| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Cary Kittrell" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2007 02:10:24 PM |
| Object: |
Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
In article <8uojc3t40kmp54th9gbrakb052t9p1sog4@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:41:43 GMT, "Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote:
1. Baptism enters the infant into the Body of Christ. And it removes the
stain
of original sin from the soul.
There is NO such thing as original sin in a new born baby. That is just
another Catholic LIE! Sin can ONLY be committed by a person CHOOSING to sin.
A baby is incapable of making a conscience choice to sin.
You don't know your bible, dore. The wages of sin is death, and until Christ
came along, it was limited to physical death. Fetuses and infants die. They
carry the genetics of the sin of A&E just like they do with their 10 fingers and
10 toes.
Really? Wow...
So, which particular chromosome are the sin genes located on?
Man! We figure that out, we'll doubtless be able to breed sin-free humans
within a decade or two.
-- cary
.
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
21 Aug 2007 06:04:10 AM |
|
|
In article <facov0$7u1$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>,
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu says...
In article <8uojc3t40kmp54th9gbrakb052t9p1sog4@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:41:43 GMT, "Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote:
1. Baptism enters the infant into the Body of Christ. And it removes the
stain
of original sin from the soul.
There is NO such thing as original sin in a new born baby. That is just
another Catholic LIE! Sin can ONLY be committed by a person CHOOSING to sin.
A baby is incapable of making a conscience choice to sin.
You don't know your bible, dore. The wages of sin is death, and until Christ
came along, it was limited to physical death. Fetuses and infants die. They
carry the genetics of the sin of A&E just like they do with their 10 fingers and
10 toes.
Really?
Ummmm.....No. All you have to point out is the flawed reasoning about
infants dying. Even if the wages of sin were death, it would not follow
that all people who die, die because of sin. It would still be possible
for some people to die for reasons other than sin.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
21 Aug 2007 05:06:31 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:04:10 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <facov0$7u1$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>,
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu says...
In article <8uojc3t40kmp54th9gbrakb052t9p1sog4@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:41:43 GMT, "Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote:
1. Baptism enters the infant into the Body of Christ. And it removes the
stain
of original sin from the soul.
There is NO such thing as original sin in a new born baby. That is just
another Catholic LIE! Sin can ONLY be committed by a person CHOOSING to sin.
A baby is incapable of making a conscience choice to sin.
You don't know your bible, dore. The wages of sin is death, and until Christ
came along, it was limited to physical death. Fetuses and infants die. They
carry the genetics of the sin of A&E just like they do with their 10 fingers and
10 toes.
Really?
Ummmm.....No. All you have to point out is the flawed reasoning about
infants dying. Even if the wages of sin were death, it would not follow
that all people who die, die because of sin. It would still be possible
for some people to die for reasons other than sin.
And A&E didn't die until after they had sinned. They were in the Garden of
Eden. The wages of sin is death, and infants and preborn die.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
21 Aug 2007 06:55:58 PM |
|
|
In article <6domc3190vr53pijfls4mhjaltkoc5iu9q@4ax.com>,
duckgumbo32@cox.net says...
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:04:10 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <facov0$7u1$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>,
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu says...
In article <8uojc3t40kmp54th9gbrakb052t9p1sog4@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:41:43 GMT, "Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote:
1. Baptism enters the infant into the Body of Christ. And it removes the
stain
of original sin from the soul.
There is NO such thing as original sin in a new born baby. That is just
another Catholic LIE! Sin can ONLY be committed by a person CHOOSING to sin.
A baby is incapable of making a conscience choice to sin.
You don't know your bible, dore. The wages of sin is death, and until Christ
came along, it was limited to physical death. Fetuses and infants die. They
carry the genetics of the sin of A&E just like they do with their 10 fingers and
10 toes.
Really?
Ummmm.....No. All you have to point out is the flawed reasoning about
infants dying. Even if the wages of sin were death, it would not follow
that all people who die, die because of sin. It would still be possible
for some people to die for reasons other than sin.
And A&E didn't die until after they had sinned.
That still doesn't prove that sin was the cause of their death. For all
we know they would have died anyway, regardless of sins. That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh. I mean it's very suspicious that
there was a Tree of Life that Yahweh didn't want them to eat from. Why
would there need to be a Tree of Life before sin entered the world if it
were the only cause of death.
They were in the Garden of
Eden.
They were created as fucking slaves to work the garden. Maybe your idea
of paradise is being the HNIC at the plantation, but, unlike you,
intelligent people reject your ridiculous formulation.
The wages of sin is death, and infants and preborn die.
