims - "Atheism is a rational
# >>>> position", "Atheism is free of the dogma of primitive
# >>>> superstition"..
# >>
# >> and their most common lie, the only defence they have to
# >> the accusation that EVERY atheist regime has been a totalitarian
# >> tyranny.. the claim that 'pure' atheism is "no more than the belief
# >> that there is no God"
# >>
# >>> You can keep your spiritual values. I'll piss on them and pass on
# >>> them.
# >>
# >>
# >> So there we have it, (and not for the first time), the hate-filled
# >> bigotry and violent (toilet fetishist) anti-theism of the militant
# >> atheists.
# >>
# >
# > Your LIES were refuted several months ago.
#
# You refuted my post from today 'several months ago'???
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAAAA!
#
# Not even your dimwitted atheist moron mates would swallow such
# a load of shit from you! B^D
#
# > End of story.
#
# Sure, all you atheists cut and run from "the, unanswerable
# questions atheists flee from" .. just like you did last time!
#
# Thanks for your repeat performance, eveyone can see clearly
# what a gutless lying sack of shit you are! B^]
#
#
# All the proof of what hate-filled militant atheists support
# replaced from where the Bukakke snipped it as she RAN AWAY:
#
# AGAIN!!! B^D
#
# >>
# >> Bukakke is a serial hit-and-run liar and abuser who is still
# >> RUNNING away (day 233!) from my devastating rational
# >> tour de force, critiquing this very issue of historical
# >> atheist brutality and it's contemporary apologists:
# >>
# >>
# >> # Budikka whined hypocritically:
# >> # >
# >> # > Unmet challenge #1
# >> #
# >> # From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
# >> # Subject: How Bukakke was humbled and crawled away in defeat!
# >> # Message-ID: <H7bPl.11167$y61.6...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# >> # Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 10:05:27 GMT
# >>
# >> Such a long time ago, and yet Bukakke is still stung by her loss!
# >> B^D
--
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
fasgnadh
..all the atheist members of every Central Committee of
every atheist regime who let over 70,000,000 victims
of theist tyrants (Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot) ..
> be slaughtered without saying a word and
> without lifting a finger?
That make themselves complicit, just like militant atheists
today who defend and advocate the same hate-filled violence;
# From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: A.A. BAAWA - FAQ
# Message-ID: <p8mrb5lvaf0cj5bp1...@4ax.com>
# Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:46:34 -0700
#
# We kill theists and shit down their throats
#
# Warlord Steve
# BAAWA
Not satisfied with murder, Steve favours GENOCIDE
# From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.islam
# Subject: Re: Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
# Message-ID: <8t6ve5hs41qn3a2rv...@4ax.com>
# Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:58:18 -0800
#
# On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:22:32 +0200, "Katrina"
# <blondes_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
#
# >Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
#
# It is the most foul, disgusting filth on Earth.
# The sooner we nuke you fuckers, the better.
#
# Warlord Steve
# BAAWA
Hate-filled, Militant Atheist thugs, just like Stalin.
> hell he even made a deal with Hitler,
Until the cunning Nazi betrayed the vile atheist.
No honour among the depraved.
> pathetic coward that he was.
> Where was *his* faith?
He abandoned it and became an atheist thug.
> That a little closer to home?
for all you atheists, it must be! 8^o
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:55:31 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyrighte.php
> >"The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
> >Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and
> >safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
> >expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
> >authorized. "
>
> >So the hell with giving your coat and going the extra mile. I guess
> >the Pope knows better than Jesus, huh, with him being more modern an'
> >all?
>
> ??????? Good grief - this post is a sign of a woman that had her butt
> thoroughly handed to her by someone.
On the contrary, Puke has had his battered butt handed to him.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Patrick wrote:
> > "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote
> >
> > How about
>
..all the atheist members of every theist Naziregime who created the
holocaust.
>
That make themselves complicit, just like theists
today who defend and advocate the same hate-filled violence;
Small-a atheism ( mere non-theism) is freedom from the fear that theist
religions try to impose on their dupes.
Non-theist religions may actually do some good in the world, but the the
theist religions display more red ink (blood?) than black ink.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Budikka666 suggests people follow the call of Jesus:
> > On Dec 21, 5:46 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrotehttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyri.
> >> ..
> >> "The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
> >> Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and
> >> safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
> >> expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
> >> authorized. "
> >
> > what of the directive from Jesus to give up all of that and follow
> > him? To take no thought for tomorrow?
>
> Wonderful to see atheists acknowledging the spiritual leadership of Jesus!
Nonsense, we are just noting the immense divergence between Jesus'
directive and the churches actions.
> Keep up the good work spreading the word of your Messiah, Bukakke!
Maybe yours, but not ours.
>
> > The Pope sold out to commercialism
3 Silly Religious Beliefs Held By Non-Silly People
By Greta Christina, Greta Christina's Blog. Posted October 30, 2009.
Many of the beliefs held by religious moderates -- smart people who
respect science and the separation of church and state -- are as
untenable as the dogma of fundamentalists.
"You can't disprove religion."
I'm seeing this trope a lot these days. "You can't disprove religion. At
least -- not my religion."
"Well, of course," the trope continues, "many outdated religious beliefs
-- young-earth creationism, the universe revolving around the earth, the
sun being drawn across the sky by Apollo's chariot -- have been shown by
science to be mistaken. But modern progressive and moderate beliefs --
these, you can't disprove with science. These are simply matters of
faith: things people reasonably choose to believe, based on their
personal life experience."
Then there's the corollary to this trope: "Therefore, atheism is just as
much a matter of faith as religion. And atheists who think atheism is
better supported by evidence are just as dogmatic and close-minded as
religious believers."
The usual atheist reply to this is to cry, "That's the God of the Gaps!
Whatever phenomenon isn't currently explained by science, that's where
you stick your God! What kind of sense does that make? Why should any
given unexplained phenomenon be best explained by religion? Has there
ever been a gap in our knowledge that's eventually been shown to be
filled by God?"
Which is a pretty good reply, and one I make a lot myself. But today, I
want to say something else.
Today, I want to point out that this is simply not the case.
The fact is that many modern progressive and moderate religions do make
claims about the observable world. And many of those claims are
unsupported by science... and, in fact, are in direct contradiction of
it.
I want to talk today about three specific religious beliefs. Not obscure
cults or rigid fundamentalist dogmas; not young-earth creationism, or
the doctrine that communion wafers literally and physically transform
into the human flesh of Christ somewhere in the digestive tract, or the
belief that the human mind has been taken over by space aliens. I want
to talk about three widely held beliefs of modern progressive and
moderate believers: beliefs held by intelligent and educated believers
who respect science and don't think religion should contradict it.
And I want to point out that even these beliefs are in direct
contradiction of the vast preponderance of available evidence -- almost
as much as the obscure cults and the rigid fundamentalist dogma.
So let's go! Today's beliefs on the chopping block are:
1: Evolution guided by God.
Also known as "theistic evolution." Among progressive and moderate
believers, this is an extremely common position on evolution. They
readily (and rightly) dismiss the claims of young-earth creationists
that humanity and all the universe were created in one swell foop 6,000
years ago. They dismiss these claims as utterly contradicted by the
evidence. Instead, they say that evolution proceeds exactly as the
biologists say it does, but this process is guided by God, to bring
humanity and the vast variety of life into being.
A belief that is almost as thoroughly contradicted by the evidence as
young-earth creationism is.
Nowhere in anatomy, nowhere in genetics, nowhere in the fossil record or
the geological record or any of the physical records of evolution, is
there even the slightest piece of evidence for divine intervention.
Quite the contrary. If there had been a divine hand tinkering with the
process, we would expect evolution to have proceeded radically
differently than it has. We would expect to see, among the changes in
anatomy from generation to generation, at least an occasional instance
of the structure being tweaked in non-gradual ways. We would expect to
see -- oh, say, just for a random example -- human knees and backs
better designed for bipedal animals than quadrupeds. (She said bitterly,
putting an ice pack on her bad knee.) We would expect to see the blind
spot in the human eye done away with, perhaps replaced with the octopus
design that doesn't have a blind spot. We would expect to see the vagus
nerve re-routed so it doesn't wander all over hell and gone before
getting where it's going. We would expect to see a major shift in the
risk-benefit analysis that's wired into our brains, one that better
suits a 70-year life expectancy than a 35-year one. We would expect to
see... I could go on, and on, and on.
And it's not just humans. We'd expect to see whales with gills, pandas
with real thumbs, ostriches without those stupid useless wings.