That does not prove that they die because of sin. There are many reasons
for death, all of which you should attempt upon yourself. But they are
all physical and have nothing to do with sin.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
22 Aug 2007 10:31:23 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
22 Aug 2007 11:56:36 AM |
|
|
In article <ulloc35il4dq6b22o3tisqip5j8qqkf30l@4ax.com>, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
• It's more like he believes everything that the hierarchy of the one
true church has come up with to increase their power and control over
subscribers. .
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
09 Sep 2007 08:08:28 PM |
|
|
On Aug 22, 11:31 am, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
Duke lies...God just doesn't care.
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
09 Sep 2007 10:51:17 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Paul Duca (tomservo56954@comcast.net)"
<tomservo56954@comcast.net> bloodied us up with this:
On Aug 22, 11:31 am, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
Duke lies...God just doesn't care.
You misspelled "exist".
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
22 Aug 2007 10:45:54 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:31:23 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
If you don't believe in it then it can't. But if you do, it does.
Prime examples being "on that day you shall surely die", deceiving
everybody by making a young world look old by planting fossils etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
22 Aug 2007 11:59:41 AM |
|
|
In article <2bmoc3lgqmtb66ulc8n1hdugk7j75qme53@4ax.com>, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:31:23 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
If you don't believe in it then it can't. But if you do, it does.
Prime examples being "on that day you shall surely die", deceiving
everybody by making a young world look old by planting fossils etc.
** Chortle. This is one of the funniest things that the hierarchy of the
Baptist church has managed to come up with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
22 Aug 2007 12:18:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:59:41 -0700, (•R L Measures) wrote:
In article <2bmoc3lgqmtb66ulc8n1hdugk7j75qme53@4ax.com>, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:31:23 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
If you don't believe in it then it can't. But if you do, it does.
Prime examples being "on that day you shall surely die", deceiving
everybody by making a young world look old by planting fossils etc.
** Chortle. This is one of the funniest things that the hierarchy of the
Baptist church has managed to come up with.
Especially when the bad guy is supposed to be the deceiver.
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
22 Aug 2007 01:52:03 PM |
|
|
In article <emroc3p4ek6ft4lglk4brguna977gb9nms@4ax.com>, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:59:41 -0700, (•R L Measures) wrote:
In article <2bmoc3lgqmtb66ulc8n1hdugk7j75qme53@4ax.com>, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:31:23 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
If you don't believe in it then it can't. But if you do, it does.
Prime examples being "on that day you shall surely die", deceiving
everybody by making a young world look old by planting fossils etc.
** Chortle. This is one of the funniest things that the hierarchy of the
Baptist church has managed to come up with.
Especially when the bad guy is supposed to be the deceiver.
** Baptist leaders are not deceptive, they simply made the mistake of
assuming that every word in the Bible is true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
22 Aug 2007 08:07:31 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:59:41 -0700, (•R L Measures) wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
In article <2bmoc3lgqmtb66ulc8n1hdugk7j75qme53@4ax.com>, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:31:23 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
If you don't believe in it then it can't. But if you do, it does.
Prime examples being "on that day you shall surely die", deceiving
everybody by making a young world look old by planting fossils etc.
** Chortle. This is one of the funniest things that the hierarchy of the
Baptist church has managed to come up with.
What "hierarchy?" Last I heard, the Baptists are FAMOUS for being
independent. Even the "associations", like the Southern Baptists, have
the LOOSEST rules, because if they tried to get too strict, the
VOLUNTARY members (being a member is not compulsory) would simply
withdraw.
As far as the fossils are concerned, seems like you two (and others)
never consulted any Christians (any REAL ones) about any alternate
explanations for the fossils.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
22 Aug 2007 08:17:19 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:07:31 -0700, in alt.atheism
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote in
<jempc3t6s7n05fivq4el9h73767f2ovva2@4ax.com>:
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:59:41 -0700, (•R L Measures) wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
In article <2bmoc3lgqmtb66ulc8n1hdugk7j75qme53@4ax.com>, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:31:23 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
If you don't believe in it then it can't. But if you do, it does.
Prime examples being "on that day you shall surely die", deceiving
everybody by making a young world look old by planting fossils etc.
** Chortle. This is one of the funniest things that the hierarchy of the
Baptist church has managed to come up with.
What "hierarchy?" Last I heard, the Baptists are FAMOUS for being
independent. Even the "associations", like the Southern Baptists, have
the LOOSEST rules, because if they tried to get too strict, the
VOLUNTARY members (being a member is not compulsory) would simply
withdraw.
Technically true, but the SBC has come to the point where it tolerates
very little deviation from their standard doctrines. Sure, they claim
that each person gets to understand the Bible themselves and that each
congregation gets to make its own way, but congregations and
parishioners who start to sound like the average member of the UCC or UU
will quickly find out that this tolerance is merely a technical
formality, one that can be disposed of if it upsets the great
conservative powers within the SBC.
As far as the fossils are concerned, seems like you two (and others)
never consulted any Christians (any REAL ones) about any alternate
explanations for the fossils.
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
23 Aug 2007 07:45:29 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:17:19 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:07:31 -0700, in alt.atheism
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote in
<jempc3t6s7n05fivq4el9h73767f2ovva2@4ax.com>:
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:59:41 -0700, (•R L Measures) wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
In article <2bmoc3lgqmtb66ulc8n1hdugk7j75qme53@4ax.com>, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:31:23 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
If you don't believe in it then it can't. But if you do, it does.
Prime examples being "on that day you shall surely die", deceiving
everybody by making a young world look old by planting fossils etc.
** Chortle. This is one of the funniest things that the hierarchy of the
Baptist church has managed to come up with.
What "hierarchy?" Last I heard, the Baptists are FAMOUS for being
independent. Even the "associations", like the Southern Baptists, have
the LOOSEST rules, because if they tried to get too strict, the
VOLUNTARY members (being a member is not compulsory) would simply
withdraw.
Technically true, but the SBC has come to the point where it tolerates
very little deviation from their standard doctrines.
They certainly tolerate deviations from some doctrines. They now
allow nonsense such as "tongues", proven by the fact that the William
J Clintons are practicing Southern Baptists, and they are also
"Pentecostal", meaning one or both claims they speak in tongues. (they
don't). The SBC today is "comfortable" with that.
They once allowed members to question/challenge such crucial
doctrines as the deity of Jesus Christ. Last I heard, they took a vote
and decided that the deity of Jesus Christ was a "crucial issue." (it
is) Now you must vow that you accept the deity of Jesus in order to
belong to the SBC.
There ARE "core minimum requirements" to identify with the SBC, as
you must be
1 a female
and
2 between __ (age) and ___ (age)
to be a
Girl Scout.
There are core requirements (but few) to being in the SBC, as there
are core requirement to being a Girl Scout.
Sure, they claim
that each person gets to understand the Bible themselves
to a degree. There can be differences on certain passages (last I
heard, SBC members are not required to accept the Creation story as
"liberal")
But you must believe in the literal death, and literal bodily
resurrection of Jesus Christ to belong to the SBC. That is a "core
requirement."
and that each
congregation gets to make its own way, but congregations and
parishioners who start to sound like the average member of the UCC or UU
will quickly find out that this tolerance is merely a technical
formality,
As I don't recognize either "UU" or "UCC", I can't comment.
one that can be disposed of if it upsets the great
conservative powers within the SBC.
Last I heard, today's SBC is not NEARLY as "conservative" as it was
when I belonged. That's one reason I no longer belong. I first
belonged because my family did (mom). When I was old enough to
understand that "core Baptist teaching" was at odds with the Bible, I
left the SBC, and then I left the Baptists.
As far as the fossils are concerned, seems like you two (and others)
never consulted any Christians (any REAL ones) about any alternate
explanations for the fossils.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
23 Aug 2007 09:06:40 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:45:29 -0700, 'said party' claimed:
Last I heard, today's SBC is not NEARLY as "conservative" as it was
when I belonged. That's one reason I no longer belong. I first
belonged because my family did (mom). When I was old enough to
understand that "core Baptist teaching" was at odds with the Bible, I
left the SBC, and then I left the Baptists.
Another piece of garbage...
The SBC may teach differently, but in the Baptist Church to which I
belong, the Bible is taught ACCURATELY.
Keep stirring that cauldron...... but it'll do you no good. The soup
will still be rotten no matter how you look at it.
Reply if you insist, but expect NO REPLY from me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
23 Aug 2007 09:18:59 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:06:40 -0400, in alt.atheism
NOspam@no.spam wrote in <105rc31ftprff2nfto0536h7u06op9ccpc@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:45:29 -0700, 'said party' claimed:
Last I heard, today's SBC is not NEARLY as "conservative" as it was
when I belonged. That's one reason I no longer belong. I first
belonged because my family did (mom). When I was old enough to
understand that "core Baptist teaching" was at odds with the Bible, I
left the SBC, and then I left the Baptists.
Another piece of garbage...
The SBC may teach differently, but in the Baptist Church to which I
belong, the Bible is taught ACCURATELY.
Thousands of different denominations tell us that they teach the Bible
accurately, yet they teach different things. What objective measure do
you use to determine what an accurate teaching from the Bible is? Does
it matter if clear physical evidence shows that a particular teaching is
inconsistent with reality?
Keep stirring that cauldron...... but it'll do you no good. The soup
will still be rotten no matter how you look at it.