We don't see any of this.
What we see instead is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution
proceeded entirely as a natural, physical process. We see "designs" of
living things that are flawed and inefficient and just plain goofy:
"designs" that exist for no earthly reason except the slow
incrementalism that's an inherent part of the physical process of
evolution. We see anatomical adaptations severely constrained by the
fact that each generation can only be a slight modification on the
previous generation, with no sudden jumps to a different basic version.
We see anatomical adaptations severely constrained by the fact that each
new version has to be an improvement on the previous version (or at
least, not a deterioration from it). We see a vast preponderance of
evidence showing that evolution proceeds very slowly, very gradually,
with the anatomy of each generation being only slightly altered (if at
all) from that of the previous generation.
And that isn't how things designed by a conscious designer, or even
things tinkered with by a conscious designer, work.
Even when a designer is stuck with the outlines of a previous design,
they can still make significant, non-incremental changes. They can tear
out the cabinets and replace them with windows, and move the stove to
the other side of the room where the fridge is now. They're not stuck
with moving the stove one inch at a time, once every week or year or
twenty years. And they're not stuck with a system in which every inch
that the stove moves has to be an improvement on the previous inch.
They're not stuck with a system where, if the stove has been moving
across the floor in a series of incremental improvements, it's going to
have to stop if it starts blocking the door... because blocking the door
is a serious disadvantage.
And if a designer is omnipotent, they're not even stuck with the
outlines of a previous design. They're not stuck with anything at all.
Why on earth would an all-powerful and benevolent god, a god who's
capable of magically altering DNA, bring life into being by the slow,
cruel, violent, inefficient, tacked- together- with- duct- tape process
of evolution in the first place?
Now, it's true that we do see some evidence for what are sometimes
called "jumps" in the fossil record: evidence that evolutionary changes
sometimes happen very slowly, and sometimes happen more rapidly. (It's a
controversial position, but it is one held by some respected
evolutionary biologists.) And some believers in theistic evolution leap
onto this hypothesis and hang on like it's the last helicopter out of
Saigon.
But the "rapid jumps" thing is very misleading. "Rapid," in evolutionary
terms, means "taking place over a few hundred years instead of a few
thousand" (or "a few thousand years instead of a few hundred thousand.")
And as recent research has repeatedly shown, evolution can take place
surprisingly rapidly, in a matter of decades... and still be an entirely
natural process of small changes, incremental alterations in each
generation from the previous one. Exactly as we would expect if
evolution were an entirely natural, physical process of descent with
modification. So even if this "rapid jumps" (or "punctuated
equilibrium") hypothesis is true, it still doesn't point to theistic
evolution. Not even a little bit.
Again: There is not the slightest bit of evidence supporting the idea of
evolution guided by God. And there is a significant body of evidence
that strongly suggests the contrary.
2: An immaterial soul that animates human consciousness.
I will acknowledge freely: We don't yet understand consciousness very
well. The sciences of neurology and neuropsychology are very much in
their infancy, and the basic questions of what exactly consciousness is,
and where exactly it comes from, and how exactly it works, are, as of
yet, largely unanswered.
But research is happening. The foundations for our understanding of
consciousness are beginning to be laid. There are a few things that we
do know about consciousness.
And among the things we know is that, whatever consciousness is, it
seems to be an entirely biological process. A massive body of evidence
points to this conclusion.
When we make physical changes to the brain, it changes consciousness.
Drugs, injury, surgery, sensory deprivation, electrical current,
magnetic fields, medication, illness, exercise -- all these things
change our consciousness. Sometimes drastically. Sometimes rendering an
entire personality unrecognizable. Even very small changes to the brain
can result in massive changes to consciousness... both temporary and
permanent.
This works vice versa as well. Magnetic resonance imagery has shown
that, when people think different thoughts, different parts of their
brains light up with activity. Changes in thought show up as changes in
the brain.... just as changes in the brain show up as changes in thought.
And, of course, we have the drastic change in consciousness created by
the very drastic change in the physical brain known as "death."
All the available evidence points to the conclusion that, when the brain
dies, consciousness disappears. (And by "when the brain dies," I don't
mean, "when the brain is temporarily deprived of oxygen for a short
time," a.k.a. "near death experiences." I mean when the brain dies,
permanently.) The belief that consciousness survives death has probably
been researched more than any other supernatural hypothesis -- nobody,
not even scientists, wants death to be permanent -- and it has never,
ever been substantiated. Reports of it abound. But when carefully
examined, using good, rigorous scientific methodology, these reports
fall apart like a house of cards.
Everything we understand about consciousness points to it being a
physical, biological process. Physical changes cause observable effects.
When we see that in any other phenomenon, we assume that what's going on
is physical cause and effect. We have no reason to think that anything
else is going on with the phenomenon of consciousness.
And there is not a single scrap of good evidence supporting the
hypothesis that consciousness is even partly a supernatural phenomenon.
There are many gaps in our understanding of consciousness -- that's a
massive understatement -- but there is not one piece of solid,
rigorously gathered evidence suggesting that any of those gaps can and
should be filled with the hypothesis of an immaterial soul. There's not
even a good, testable theory explaining how this immaterial soul is
supposed to interact with the physical brain. All there is to support
this belief is a personal intuitive feeling on the part of believers
that the soul has to be non-physical because, well, it just seems like
that... plus thousands of years of other believers with a similar
intuitive feeling, who have told it to one another, and taught it to
their followers, and made up elaborate rationalizations for it, and
written it into their holy texts.
Again: There is not the slightest bit of evidence supporting the idea of
an immaterial soul that animates human consciousness. And there is a
significant body of evidence that strongly suggests the contrary.
]
3: A sentient universe.
You might ask why I'm including this particular belief in my Big Three
Targets. You might wonder why, among all the widely held religious
beliefs in the world today, I'm aiming my sights at this New Age/
Neo-Pagan/ Wiccan belief in a World-Soul.
My answer: I live in Northern California. 'Nuff said.
So that's why I want to debunk this belief. And I'm pretty much going to
repeat what I said in #2 above:
We don't yet understand what consciousness is. But we do know that,
whatever it is, it seems to be a biological product of the brain.
And the universe does not have a brain.
The universe does not have a physical structure capable of supporting
consciousness. The universe does not have neurons, dendrites, ganglia.
The universe has stars, and planets, and other astronomical bodies,
separated by unimaginably vast regions of empty space.
And stars and planets and so on do not behave like neurons and dendrites
and so on. They behave like stars and planets. They behave like objects
that, as nifty as they are, are not alive, by any useful definition of
the word "life."
If consciousness is a biological process -- as an overwhelming body of
evidence suggests, see #2 above -- then the universe, not being a
biological entity, cannot possibly be conscious. To say that it is would
mean radically redefining what we mean by "conscious." And we have no
reason to do so... other than a wishful desire to think of the universe
as sentient.
Consciousness has, for a long time, been a mysterious and utterly
ineffable phenomenon. So, before Darwin, was the tremendous variety and
mind-boggling complexity of life. And like the variety and complexity of
life, consciousness is no longer ineffable. It is being effed. The
unexplainable is being explained. And it is being explained as a
biological phenomenon -- as physical cause and effect.
Again: There is not the slightest bit of evidence supporting the idea of
a sentient universe. And there is a significant body of evidence that
strongly suggests the contrary.
***
Now. I can hear the chorus already. "How can you prove that? You don't
know that with absolute certainty! God could be intervening in evolution
-- just in ways that are indistinguishable from natural selection! There
could be some sort of immaterial soul interacting with the biological
process of consciousness, in ways we don't yet perceive! There could be
some weird form of consciousness that we don't understand, one that's
generated by stars and planets and lifeless astronomical bodies! You
can't prove with absolute certainty that there isn't! Your non-belief is
just an article of faith!"
My answer:
No. We can't prove that with 100% certainty.
But neither can we prove with 100% certainty that the universe wasn't
created 6,000 years ago, by a god who deliberately planted the fossil
record and the genetic record and the geological record and the laws of
atomic decay, all to test our faith. (Or all of which was planted by
Satan, to trick us and tempt us into disbelief.) We can't prove with
100% certainty that communion wafers don't turn into Christ's physical
body on contact with the human digestive system. Hell, we can't prove
with 100% certainty that the earth goes around the sun, and that all our
senses and logical abilities haven't been fooled by some trickster god
into thinking that it does.