Reply if you insist, but expect NO REPLY from me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
23 Aug 2007 11:25:53 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:18:59 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:06:40 -0400, in alt.atheism
NOspam@no.spam wrote in <105rc31ftprff2nfto0536h7u06op9ccpc@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:45:29 -0700, 'said party' claimed:
Last I heard, today's SBC is not NEARLY as "conservative" as it was
when I belonged. That's one reason I no longer belong. I first
belonged because my family did (mom). When I was old enough to
understand that "core Baptist teaching" was at odds with the Bible, I
left the SBC, and then I left the Baptists.
Another piece of garbage...
The SBC may teach differently, but in the Baptist Church to which I
belong, the Bible is taught ACCURATELY.
Thousands of different denominations tell us that they teach the Bible
accurately, yet they teach different things. What objective measure do
you use to determine what an accurate teaching from the Bible is? Does
it matter if clear physical evidence shows that a particular teaching is
inconsistent with reality?
I proved my point. All Elaine is expressing is her usual PATHOLOGICAL
(insane) hatred.
She falsely accuses right out of the starting gate, and it would
NEVER occur to her to ask me, "What are you talking about? I
thought...."
She is content to falsely accuse me, and doesn't even wait around for
my explanation of how she's wrong-- - yet again!
This is precisely why so few people take Elaine seriously!
She's quite obviously QUITE demented, and while her lips drip honey
for 20 people in here (including the atheists), she has only venom for
me!
???
It was only a week or so again that she came to me with a TOTALLY
PHONY "apology." I simply said, "I'll wait and see."
Within 24 hours (as I predicted), she was back to her hate and her
pathological lying.
She'll only change when she's FORCED into a therapeutic setting with
drugs and intensive psychotherapy!
Sadly, she'd rather take a bullet than get better. (that's also
typical of the psychopath)
Keep stirring that cauldron...... but it'll do you no good. The soup
will still be rotten no matter how you look at it.
Reply if you insist, but expect NO REPLY from me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
23 Aug 2007 11:22:20 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:06:40 -0400, wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:45:29 -0700, 'said party' claimed:
Last I heard, today's SBC is not NEARLY as "conservative" as it was
when I belonged. That's one reason I no longer belong. I first
belonged because my family did (mom). When I was old enough to
understand that "core Baptist teaching" was at odds with the Bible, I
left the SBC, and then I left the Baptists.
Another piece of garbage...
The SBC may teach differently, but in the Baptist Church to which I
belong, the Bible is taught ACCURATELY.
Not true. The Baptist churches I have been involved with banned
alcohol drinking, which is NOT banned in the New Testament. They make
up the notion that the wine Jesus created (His first recorded miracle)
was actually "not fermented", when the content of the story (the
written narrative) indicates CLEARLY that it WAS fermented.
Likewise, they BAN dancing, when anyone who knows the Jewish culture
from which Jesus came knows that Jews-- and therefore Jesus-- danced.
One has only to attend the barmitzpha of a friend to see Jews dancing.
If Jesus danced as a child, He likely found occasion to dance as an
adult (like at the wedding of a family member, where HE created some
200 gallons of fermented wine)
--
And you MIGHT try ASKING me what I'm talking about in the future,
rather than resorting to your usual FALSE accusations.
Keep stirring that cauldron...... but it'll do you no good. The soup
will still be rotten no matter how you look at it.
What the HECK are you talking about?
More of your insane, pathological ranting and drooling, I assume!
Reply if you insist, but expect NO REPLY from me.
smirk.
So much for you not addressing me DIRECTLY "anymore!"
ANOTHER of your MANY lies!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
23 Aug 2007 08:10:35 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:45:29 -0700, in alt.atheism
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote in
<6uvqc3pmaap0d77abders7idaljc5glmft@4ax.com>:
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:17:19 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:07:31 -0700, in alt.atheism
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote in
<jempc3t6s7n05fivq4el9h73767f2ovva2@4ax.com>:
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:59:41 -0700, (•R L Measures) wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
In article <2bmoc3lgqmtb66ulc8n1hdugk7j75qme53@4ax.com>, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:31:23 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
If you don't believe in it then it can't. But if you do, it does.
Prime examples being "on that day you shall surely die", deceiving
everybody by making a young world look old by planting fossils etc.
** Chortle. This is one of the funniest things that the hierarchy of the
Baptist church has managed to come up with.
What "hierarchy?" Last I heard, the Baptists are FAMOUS for being
independent. Even the "associations", like the Southern Baptists, have
the LOOSEST rules, because if they tried to get too strict, the
VOLUNTARY members (being a member is not compulsory) would simply
withdraw.
Technically true, but the SBC has come to the point where it tolerates
very little deviation from their standard doctrines.
They certainly tolerate deviations from some doctrines. They now
allow nonsense such as "tongues", proven by the fact that the William
J Clintons are practicing Southern Baptists, and they are also
"Pentecostal", meaning one or both claims they speak in tongues. (they
don't). The SBC today is "comfortable" with that.