And it doesn't matter. As I've said many times: 100% unshakeable
certainty is not the objective here. Reasonable plausibility, supported
by carefully gathered and rigorously tested positive evidence, is the
objective. And there is no reason to apply the "Reasonable plausibility
supported by evidence" standard to the belief in young-earth
creationism... and still apply the "If you can't disprove it with 100%
certainty, then it's still reasonable for me to believe it" standard to
the beliefs in theistic evolution, and an immaterial soul, and a
sentient universe.
If you're going to accept that young-earth creationism has been
conclusively disproven by a mountain of scientific evidence, even though
we acknowledge a .00001% hypothetical possibility that it might be
true... then, if you're going to be consistent, you have to apply that
same standard, that same willingness to accept the reasonable
conclusions of science about which ideas are and are not plausible, to
all religious beliefs.
Including your own.
Especially your own.
Not everything is a matter of opinion or perspective. Not everything can
turn into something completely different if you just look at it
differently. Some things are either true or not true. It is not true
that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. It is not true that the
sun goes around the earth. And it is not true that evolution is shaped
by the hand of God, or that consciousness is animated by an immaterial
soul, or that the universe is sentient.
These things aren't true for exactly the same reason that young-earth
creationism isn't true. They aren't true because the evidence simply
doesn't support them. They aren't true because the evidence actively
contradicts them.
If you're going to be a moderate or progressive religious believer; if
you're going to be a religious believer who respects and supports
science instead of treating it as the enemy; if you're going to be a
religious believer who wants their beliefs to at least not be directly
contradictory with the available scientific evidence... then you need to
be willing to consider the possibility that your own beliefs are every
bit as contradicted by that evidence as the beliefs of the
fundamentalist crazies.
And if the answer is "yup, that belief seems to be contradicted by the
evidence"... then you need to be willing to let go of that belief.
Seon Ferguson
"Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
news:Virgil-EFA3A7....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> In article <bkdYm.64087$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Budikka666 suggests people follow the call of Jesus:
>> > On Dec 21, 5:46 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>> >> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net>
>> >> wrotehttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyri.
>> >> ..
>> >> "The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
>> >> Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and
>> >> safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
>> >> expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
>> >> authorized. "
>> >
>> > what of the directive from Jesus to give up all of that and follow
>> > him? To take no thought for tomorrow?
>>
>> Wonderful to see atheists acknowledging the spiritual leadership of
>> Jesus!
>
It's about time the church did that.
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>And you know that Pius XII was a nazi lover?
It was he had advised the Vatican to accept a Cocnord with Hitler.
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
"I always babble nonsense to people"
Patrick Barker
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote .
> On Dec 21, 5:46 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>
> > "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrotehttp...
> > "The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
> > Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and
> > safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
> > expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
> > authorized. "
> > So the hell with giving your coat and going the extra mile. I guess
> > the Pope knows better than Jesus, huh, with him being more modern an'
> > all?
> > Just another hypocritical Jackass-for-Christ™ is what he is.
>
> > PRB -- The Pope is merely copyrighting his image.
> > According to your reference:
> > "The Vatican has just declared the Pope a legally protected icon.
> > Don't you dare use it in a cartoon, you vandals, or slap the holy
> > name up on your soap-on-a-rope to gin up extra sales from the gullible."
>
> > And it makes sense to protect it. For one thing, it prevents people
> > from using it for fraudulent purposes. And, your introduction of the
> > "Papal Action Figures" now can't go forward.
>
> ----------
> It makes sense for a church leader to protect his business interests?
>
> PRB> didn't say that.
That's *exactly* what you said, and you say it again right here:
> The Pope should be able to protect himself against your recently
> advertised papal action figure.... and the ol pope on a rope.
What a pity it is that all you can do is *say* it and offer not a
shred of support for your claim! LoL!
> Where's his faitht hat his god will protect him? NOWHERE!
>
> PRB: When did the pope ever claim that God would protect him?
Read your Bible.
> And what of the directive from Jesus to give up all of that and follow
> him? To take no thought for tomorrow? Yes, for any smart person, his
> move makes sense, but it betrays everything he stands for.
>
> PRB - The old pope-on-the-rope deal.... you give it up first.
I'm not a Christian. The Pope claims he is one. But as you've now
admitted, not only is he a lousy Chrisitan, he's also a shameful
hypocorite.
> The Pope sold out to commercialism and abandoned Jesus. Period.
>
> PRB - The image of the papacy needs protection from you
> and your papal watches, special holy water, blessed rosaries, etc.
Why? How easy it is for you to blindly chant these mantras when you
dont; ahve to support a single thing you assert! But as we see, when
it comes to actually explaining why it is that the leader of a huge
number of Christians has absolutely no faith in his god to do what's
right, it proves how hollow, vacuous and pathetic his religion truly
is.
Thanks for admitting that. At least there's hope for you.
Budikka
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote
Your knowledge of history is evidently as lacking as your
understanding of faith. How sad. But the fact is that when he was
Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli, later to become Pius
XII, signed a concordat between Germany and the Vatican at a ceremony
in Rome on 20 July 1933.
Budikka
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote
>
> How about Pius XII who let six million Jews and countless thousands -
> if not millions - of others be slaughtered without saying a word and
> without lifting a finger? hell he even made a deal with Hitler,
> pathetic coward that he was. Where was *his* faith?
> --------\
> PB -
> But Pope Pius XII was not completely silent,
That's the best defense you can offer for a man who was supposed to
have a direct line to your god - a man who was supposed to be a
bastion of faith, who was supposedly the spiritual descendant of Saint
Peter? How sad.
>especially in his
> Christmas messages.
Right! teh messages he transmitted to celebrate hte birth of someone
whoc ame (so mythology has it) to give his life to save humanity, and
all your Pope can do is offer tepid histrionics? LoL!
> His 1941 and 1942 Christmas messages were both
> translated and published in The New York Times (Dec. 25, 1941, p. 20 & Dec.
> 25, 1942, p. 10).
Wow! That *really* made them official! LoL! I'm sure the messages
were *so* much more powerful for their being published in the NYT. I
wonder how many lives that action saved?
> To prevent retaliation, he did not refer to Nazism by
> name,
Thanks for admitting that he had absolutely no faith whatsoever that
your god would protect *anyone*. At least in that he was smart. No
god ever has protected anyone.
> but people of that era still understood him, including the Nazis.
> According to The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1941 (Late Day
> edition, p. 24):
>
> The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness
> enveloping Europe this Christmas...
Ha ha ha ha ha! Do you do stand up? Can I hire you?
>he is about the only ruler left on the
> Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all...
Ha ha ha! Don't tell me! next you're going to say he prayed for the
six million Jews who were slaughtered right under his nose? I guess
that prayer failed dismally.
> the Pope put
> himself squarely against Hitlerism...
Ooh look, a new word. I'll add that to the dictionary right after
"evolutionism".
> he left no doubt that the Nazi aims
> are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace.
That sure helped the six million Jews and the countless thousands if
not million of others who died.
[Rest of your worthless flatulence flushed where it belongs]
If you can actually make a case for why the current pope should be
worshiping mammon instead of god, please do let us know.
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyrighte.php
>"The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
>Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and
>safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
>expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
>authorized. "
>
>So the hell with giving your coat and going the extra mile. I guess
>the Pope knows better than Jesus, huh, with him being more modern an'
>all?
Catholics go more than the mile to help the needy, the hungry, the naked, you
big dud.
>Just another hypocritical Jackass-for-Christ� is what he is.
Thank you, Jesus, for your teachings.
Jimbo
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:55:31 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyri...
> >"The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
> >Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and
> >safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
> >expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
> >authorized. "
>
> >So the hell with giving your coat and going the extra mile. I guess
> >the Pope knows better than Jesus, huh, with him being more modern an'
> >all?
>
> Catholics go more than the mile to help the needy
Bullshit. You can't even protect the weakest members of your own
congregations.
Kenny McCormack
Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>He fully supported the NAZI's and Hitler, even to the point of sending
>Hitler birthday presents.
All that I've read on the subject makes it quite clear what he did, and
why. Of course, Patrick has already posted some RCC drivel, supposedly
showing that it's all untrue.
The thing is this: If you believe that preserving the RCC is a good
thing, in fact, the one single important thing, then you have to concede
that Pacelli did the right thing(s). At that point, it was far from
clear which side would prevail, and the Pope's job was to ensure that,
regardless of which (secular) side ended up the winner, that the RCC
would continue to exist.