They once allowed members to question/challenge such crucial
doctrines as the deity of Jesus Christ. Last I heard, they took a vote
and decided that the deity of Jesus Christ was a "crucial issue." (it
is) Now you must vow that you accept the deity of Jesus in order to
belong to the SBC.
There ARE "core minimum requirements" to identify with the SBC, as
you must be
1 a female
and
2 between __ (age) and ___ (age)
to be a
Girl Scout.
There are core requirements (but few) to being in the SBC, as there
are core requirement to being a Girl Scout.
Sure, they claim
that each person gets to understand the Bible themselves
to a degree. There can be differences on certain passages (last I
heard, SBC members are not required to accept the Creation story as
"liberal")
I presume you meant _literal_ above.
But you must believe in the literal death, and literal bodily
resurrection of Jesus Christ to belong to the SBC. That is a "core
requirement."
and that each
congregation gets to make its own way, but congregations and
parishioners who start to sound like the average member of the UCC or UU
will quickly find out that this tolerance is merely a technical
formality,
As I don't recognize either "UU" or "UCC", I can't comment.
Unitarian Universalist and United Church of Christ.
one that can be disposed of if it upsets the great
conservative powers within the SBC.
Last I heard, today's SBC is not NEARLY as "conservative" as it was
when I belonged. That's one reason I no longer belong. I first
belonged because my family did (mom). When I was old enough to
understand that "core Baptist teaching" was at odds with the Bible, I
left the SBC, and then I left the Baptists.
How long ago?
As far as the fossils are concerned, seems like you two (and others)
never consulted any Christians (any REAL ones) about any alternate
explanations for the fossils.
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
23 Aug 2007 11:18:00 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:10:35 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:45:29 -0700, in alt.atheism
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote in
<6uvqc3pmaap0d77abders7idaljc5glmft@4ax.com>:
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:17:19 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:07:31 -0700, in alt.atheism
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote in
<jempc3t6s7n05fivq4el9h73767f2ovva2@4ax.com>:
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:59:41 -0700, (•R L Measures) wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
In article <2bmoc3lgqmtb66ulc8n1hdugk7j75qme53@4ax.com>, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:31:23 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
If you don't believe in it then it can't. But if you do, it does.
Prime examples being "on that day you shall surely die", deceiving
everybody by making a young world look old by planting fossils etc.
** Chortle. This is one of the funniest things that the hierarchy of the
Baptist church has managed to come up with.
What "hierarchy?" Last I heard, the Baptists are FAMOUS for being
independent. Even the "associations", like the Southern Baptists, have
the LOOSEST rules, because if they tried to get too strict, the
VOLUNTARY members (being a member is not compulsory) would simply
withdraw.
Technically true, but the SBC has come to the point where it tolerates
very little deviation from their standard doctrines.
They certainly tolerate deviations from some doctrines. They now
allow nonsense such as "tongues", proven by the fact that the William
J Clintons are practicing Southern Baptists, and they are also
"Pentecostal", meaning one or both claims they speak in tongues. (they
don't). The SBC today is "comfortable" with that.
They once allowed members to question/challenge such crucial
doctrines as the deity of Jesus Christ. Last I heard, they took a vote
and decided that the deity of Jesus Christ was a "crucial issue." (it
is) Now you must vow that you accept the deity of Jesus in order to
belong to the SBC.
There ARE "core minimum requirements" to identify with the SBC, as
you must be
1 a female
and
2 between __ (age) and ___ (age)
to be a
Girl Scout.
There are core requirements (but few) to being in the SBC, as there
are core requirement to being a Girl Scout.
Sure, they claim
that each person gets to understand the Bible themselves
to a degree. There can be differences on certain passages (last I
heard, SBC members are not required to accept the Creation story as
"liberal")
I presume you meant _literal_ above.
But you must believe in the literal death, and literal bodily
resurrection of Jesus Christ to belong to the SBC. That is a "core
requirement."
and that each
congregation gets to make its own way, but congregations and
parishioners who start to sound like the average member of the UCC or UU
will quickly find out that this tolerance is merely a technical
formality,
As I don't recognize either "UU" or "UCC", I can't comment.
Unitarian Universalist and United Church of Christ.
Thank you.
Last I was aware, the Unitarian Universalist would not be welcomed
as MEMBERS of the SBC, since among the teachings they flatly REJECT
are the Deity of Jesus Christ. (having known SEVERAL "UU" members, I
believe I can say that with some authority.
To admit UU members into the SBC would be like admitting boys into
the afore-mentioned Girl Scouts. There MUST be some boundaries.