Jimbo
wrote:
> In article <9e636d80-5c51-4be6-ad28-ac395e72d...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >He fully supported the NAZI's and Hitler, even to the point of sending
> >Hitler birthday presents.
>
> All that I've read on the subject makes it quite clear what he did, and
> why. Of course, Patrick has already posted some RCC drivel, supposedly
> showing that it's all untrue.
The RCC has been on a focused campaign to rewrite history for a long
time. Oh, the crusades weren't so bad... The inquisitions weren't so
bad... The church didn't REALLY support the Malleus Mallificarum and
the burnings of witches and heretics... and on, and on, and on.
Patrick and putrid pieces of human waste like him are already trying
to rewrite history on the issue of the pedophile priest and church
cover up issue.
>
> The thing is this: If you believe that preserving the RCC is a good
> thing, in fact, the one single important thing, then you have to concede
> that Pacelli did the right thing(s). At that point, it was far from
> clear which side would prevail, and the Pope's job was to ensure that,
> regardless of which (secular) side ended up the winner, that the RCC
> would continue to exist.
Exactly. Because to them, the continued existence of the church was
more important than people's lives.
Kenny McCormack
Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>> The thing is this: If you believe that preserving the RCC is a good
>> thing, in fact, the one single important thing, then you have to concede
>> that Pacelli did the right thing(s). �At that point, it was far from
>> clear which side would prevail, and the Pope's job was to ensure that,
>> regardless of which (secular) side ended up the winner, that the RCC
>> would continue to exist.
>
>Exactly. Because to them, the continued existence of the church was
>more important than people's lives.
Of course. And anyone would ever believe otherwise because...?
And besides, they weren't really human (Christian) lives anyway.
Patrick
PRB - What up with you?
Do you whine about everything Catholic?
If someone were to sell "Pope on a Rope," you would whine that
the pope is making a fortune on junk crap. Some things should
be held a bit sacred, like another person's religion and beliefs.
-----------
> Where's his faitht hat his god will protect him? NOWHERE!
>
> PRB: When did the pope ever claim that God would protect him?
Read your Bible.
PRB -- I've read it.
When did the pope ever claim that God would protect him?
------------
> And what of the directive from Jesus to give up all of that and follow
> him? To take no thought for tomorrow? Yes, for any smart person, his
> move makes sense, but it betrays everything he stands for.
>
> PRB - The old pope-on-the-rope deal.... you give it up first.
I'm not a Christian. The Pope claims he is one. But as you've now
admitted, not only is he a lousy Chrisitan, he's also a shameful
hypocorite.
PRB - I have admitted???
Just as Elvis's image is owned and protected, why shouldm't
the pope have protection against wierdos like you?
-----------------
> The Pope sold out to commercialism and abandoned Jesus. Period.
>
> PRB - The image of the papacy needs protection from you
> and your papal watches, special holy water, blessed rosaries, etc.
Why?
PRB - beacause unscroupulous butt-wipes like you might
try to sell relics, sell holy water, sell papal action figures
with his image on it. This would be crass comercialism, and
there are plenty of stoopid people out there who would jump
at the chance to purchase something they feel might
help their lives.... yet be totally worthless.
----------------
How easy it is for you to blindly chant these mantras when you
dont; ahve to support a single thing you assert! But as we see, when
it comes to actually explaining why it is that the leader of a huge
number of Christians has absolutely no faith in his god to do what's
right, it proves how hollow, vacuous and pathetic his religion truly
is.
Thanks for admitting that. At least there's hope for you.
PRB -- Gosh, bud-wipe
Talk about supporting crap that you assert......
You told me to read the bible :
> PRB: When did the pope ever claim that God would protect him?
Read your Bible.
PRB - Yo - budwipe... Where in the bible should I read.
You made an assertion.
Back it up.
Or shaddup.
Patrick
> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
>>> Wonderful to see atheists acknowledging the spiritual leadership of
>>> Jesus!
>>
> It's about time the church did that.
The church did what?
Patrick
>The RCC has been on a focused campaign to rewrite history for a long
>time. Oh, the crusades weren't so bad... The inquisitions weren't so
>bad... The church didn't REALLY support the Malleus Mallificarum and
>the burnings of witches and heretics...
PRB - Huh?
> and on, and on, and on.
PRB - Please go on....
>Patrick and putrid pieces of human waste like him are already trying
>to rewrite history on the issue of the pedophile priest and church
>cover up issue.
PRB - You really are stupid, aren't you?
The Church (and I) have admitted horrible decisions were made.
The church finally put on their "big boy pants" and worked a solution
once and for all on the cleric sexual abuse problem.
Instead of looking back over the past 60 years, look back
at the last 7-8 years. What was done? When was this problem
at its peak? Is that problem being worked? Do you feel we finally
have a handle on the problem? Will this continue to be a problem?
C'mon, jumbo. Answer up.
Patrick
news:56t3j5pis3nn4cr1d...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:07:09 -0500, "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com>
> wrote:
>
>>And you know that Pius XII was a nazi lover?
> It was he had advised the Vatican to accept a Cocnord with Hitler.
Gosh, I've also heard that he loved german schnitzel....
C'mon alvin, how many polish priests were murdered by Hitler?
What exactly was this concord signed by Pius 12?
Kenny McCormack
Patrick <bark...@erinot.com> wrote a bunch of nonsense as usual:
...
Patrick
> Patrick wrote:
>> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote
>>
>> How about
>
> ..all the atheist members of every Central Committee of
> every atheist regime who let over 70,000,000 victims
> of theist tyrants (Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot) ..
>
>> be slaughtered without saying a word and
>> without lifting a finger?
>
> That make themselves complicit, just like militant atheists
> today who defend and advocate the same hate-filled violence;
How about it?
How about you tieing the two together so that one could
determine if there actually is some sort of coincidence?
Patrick
news:b392af2c-a473-4808...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
PRB - So?
I've also eaten at several German Restaurants in my time.
Does this mean I have given up on my Irish heritage?
Patrick
On Dec 22, 5:38 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote
>
> How about Pius XII who let six million Jews and countless thousands -
> if not millions - of others be slaughtered without saying a word and
> without lifting a finger? hell he even made a deal with Hitler,
> pathetic coward that he was. Where was *his* faith?
> --------\
> PB -
> But Pope Pius XII was not completely silent,
That's the best defense you can offer for a man who was supposed to
have a direct line to your god - a man who was supposed to be a
bastion of faith, who was supposedly the spiritual descendant of Saint
Peter? How sad.
PRB -- It certainly was equal to your weak attempts to
tie the pope in with the hallocaust....
BTW - Direct line of God? Please provide a reference?
LIAR!
Bastion of faith? Please provide a reference.
LIAR!
Spiritual descendant of St Peter? Pretty weak.
Where do you come up with your crap, bud-wipe?
Patrick
"Kenny McCormack" <gaz...@shell.xmission.com> wrote in message
news:hgt8lg$2jd$7...@news.xmission.com...
> In article <OtSdnReC-L1uua_W...@posted.localnet>,
> Patrick <bark...@erinot.com> wrote a bunch of nonsense as usual:
You're not jumbo.
Kenny McCormack
That's true. But, pssst, I don't think you've got the game down.
The game is to accuse me of *being* jumbo (i.e., a "sock puppet").
Then I deny it; you reassert it. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Budikka666
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:55:31 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyri...
> >"The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
> >Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and
> >safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
> >expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
> >authorized. "
>
> >So the hell with giving your coat and going the extra mile. I guess
> >the Pope knows better than Jesus, huh, with him being more modern an'
> >all?
>
> Catholics go more than the mile to help the needy, the hungry, the naked, you
> big dud.
This has nothing to do with what the Catholic church does or doesn't
do. It has to do with the Pope himself and what a faithless hypocrite
he is. But why would anyone expect a vacuous coward like you to
address that? Clearly you're RUNNING AWAY from that topic even as you
dance around in the thread like the professional moron you are.
I understand though: your dumb ass is still hurting from having it
kicked royally on the topic of the fictional Noahic flood *yet*
*again*:
http://tinyurl.com/y9k8kpv
You can RUN AWAY from the subject of these threads all you want, but
that will only convince everyone who doesn't already know it that
you're a pathetic little worthless coward. I kicked your stupid ass
in public and everyone on Usenet knows it. Now I'm done with you
until the new year when I'll kick your stupid ass again.
Budikka
Budikka666
When it's hypocritical, yes indeed. The question is why aren't you
and your ilk calling him on his faithlessness, and hypocrisy?
> If someone were to sell "Pope on a Rope," you would whine that
> the pope is making a fortune on junk crap. Some things should
> be held a bit sacred, like another person's religion and beliefs.
>
> -----------
>
> > Where's his faitht hat his god will protect him? NOWHERE!
>
> > PRB: When did the pope ever claim that God would protect him?
>
> Read your Bible.
>
> PRB -- I've read it.
> When did the pope ever claim that God would protect him?
Where did I state that the *pope* claimed some god would protect him?
My statement was about his lack of faith that his god would protect
him, something which the Bible states quite clearly. Now read your
Bible again. Maybe you can find the part about handling serpents?
It's okay to get an adult to help you on the big words.
> > And what of the directive from Jesus to give up all of that and follow
> > him? To take no thought for tomorrow? Yes, for any smart person, his
> > move makes sense, but it betrays everything he stands for.
>
> > PRB - The old pope-on-the-rope deal.... you give it up first.
>
> I'm not a Christian. The Pope claims he is one. But as you've now
> admitted, not only is he a lousy Chrisitan, he's also a shameful
> hypocorite.
>
> PRB - I have admitted???
> Just as Elvis's image is owned and protected, why shouldm't
> the pope have protection against wierdos like you?
You're clearly too blind to grasp this simple concept. Go back to
kindergarten until you're all grown up. If you can't see what's
fundamentally wrong with the Pope having no faith in his god, the very
god he champions to the world, then you're so deluded that you're not
worth wasting any more time on.
I already did. The fact that you're too much of a blind shit head to
grasp even the simplest of explanations make you less than dogshit.
Deal with the plank in your own eye before you whine like a baby about
what you blindly perceive as a mote in mine. LoL! Then when you've
done that, tackle the Pope on the fact that he's a faithless
hypocrite. After that, I might give you the time of day.
You can go now.
Budikka
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
Beautiful example of moving the goalposts. Here you come charging
like a bull a a red flag demanding what the deal was, like I made it
up, and so I post that and then you move the goalposts right over
there and try to make an issue out of somethign else! You truly are
sad.
The *fact* is that the Catholic church failed dismally in WW2 and
millions died. They failed to rein in one of their own, Adolf Hitler,
a catholic who was convinced he was doing his god's work - just like
Napoleon, just like Hernán Cortés - and millions died. Your Pope
failed to rein him in and millions died. Your god failed to rein him
in and millions died.
That's the bottom line.
End of story.
Now about the current faithless hypocrite of a Pope - he's really just
one more example of a long line of malevolence, malfeasance,
stupidity, ignorance, abuse and cluelessness, isn't he? Go on, you
can admit it. We all know the answer already.
Budikka
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote
> On Dec 22, 5:38 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
>
> > "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote
>
> > How about Pius XII who let six million Jews and countless thousands -
> > if not millions - of others be slaughtered without saying a word and
> > without lifting a finger? hell he even made a deal with Hitler,
> > pathetic coward that he was. Where was *his* faith?
> > --------\
> > PB -
> > But Pope Pius XII was not completely silent,
>
> That's the best defense you can offer for a man who was supposed to
> have a direct line to your god - a man who was supposed to be a
> bastion of faith, who was supposedly the spiritual descendant of Saint
> Peter? How sad.
>
> PRB -- It certainly was equal to your weak attempts to
> tie the pope in with the hallocaust....
When you can actually spell holocaust, I might take you seriously!
LoL! Until then, I'm done with you. Next please, right this way....
Budikka
duke
We Catholics are givers.
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:26:59 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 23, 7:23�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:55:31 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
<budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyri...
> >> >"The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
> >> >Pope on Saturday morning. �The statement seeks to establish and
> >> >safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
> >> >expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
> >> >authorized. "
> >>
> >> >So the hell with giving your coat and going the extra mile. �I guess
> >> >the Pope knows better than Jesus, huh, with him being more modern an'
> >> >all?
> >>
> >> Catholics go more than the mile to help the needy
> >
> >Bullshit. You can't even protect the weakest members of your own
> >congregations.
>
> We Catholics are givers.
>
� Indeed, but giving priests access to cute young boys is probably not a
very good idea.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Budikka666
> In article <6qm4j5tdoqa3siu8gektplobut4npkf...@4ax.com>, duke
>
> <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:26:59 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Dec 23, 7:23 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:55:31 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
>
> <budik...@netscape.net>
>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyri...
> > >> >"The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
> > >> >Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and
> > >> >safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
> > >> >expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
> > >> >authorized. "
>
> > >> >So the hell with giving your coat and going the extra mile. I guess
> > >> >the Pope knows better than Jesus, huh, with him being more modern an'
> > >> >all?
>
> > >> Catholics go more than the mile to help the needy
>
> > >Bullshit. You can't even protect the weakest members of your own
> > >congregations.
>
> > We Catholics are givers.
>
> • Indeed, but giving priests access to cute young boys is probably not a
> very good idea.
>
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
That comment made my day! Thanks!
Budikka
Patrick
Do you want to be called jumbo?
That'd be cool with me.
Patrick
> > "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote
>
> > How about Pius XII who let six million Jews and countless thousands -
> > if not millions - of others be slaughtered without saying a word and
> > without lifting a finger? hell he even made a deal with Hitler,
> > pathetic coward that he was. Where was *his* faith?
> > That a little closer to home?
>
> > PRB - Excellent BS.
> > What was the deal with Hitler?
>
> Your knowledge of history is evidently as lacking as your
> understanding of faith. How sad. But the fact is that when he was
> Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli, later to become Pius
> XII, signed a concordat between Germany and the Vatican at a ceremony
> in Rome on 20 July 1933.
>
> PRB - So?
> I've also eaten at several German Restaurants in my time.
> Does this mean I have given up on my Irish heritage?
Beautiful example of moving the goalposts.
PRB - Exactly.
You claim Pius 12 allowed 6 million jews to die because
he signed an accord. If that is what the accord was about,
then you wouldn't mind providing a reference to the wording
in the concord where the RCC would allow Jews to die.
------
Here you come charging
like a bull a a red flag demanding what the deal was, like I made it
up, and so I post that and then you move the goalposts right over
there and try to make an issue out of somethign else! You truly are
sad.
PRB - Exactly.
You also believe that AT&t hates puppies?
----------
The *fact* is that the Catholic church failed dismally in WW2 and
millions died.
PRB - Then you feel that Pius 12 could have won
the war? Or that they could have closed down Auswitch?
-----------------
They failed to rein in one of their own, Adolf Hitler,
a catholic who was convinced he was doing his god's work - just like
Napoleon, just like Hern�n Cort�s - and millions died. Your Pope
failed to rein him in and millions died. Your god failed to rein him
in and millions died.
PRB - Ahhhh, good one. Blame God.
Personally, I think AT&T had more to do with it than God.
--------------
That's the bottom line.
End of story.
PRB. Well, i'm glad we got that all hashed out.
----------------
Now about the current faithless hypocrite of a Pope - he's really just
one more example of a long line of malevolence, malfeasance,
stupidity, ignorance, abuse and cluelessness, isn't he? Go on, you
can admit it. We all know the answer already.
PRB - Look bud-wipe, I don't much care for the new pope.
I didn't vote for him. He certainly wasn't fully prepared to
take over the reins of the church. He spoke a few times off
the cuff, and jerk-offs like you twisted every word. Now
he speaks from a script. He is learning. Pope Benny is OK,
and he is trying to do his best in steering the huge bureaucracy
through the maze of you jerk-offs. I don't expect anyone to give
him a break because you all think he is supposed to be infallible.
Patrick
PRB - Cool. Ba-bye, budwipe.
Patrick
That comment made my day! Thanks!
Hey, budwipe.
I thought you were done with Duke and me.
Get out!
Sleepalot
>>Patrick and putrid pieces of human waste like him are already trying
>>to rewrite history on the issue of the pedophile priest and church
>>cover up issue.
>
>PRB - You really are stupid, aren't you?
>The Church (and I) have admitted horrible decisions were made.
>The church finally put on their "big boy pants" and worked a solution
>once and for all on the cleric sexual abuse problem.
>Instead of looking back over the past 60 years, look back
>at the last 7-8 years. What was done? When was this problem
>at its peak? Is that problem being worked? Do you feel we finally
>have a handle on the problem? Will this continue to be a problem?
>
>C'mon, jumbo. Answer up.
>
Italy. 30 - 40,000 RC priests, and no peadophile-priest scandal.