I think there would be less divisive issues with the UCC, as they
recognize "core Christian teachings" (as would be defined by Dr CS
Lewis) One sticking point might be the ADAMANT teaching of the UCC
that music does not belong in church. There's no record in scripture
that the 1st century Christians for some reason BANNED music, as music
was a basic element of Jewish worship, and MOST of the first
Christians were Jews.
one that can be disposed of if it upsets the great
conservative powers within the SBC.
Last I heard, today's SBC is not NEARLY as "conservative" as it was
when I belonged. That's one reason I no longer belong. I first
belonged because my family did (mom). When I was old enough to
understand that "core Baptist teaching" was at odds with the Bible, I
left the SBC, and then I left the Baptists.
How long ago?
I last attended a Baptist church (Southern, as I recall) in the
1990s.
As far as the fossils are concerned, seems like you two (and others)
never consulted any Christians (any REAL ones) about any alternate
explanations for the fossils.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
23 Aug 2007 11:26:20 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:18:00 -0700, in alt.atheism
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote in
<6icrc390alel6vrru7iiks8nuf9dbl2nn5@4ax.com>:
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:10:35 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:45:29 -0700, in alt.atheism
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote in
<6uvqc3pmaap0d77abders7idaljc5glmft@4ax.com>:
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:17:19 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:07:31 -0700, in alt.atheism
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote in
<jempc3t6s7n05fivq4el9h73767f2ovva2@4ax.com>:
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:59:41 -0700, (•R L Measures) wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
In article <2bmoc3lgqmtb66ulc8n1hdugk7j75qme53@4ax.com>, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:31:23 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
If you don't believe in it then it can't. But if you do, it does.
Prime examples being "on that day you shall surely die", deceiving
everybody by making a young world look old by planting fossils etc.
** Chortle. This is one of the funniest things that the hierarchy of the
Baptist church has managed to come up with.
What "hierarchy?" Last I heard, the Baptists are FAMOUS for being
independent. Even the "associations", like the Southern Baptists, have
the LOOSEST rules, because if they tried to get too strict, the
VOLUNTARY members (being a member is not compulsory) would simply
withdraw.
Technically true, but the SBC has come to the point where it tolerates
very little deviation from their standard doctrines.
They certainly tolerate deviations from some doctrines. They now
allow nonsense such as "tongues", proven by the fact that the William
J Clintons are practicing Southern Baptists, and they are also
"Pentecostal", meaning one or both claims they speak in tongues. (they
don't). The SBC today is "comfortable" with that.
They once allowed members to question/challenge such crucial
doctrines as the deity of Jesus Christ. Last I heard, they took a vote
and decided that the deity of Jesus Christ was a "crucial issue." (it
is) Now you must vow that you accept the deity of Jesus in order to
belong to the SBC.
There ARE "core minimum requirements" to identify with the SBC, as
you must be
1 a female
and
2 between __ (age) and ___ (age)
to be a
Girl Scout.
There are core requirements (but few) to being in the SBC, as there
are core requirement to being a Girl Scout.
Sure, they claim
that each person gets to understand the Bible themselves
to a degree. There can be differences on certain passages (last I
heard, SBC members are not required to accept the Creation story as
"liberal")
I presume you meant _literal_ above.
But you must believe in the literal death, and literal bodily
resurrection of Jesus Christ to belong to the SBC. That is a "core
requirement."
and that each
congregation gets to make its own way, but congregations and
parishioners who start to sound like the average member of the UCC or UU
will quickly find out that this tolerance is merely a technical
formality,
As I don't recognize either "UU" or "UCC", I can't comment.
Unitarian Universalist and United Church of Christ.
Thank you.
Last I was aware, the Unitarian Universalist would not be welcomed
as MEMBERS of the SBC, since among the teachings they flatly REJECT
are the Deity of Jesus Christ. (having known SEVERAL "UU" members, I
believe I can say that with some authority.
To admit UU members into the SBC would be like admitting boys into
the afore-mentioned Girl Scouts. There MUST be some boundaries.
Which is contrary to what the Baptists teach about how religion should
be learned. The official line is that each person gets to understand God
through the Bible without intermediary doctrines, but if someone comes
to the conclusion that trinitarian doctrine isn't right, the Baptists
blame the reader.
I think there would be less divisive issues with the UCC, as they
recognize "core Christian teachings" (as would be defined by Dr CS
Lewis) One sticking point might be the ADAMANT teaching of the UCC
that music does not belong in church.
Really? I'm not familiar with that. The UCC hymn books I've seen seem
quite tolerant of music. Does that come from the Congregational or
Zwingli side?
There's no record in scripture
that the 1st century Christians for some reason BANNED music, as music
was a basic element of Jewish worship, and MOST of the first
Christians were Jews.
Nor is there any record that they banned wine, but that doesn't stop
many of the modern sects from doing so.
one that can be disposed of if it upsets the great
conservative powers within the SBC.