Conclusions;
a) there are no italian peadophile priests.
b) Italian peadophile priests are always sent abroad.
c) Italian peadophile priests are being protected: their abuses concealed.
Take your pick.
--
Sleepalot
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:55:31 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyrighte.php
> >"The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
> >Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and
> >safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
> >expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
> >authorized. "
> >
> >So the hell with giving your coat and going the extra mile. I guess
> >the Pope knows better than Jesus, huh, with him being more modern an'
> >all?
>
> Catholics go more than the mile to help the needy, the hungry, the naked
So do a lot of others. Such pukes as Duke fail miserably at establishing
that they are "holier that thou".
>
> >Just another hypocritical Jackass-for-Christ� is what he is.
>
> Thank you, Jesus, for your teachings.
It would not be anywhere nearly so bad if only the RC's would stick to
those teachings and not make up all that extra stuff.
Virgil
> We Catholics are givers.
But what you give, like the Inquisition, and the massacres and forced
conversions of so many Central and South American natives, is not often
what the receivers want or benefit by.
Seon
"Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
news:Coidnekm0Ijhvq_W...@posted.localnet...
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote ...
>
>
>
> , "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> > "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > On Dec 22, 5:33 pm, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:
> > > "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote
>
> > > How about Pius XII who let six million Jews and countless thousands -
> > > if not millions - of others be slaughtered without saying a word and
> > > without lifting a finger? hell he even made a deal with Hitler,
> > > pathetic coward that he was. Where was *his* faith?
> > > That a little closer to home?
>
> > > PRB - Excellent BS.
> > > What was the deal with Hitler?
>
> > Your knowledge of history is evidently as lacking as your
> > understanding of faith. How sad. But the fact is that when he was
> > Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli, later to become Pius
> > XII, signed a concordat between Germany and the Vatican at a ceremony
> > in Rome on 20 July 1933.
>
> > PRB - So?
> > I've also eaten at several German Restaurants in my time.
> > Does this mean I have given up on my Irish heritage?
>
> Beautiful example of moving the goalposts.
>
> PRB - Exactly.
> You claim Pius 12 allowed 6 million jews to die because
> he signed an accord.
Thanks for admitting you just got your dumb blind ass kicked resorting
to outright LYING about what I said.
Rest of your horseshit is irrelevant now.
Budikka
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
Keep running you pathetic Shitrag for Christ™
Next up for an ass-kicking right this way. I'm here all week.
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
Nothing changes, does it?
�R.L.Measures
<ed764f8f-27bc-49d8...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 12:28=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article <6qm4j5tdoqa3siu8gektplobut4npkf...@4ax.com>, duke
> >
> > <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:26:59 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> w=
> rote:
> >
> > > >On Dec 23, 7:23=A0am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:55:31 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> >
> > <budik...@netscape.net>
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> >
> > > >> >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copy=
> ri...
> > > >> >"The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of =
> the
> > > >> >Pope on Saturday morning. =A0The statement seeks to establish and
> > > >> >safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
> > > >> >expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
> > > >> >authorized. "
> >
> > > >> >So the hell with giving your coat and going the extra mile. =A0I gu=
> ess
> > > >> >the Pope knows better than Jesus, huh, with him being more modern a=
> n'
> > > >> >all?
> >
> > > >> Catholics go more than the mile to help the needy
> >
> > > >Bullshit. =A0You can't even protect the weakest members of your own
> > > >congregations.
> >
> > > We Catholics are givers.
> >
> > =95 =A0Indeed, but giving priests access to cute young boys is probably n=
> ot a
> > very good idea.
> >
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> That comment made my day! Thanks!
>
� Don't thank me B, it's the obvious truth.
Mike Painter
>
> PRB - Look bud-wipe, I don't much care for the new pope.
> I didn't vote for him. He certainly wasn't fully prepared to
> take over the reins of the church. He spoke a few times off
> the cuff, and jerk-offs like you twisted every word. Now
> he speaks from a script. He is learning. Pope Benny is OK,
> and he is trying to do his best in steering the huge bureaucracy
> through the maze of you jerk-offs. I don't expect anyone to give
> him a break because you all think he is supposed to be infallible.
You'd be wrong if you believd that. Most of us know the conditions under
which teh pope is allegeded to be infalliable.
Most of us know he will never speak ex-cathedra unless it is something from
the past and not political.
Many of us know that this infallibility only came about in the 1870's.
You are right in claiming that the pope is a bureaucrat. He is and nothing
more.
But the RCC says god picked him.
Mike Painter
<snip>
>>
>> We Catholics are givers.
>>
> . Indeed, but giving priests access to cute young boys is probably
> not a very good idea.
True, but we should not forget that a far larger percentage of those priests
use the power of their office to take advantage of women. The estimates run
to 20% or more.
�R.L.Measures
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
** In the Archdiocese of Los Angeles settlement, there were c. 500 boy
plaintifs and 6 girl plaintifs. The girl's settlement was c.
$1,5-million and the boy's settlement was
$660-million.
cheers Mike
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 23, 6:23�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:55:31 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyri...
>> >"The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
>> >Pope on Saturday morning. �The statement seeks to establish and
>> >safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
>> >expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
>> >authorized. "
>>
>> >So the hell with giving your coat and going the extra mile. �I guess
>> >the Pope knows better than Jesus, huh, with him being more modern an'
>> >all?
>> Catholics go more than the mile to help the needy, the hungry, the naked, you
>> big dud.
>This has nothing to do with what the Catholic church does or doesn't
>do. It has to do with the Pope himself and what a faithless hypocrite
>he is.
What you really want is for the Pope to kiss your atheist ass. Won't happen.
> But why would anyone expect a vacuous coward like you to
>address that? Clearly you're RUNNING AWAY from that topic even as you
>dance around in the thread like the professional moron you are.
Time for you to go back into hiding, dud.
But first, Merry Christ_mass.
duke
Youth leaders, doctors, and school teachers are no less troubled.
Patrick
news:oa65j5pdtsjm7sa9t...@4ax.com...
I choose B.
Oh, and don't forget that AT&T hates puppies.
Patrick
PRB _ Thanks for agreeing that you are a liar.
Talk with me later when you get your story straight.
Patrick
> Patrick wrote:
> >
>> PRB - Look bud-wipe, I don't much care for the new pope.
>> I didn't vote for him. He certainly wasn't fully prepared to
>> take over the reins of the church. He spoke a few times off
>> the cuff, and jerk-offs like you twisted every word. Now
>> he speaks from a script. He is learning. Pope Benny is OK,
>> and he is trying to do his best in steering the huge bureaucracy
>> through the maze of you jerk-offs. I don't expect anyone to give
>> him a break because you all think he is supposed to be infallible.
>
> You'd be wrong if you believd that. Most of us know the conditions under
> which teh pope is allegeded to be infalliable.
I was speaking to bud-lite.
> Most of us know he will never speak ex-cathedra unless it is something
> from the past and not political.
> Many of us know that this infallibility only came about in the 1870's.
I'm happy for you.
> You are right in claiming that the pope is a bureaucrat. He is and nothing
> more. But the RCC says god picked him.
Perhaps you could show me a reference where the RCC actually
claims that GOD picked him.
Patrick
news:XVAYm.119014$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
Whose estimates?
Patrick
>>> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
>>
>>>>> Wonderful to see atheists acknowledging the spiritual leadership of
>>>>> Jesus!
>>>>
>>> It's about time the church did that.
>>
>> The church did what?
>>
> "acknowledging the spiritual leadership of Jesus!"
You don't think the church acknowledges this?
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
� Good point but none of the above claim to be authorized by God to teach
the world about ethics and morals. I find it somewhat less than
surprising that the NAtional Man Boy Love ASSociation was co-founded by
Fr. Paul Shanley, a RCC priest. From what I know about Fr. Shanley, he is
not troubled by his sexual relationships with boys age 6 and up.
Mike Painter
I'm talking about the adult women that up to 20% of priests get involved in.
That's why I said "women" as opposed to girls.
Mike Painter
The 20% was probably an error as that is the number of women believed to
have been abused as children.
http://www.snapnetwork.org/female_victims/nuns_as_victims.htm outlines a bit
about what nuns are suffereing and as usual the church does nothing except
try to hide it.
http://www.snapnetwork.org/female_victims/female_victims_index.htm is teh
home page
Mike Painter
> "Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote.
>> Patrick wrote:
>> >
>>> PRB - Look bud-wipe, I don't much care for the new pope.
>>> I didn't vote for him. He certainly wasn't fully prepared to
>>> take over the reins of the church. He spoke a few times off
>>> the cuff, and jerk-offs like you twisted every word. Now
>>> he speaks from a script. He is learning. Pope Benny is OK,
>>> and he is trying to do his best in steering the huge bureaucracy
>>> through the maze of you jerk-offs. I don't expect anyone to give
>>> him a break because you all think he is supposed to be infallible.
>>
>> You'd be wrong if you believd that. Most of us know the conditions
>> under which teh pope is allegeded to be infalliable.
>
> I was speaking to bud-lite.
..." is not addressed to an individual.
You were wrong, why not admit it.
>
>
>> Most of us know he will never speak ex-cathedra unless it is
>> something from the past and not political.
>> Many of us know that this infallibility only came about in the
>> 1870's.
>
> I'm happy for you.
>
>
>
>> You are right in claiming that the pope is a bureaucrat. He is and
>> nothing more. But the RCC says god picked him.
>
> Perhaps you could show me a reference where the RCC actually
> claims that GOD picked him.
Well, the pope thinks so "Pope Benedict said on Saturday he still had
difficulty understanding why God had chosen him to lead the Catholic Church
worldwide, recalling his isolated upbringing in a rural community of
southern Germany."
The church has always claimed that Jesus selected the first pope and then
goes on at length about how it was not a single event. It follows (as they
like to say) that the method would also remain the same.
Patrick
> Patrick wrote:
>> "Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote.
>>> Patrick wrote:
>>> >
>>>> PRB - Look bud-wipe, I don't much care for the new pope.
>>>> I didn't vote for him. He certainly wasn't fully prepared to
>>>> take over the reins of the church. He spoke a few times off
>>>> the cuff, and jerk-offs like you twisted every word. Now
>>>> he speaks from a script. He is learning. Pope Benny is OK,
>>>> and he is trying to do his best in steering the huge bureaucracy
>>>> through the maze of you jerk-offs. I don't expect anyone to give
>>>> him a break because you all think he is supposed to be infallible.
>>>
>>> You'd be wrong if you believd that. Most of us know the conditions
>>> under which teh pope is allegeded to be infalliable.
>>
>> I was speaking to bud-lite.
> This is an alt newsgroup and usually " because you all think he is
> supposed ..." is not addressed to an individual.
> You were wrong, why not admit it.
I was addressing an individual.
You could have been polite when you interrupted.
But then, you don't know how.
>>
>>
>>> Most of us know he will never speak ex-cathedra unless it is
>>> something from the past and not political.
>>> Many of us know that this infallibility only came about in the
>>> 1870's.
>>
>> I'm happy for you.
>>
>>
>>
>>> You are right in claiming that the pope is a bureaucrat. He is and
>>> nothing more. But the RCC says god picked him.
>>
>> Perhaps you could show me a reference where the RCC actually
>> claims that GOD picked him.
>
> Well, the pope thinks so "Pope Benedict said on Saturday he still had
> difficulty understanding why God had chosen him to lead the Catholic
> Church worldwide, recalling his isolated upbringing in a rural community
> of southern Germany."
I need a reference.
> The church has always claimed that Jesus selected the first pope and then
> goes on at length about how it was not a single event. It follows (as they
> like to say) that the method would also remain the same.
I need another reference.
Patrick
>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> We Catholics are givers.
>>>>>
>>>> . Indeed, but giving priests access to cute young boys is probably
>>>> not a very good idea.
>>>
>>> True, but we should not forget that a far larger percentage of those
>>> priests use the power of their office to take advantage of women. The
>>> estimates run to 20% or more.
>>
>> Whose estimates?
>
> The 20% was probably an error as that is the number of women believed to
> have been abused as children.
> http://www.snapnetwork.org/female_victims/nuns_as_victims.htm outlines a
> bit about what nuns are suffereing and as usual the church does nothing
> except try to hide it.
IOW, you lied.
I found:
Nearly one in five nuns said she had been sexually abused as a child.
It doesn't mention that it was priests.
What it does say is:
While most of the abuse came at the hands of a male family member, about 9
percent of the cases were attributed to abuse by priests, nuns or other
religious people.
Please TRY to keep your stories straight.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
I have not heard that youth leaders, doctors, and school teachers are
expected to take vows of celibacy, so have legal and moral outlets for
their sexual drives.
Thus they are, on the whole, much less likely to be 'troubled'.
Of course, those like Puke who are blinded by their own prejudices, have
to have such obvious differences pointed ou to them.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:33:17 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 23, 6:23�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:55:31 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> >> <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_papal_figure_is_copyri...
> >> >"The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the
> >> >Pope on Saturday morning. �The statement seeks to establish and
> >> >safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being
> >> >expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise
> >> >authorized. "
> >>
> >> >So the hell with giving your coat and going the extra mile. �I guess
> >> >the Pope knows better than Jesus, huh, with him being more modern an'
> >> >all?
>
> >> Catholics go more than the mile to help the needy, the hungry, the naked,
> >> you
> >> big dud.
>
> >This has nothing to do with what the Catholic church does or doesn't
> >do. It has to do with the Pope himself and what a faithless hypocrite
> >he is.
>
> What you really want is for the Pope to kiss your atheist ass. Won't happen.
Why would anyone but an RC want to get that close to your leader?
>
> > But why would anyone expect a vacuous coward like you to
> >address that? Clearly you're RUNNING AWAY from that topic even as you
> >dance around in the thread like the professional moron you are.
>
> Time for you to go back into hiding, dud.
Why? Has this Pope restarted the Inquisution?
>
> But first, Merry Christ_mass.
Have a Safe and Successful Solstice, which is what it REALLY is all
about at this time of year.
�R.L.Measures
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
** As I recall, most of the girls in the settlement were
high-schoolers. IME, a 17-yr old female is indistinguishable from a
woman.
Mike Painter
and in the next you say 9% WERE by priests.
My original statement mentioned "women" and while you only contact may have
been with nuns ther are women who are not nuns.
Seon
"Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
news:kvCdnTMp978FA67W...@posted.localnet...
I think the church acknowledges the spiritual leadership of the almighty
dollar. I have debated with various Christians online and none of them
attribute any of Jesus' teachings. Love thy neighbor, don't judge, judge not
let ye be judged.
Mike Painter
> "Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote ...
>> Patrick wrote:
>>> "Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote.
>>>> Patrick wrote:
>>>> >
>>>>> PRB - Look bud-wipe, I don't much care for the new pope.
>>>>> I didn't vote for him. He certainly wasn't fully prepared to
>>>>> take over the reins of the church. He spoke a few times off
>>>>> the cuff, and jerk-offs like you twisted every word. Now
>>>>> he speaks from a script. He is learning. Pope Benny is OK,
>>>>> and he is trying to do his best in steering the huge bureaucracy
>>>>> through the maze of you jerk-offs. I don't expect anyone to give
>>>>> him a break because you all think he is supposed to be infallible.
>>>>
>>>> You'd be wrong if you believd that. Most of us know the conditions
>>>> under which teh pope is allegeded to be infalliable.
>>>
>>> I was speaking to bud-lite.
>
>> This is an alt newsgroup and usually " because you all think he is
>> supposed ..." is not addressed to an individual.
>> You were wrong, why not admit it.
>
> I was addressing an individual.
> You could have been polite when you interrupted.
> But then, you don't know how.
This is an alt newsgroup dimwit. If you don't like it form a moderated one
and run it.
>
>
>
<snip>
>>> Perhaps you could show me a reference where the RCC actually
>>> claims that GOD picked him.
>>
>> Well, the pope thinks so "Pope Benedict said on Saturday he still had
>> difficulty understanding why God had chosen him to lead the Catholic
>> Church worldwide, recalling his isolated upbringing in a rural
>> community of southern Germany."
>
> I need a reference.
Then search on teh phrase and find it.
>
>
>> The church has always claimed that Jesus selected the first pope
>> and then goes on at length about how it was not a single event. It
>> follows (as they like to say) that the method would also remain the
>> same.
>
> I need another reference.
The catechism of the RCC is a good place to start.
The Catholic encyclopedia is another.
Mike Painter
The law says 18.
�R.L.Measures
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
** Not always. In California, a 15-yr old female can legally be married
to a 17-yr old male with her parent's permission. I know this is so
because a friend did this when he was 17 and his wife was 15.
Mike Painter
>>>>
>>>> I'm talking about the adult women that up to 20% of priests get
>>>> involved in. That's why I said "women" as opposed to girls.