Last I heard, today's SBC is not NEARLY as "conservative" as it was
when I belonged. That's one reason I no longer belong. I first
belonged because my family did (mom). When I was old enough to
understand that "core Baptist teaching" was at odds with the Bible, I
left the SBC, and then I left the Baptists.
How long ago?
I last attended a Baptist church (Southern, as I recall) in the
1990s.
As far as the fossils are concerned, seems like you two (and others)
never consulted any Christians (any REAL ones) about any alternate
explanations for the fossils.
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
24 Aug 2007 05:51:02 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:26:20 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:18:00 -0700, in alt.atheism
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote in
<6icrc390alel6vrru7iiks8nuf9dbl2nn5@4ax.com>:
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:10:35 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:45:29 -0700, in alt.atheism
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote in
<6uvqc3pmaap0d77abders7idaljc5glmft@4ax.com>:
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:17:19 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:07:31 -0700, in alt.atheism
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote in
<jempc3t6s7n05fivq4el9h73767f2ovva2@4ax.com>:
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:59:41 -0700, (•R L Measures) wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
In article <2bmoc3lgqmtb66ulc8n1hdugk7j75qme53@4ax.com>, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:31:23 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
If you don't believe in it then it can't. But if you do, it does.
Prime examples being "on that day you shall surely die", deceiving
everybody by making a young world look old by planting fossils etc.
** Chortle. This is one of the funniest things that the hierarchy of the
Baptist church has managed to come up with.
What "hierarchy?" Last I heard, the Baptists are FAMOUS for being
independent. Even the "associations", like the Southern Baptists, have
the LOOSEST rules, because if they tried to get too strict, the
VOLUNTARY members (being a member is not compulsory) would simply
withdraw.
Technically true, but the SBC has come to the point where it tolerates
very little deviation from their standard doctrines.
They certainly tolerate deviations from some doctrines. They now
allow nonsense such as "tongues", proven by the fact that the William
J Clintons are practicing Southern Baptists, and they are also
"Pentecostal", meaning one or both claims they speak in tongues. (they
don't). The SBC today is "comfortable" with that.
They once allowed members to question/challenge such crucial
doctrines as the deity of Jesus Christ. Last I heard, they took a vote
and decided that the deity of Jesus Christ was a "crucial issue." (it
is) Now you must vow that you accept the deity of Jesus in order to
belong to the SBC.
There ARE "core minimum requirements" to identify with the SBC, as
you must be
1 a female
and
2 between __ (age) and ___ (age)
to be a
Girl Scout.
There are core requirements (but few) to being in the SBC, as there
are core requirement to being a Girl Scout.
Sure, they claim
that each person gets to understand the Bible themselves
to a degree. There can be differences on certain passages (last I
heard, SBC members are not required to accept the Creation story as
"liberal")
I presume you meant _literal_ above.
But you must believe in the literal death, and literal bodily
resurrection of Jesus Christ to belong to the SBC. That is a "core
requirement."
and that each
congregation gets to make its own way, but congregations and
parishioners who start to sound like the average member of the UCC or UU
will quickly find out that this tolerance is merely a technical
formality,
As I don't recognize either "UU" or "UCC", I can't comment.
Unitarian Universalist and United Church of Christ.
Thank you.
Last I was aware, the Unitarian Universalist would not be welcomed
as MEMBERS of the SBC, since among the teachings they flatly REJECT
are the Deity of Jesus Christ. (having known SEVERAL "UU" members, I
believe I can say that with some authority.
To admit UU members into the SBC would be like admitting boys into
the afore-mentioned Girl Scouts. There MUST be some boundaries.
Which is contrary to what the Baptists teach about how religion should
be learned.
Not at all. A universal teaching among ALL Christians is what I
referred to previously as "core beliefs." If you believe with all
your heart in Muhammed and Allah, that is fine, but then you
disqualify yourself from being called a "Christian." You MUST be a
Christian and adhere to core teachings to belong to the SBC.
ALL Christians accept the Deity of Jesus Christ, and all believe in
the Tri Une God.
Those are considered "basics."
The official line is that each person gets to understand God
through the Bible without intermediary doctrines
I would be more comfortable with your POV if you cut/and/pasted a
QUOTE from the SBC, rather than explaining to me what their
requirements are. I know from my own knowledge of their requirements
that I would not belong to the SBC today.
, but if someone comes
to the conclusion that trinitarian doctrine isn't right, the Baptists
blame the reader.
Correct! Such "knowledge" does not come from the Holy Spirit.
I think there would be less divisive issues with the UCC, as they
recognize "core Christian teachings" (as would be defined by Dr CS
Lewis) One sticking point might be the ADAMANT teaching of the UCC
that music does not belong in church.