>>>
>>> ** As I recall, most of the girls in the settlement were
>>> high-schoolers. IME, a 17-yr old female is indistinguishable from a
>>> woman.
>>
>> The law says 18.
>
> ** Not always. In California, a 15-yr old female can legally be
> married to a 17-yr old male with her parent's permission. I know this
> is so because a friend did this when he was 17 and his wife was 15.
That does not mean that she would be considered an adult in any other
proceedings.
When it comes to sex Cal PC 261 lays out most of it.
�R.L.Measures
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
** Correct, but he didn't get tossed in the slammer for "statutory rape".
> When it comes to sex Cal PC 261 lays out most of it.
** Methinks that the age of consent for females should be changed to 16.
duke
Wrong. All of these are answering a call to give rather than receive. And
ethics and morals are part of the deal.
> I find it somewhat less than
>surprising that the NAtional Man Boy Love ASSociation was co-founded by
>Fr. Paul Shanley, a RCC priest. From what I know about Fr. Shanley, he is
>not troubled by his sexual relationships with boys age 6 and up.
Sure violated his vows to God, didn't he.
duke
Then why are step fathers the admitted biggest problem by medical studies?
Patrick
> I think the church acknowledges the spiritual leadership of the almighty
> dollar. I have debated with various Christians online and none of them
> attribute any of Jesus' teachings. Love thy neighbor, don't judge, judge
> not let ye be judged.
And so you base your entire argument on what you think of a few Christians?
Patrick
>>>>
>>>> I was speaking to bud-lite.
>>
>>> This is an alt newsgroup and usually " because you all think he is
>>> supposed ..." is not addressed to an individual.
>>> You were wrong, why not admit it.
>>
>> I was addressing an individual.
>> You could have been polite when you interrupted.
>> But then, you don't know how.
>
> This is an alt newsgroup dimwit. If you don't like it form a moderated one
> and run it.
No.
I am merely trying to get people to be polite.
If you don't wish to, so be it.
> <snip>
>>>> Perhaps you could show me a reference where the RCC actually
>>>> claims that GOD picked him.
>>>
>>> Well, the pope thinks so "Pope Benedict said on Saturday he still had
>>> difficulty understanding why God had chosen him to lead the Catholic
>>> Church worldwide, recalling his isolated upbringing in a rural
>>> community of southern Germany."
>>
>> I need a reference.
>
> Then search on teh phrase and find it.
No.
If you make a statement, then you should be able to back it up.
Or ... be considered a liar.
>>> The church has always claimed that Jesus selected the first pope
>>> and then goes on at length about how it was not a single event. It
>>> follows (as they like to say) that the method would also remain the
>>> same.
>>
>> I need another reference.
>
> The catechism of the RCC is a good place to start.
> The Catholic encyclopedia is another.
I think I know more about my religion that you can lie about it.
If you wish to lie about doctrine or dogma, be prepared to
be called on it..... LIAR!
Patrick
Keep running you pathetic Shitrag for Christ�
Next up for an ass-kicking right this way. I'm here all week.
Hey, bud-lite.
I'm back for a few minutes.
Would you like to throw out some more lies and insults?
Patrick
>>>>>
>>>>> True, but we should not forget that a far larger percentage of
>>>>> those priests use the power of their office to take advantage of
>>>>> women. The estimates run to 20% or more.
>>>>
>>>> Whose estimates?
>>>
>>> The 20% was probably an error as that is the number of women
>>> believed to have been abused as children.
>>> http://www.snapnetwork.org/female_victims/nuns_as_victims.htm
>>> outlines a bit about what nuns are suffereing and as usual the
>>> church does nothing except try to hide it.
>>
>> IOW, you lied.
>> I found:
>> Nearly one in five nuns said she had been sexually abused as a child.
>> It doesn't mention that it was priests.
>>
>> What it does say is:
>> While most of the abuse came at the hands of a male family member,
>> about 9 percent of the cases were attributed to abuse by priests,
>> nuns or other religious people.
>>
>> Please TRY to keep your stories straight.
> Me? IN one paragraph you say that "It doesn't mention that it was
> priests."
> and in the next you say 9% WERE by priests.
Yes.
You attempted to indicate a lie.
I called you on it.
> My original statement mentioned "women" and while you only contact may
> have been with nuns ther are women who are not nuns.
You lied, and then you used a false reference.
Your original statement was a lie.
Your reference didn't back up your lie.
Mike Painter
> "Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> I was speaking to bud-lite.
>>>
>>>> This is an alt newsgroup and usually " because you all think he is
>>>> supposed ..." is not addressed to an individual.
>>>> You were wrong, why not admit it.
>>>
>>> I was addressing an individual.
>>> You could have been polite when you interrupted.
>>> But then, you don't know how.
>>
>> This is an alt newsgroup dimwit. If you don't like it form a
>> moderated one and run it.
>
> No.
> I am merely trying to get people to be polite.
> If you don't wish to, so be it.
No. You were avoiding admitting that your statement was wrong. We see people
change the subject all the time to avoid that here.
If you want to address an individual then be polite, get permission and
continue the conversation in a medium suited for private conversation.
>
>> <snip>
>>>>> Perhaps you could show me a reference where the RCC actually
>>>>> claims that GOD picked him.
>>>>
>>>> Well, the pope thinks so "Pope Benedict said on Saturday he still
>>>> had difficulty understanding why God had chosen him to lead the
>>>> Catholic Church worldwide, recalling his isolated upbringing in a
>>>> rural community of southern Germany."
>>>
>>> I need a reference.
>>
>> Then search on teh phrase and find it.
>
> No.
> If you make a statement, then you should be able to back it up.
> Or ... be considered a liar.
How....polite. I can provide a reference, I choose not to.
>
>
>>>> The church has always claimed that Jesus selected the first pope
>>>> and then goes on at length about how it was not a single event. It
>>>> follows (as they like to say) that the method would also remain the
>>>> same.
>>>
>>> I need another reference.
>>
>> The catechism of the RCC is a good place to start.
>> The Catholic encyclopedia is another.
>
> I think I know more about my religion that you can lie about it.
> If you wish to lie about doctrine or dogma, be prepared to
> be called on it..... LIAR!
Now I provide references and the polite Patrick again calls me a liar.
It's easy to find the references in the RCC catechism and anybody who wants
to can check and see who knows more about PP's religion.
For him to not know that the RCC claims Christ selected the first pope and
that this was not a one time thing implies a *very* limited indoctrination
as it is a really big deal with them.
But perhaps he does know it.
No, PP would never do that.
Mike Painter
Attempted to indicate a lie?
PP you really should try harder. Maybe some of the others in the Catholic
groups will help you.
Try reading the part where I said "The 20% was probably an error as that is
the number of women believed to have been abused as children."
I'm aware you "called me on it" but to do so you had to contradict yourself
in adjacent paragraphs.
>
>
>> My original statement mentioned "women" and while you only contact
>> may have been with nuns ther are women who are not nuns.
>
> You lied, and then you used a false reference.
Are you talking about teh false reference that you quoted or some other one?
> Your original statement was a lie.
You need to geet back to your elementary school cathechism classes and learn
about lies.
An error is not a lie, not even to an Irish Catholic woman.
> Your reference didn't back up your lie.
PP sure likes throwing those accusations of lie around.
Don't give a reference and it is a lie.
Do give one and it is a lie.
Seon
"Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
news:QNCdnWNsMLd2uavW...@posted.localnet...
Well maybe most Christians are sincere. But I was watching a special on a
Christian TV station. It was about the son of Billy graham. It made me go
awww and maybe Jesus is out there and stuff and then it went "If you want to
donate to our ministry..." the sad thing is a lot of religions are out there
for the money. But I guess your right, they are some genuine Christians who
sincerely believe 2,000 years ago God came down here in the form of Jesus
Christ and died for us.
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
� My Boy Scout Troop Leader never claimed he was on a mission for God.
> > I find it somewhat less than
> >surprising that the NAtional Man Boy Love ASSociation was co-founded by
> >Fr. Paul Shanley, a RCC priest. From what I know about Fr. Shanley, he is
> >not troubled by his sexual relationships with boys age 6 and up.
>
> Sure violated his vows to God, didn't he.
� Priests vow not to have sex with women, and there were 4309 priests
like Fr. Shanley that had no problem keeping their vow because they would
never ever go near a vagina.
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
� Step fathers do not claim to have been given Holy Orders.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
We are a bit more concerned with his violating the laws of mankind.
And the RC church for protecting so many of his ilk from those laws.