Really? I'm not familiar with that. The UCC hymn books I've seen seem
quite tolerant of music. Does that come from the Congregational or
Zwingli side?
That I can't answer. I attended a COC university --Pepperdine--my
sophomore year of university. They shunned music.
The other issue the SBC would have with the Church of Christ is that
they reject miraculous events. I've personally experienced many
miracles, and have heard of others and seen others experience miracles
as well. The Church of Christ friends I have had always snickered and
told me I was imagining things.
That would not be acceptable to the SBC.
There's no record in scripture
that the 1st century Christians for some reason BANNED music, as music
was a basic element of Jewish worship, and MOST of the first
Christians were Jews.
Nor is there any record that they banned wine, but that doesn't stop
many of the modern sects from doing so.
One of SEVERAL reasons I am not a member of the SBC today is their
official prohibition of alcohol. One of the most famous Southern
Baptists in the world today, Dr Charles Stanley, a man I respect
HIGHLY, continues to preach against alcohol, which is a man-made
teaching.
We all have blind spots.
one that can be disposed of if it upsets the great
conservative powers within the SBC.
Last I heard, today's SBC is not NEARLY as "conservative" as it was
when I belonged. That's one reason I no longer belong. I first
belonged because my family did (mom). When I was old enough to
understand that "core Baptist teaching" was at odds with the Bible, I
left the SBC, and then I left the Baptists.
How long ago?
I last attended a Baptist church (Southern, as I recall) in the
1990s.
As far as the fossils are concerned, seems like you two (and others)
never consulted any Christians (any REAL ones) about any alternate
explanations for the fossils.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
23 Aug 2007 11:13:30 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:10:35 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:45:29 -0700, in alt.atheism
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote in
<6uvqc3pmaap0d77abders7idaljc5glmft@4ax.com>:
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 01:17:19 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:07:31 -0700, in alt.atheism
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote in
<jempc3t6s7n05fivq4el9h73767f2ovva2@4ax.com>:
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:59:41 -0700, (•R L Measures) wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
In article <2bmoc3lgqmtb66ulc8n1hdugk7j75qme53@4ax.com>, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:31:23 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
If you don't believe in it then it can't. But if you do, it does.
Prime examples being "on that day you shall surely die", deceiving
everybody by making a young world look old by planting fossils etc.
** Chortle. This is one of the funniest things that the hierarchy of the
Baptist church has managed to come up with.
What "hierarchy?" Last I heard, the Baptists are FAMOUS for being
independent. Even the "associations", like the Southern Baptists, have
the LOOSEST rules, because if they tried to get too strict, the
VOLUNTARY members (being a member is not compulsory) would simply
withdraw.
Technically true, but the SBC has come to the point where it tolerates
very little deviation from their standard doctrines.
They certainly tolerate deviations from some doctrines. They now
allow nonsense such as "tongues", proven by the fact that the William
J Clintons are practicing Southern Baptists, and they are also
"Pentecostal", meaning one or both claims they speak in tongues. (they
don't). The SBC today is "comfortable" with that.
They once allowed members to question/challenge such crucial
doctrines as the deity of Jesus Christ. Last I heard, they took a vote
and decided that the deity of Jesus Christ was a "crucial issue." (it
is) Now you must vow that you accept the deity of Jesus in order to
belong to the SBC.
There ARE "core minimum requirements" to identify with the SBC, as
you must be
1 a female
and
2 between __ (age) and ___ (age)
to be a
Girl Scout.
There are core requirements (but few) to being in the SBC, as there
are core requirement to being a Girl Scout.
Sure, they claim
that each person gets to understand the Bible themselves
to a degree. There can be differences on certain passages (last I
heard, SBC members are not required to accept the Creation story as
"liberal")
I presume you meant _literal_ above.
Yes. Thank you.
john w
But you must believe in the literal death, and literal bodily
resurrection of Jesus Christ to belong to the SBC. That is a "core
requirement."
and that each
congregation gets to make its own way, but congregations and
parishioners who start to sound like the average member of the UCC or UU
will quickly find out that this tolerance is merely a technical
formality,
As I don't recognize either "UU" or "UCC", I can't comment.
Unitarian Universalist and United Church of Christ.
one that can be disposed of if it upsets the great
conservative powers within the SBC.
Last I heard, today's SBC is not NEARLY as "conservative" as it was
when I belonged. That's one reason I no longer belong. I first
belonged because my family did (mom). When I was old enough to
understand that "core Baptist teaching" was at odds with the Bible, I
left the SBC, and then I left the Baptists.
How long ago?
As far as the fossils are concerned, seems like you two (and others)
never consulted any Christians (any REAL ones) about any alternate
explanations for the fossils.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
22 Aug 2007 07:49:42 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:45:54 -0400, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:31:23 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
If you don't believe in it then it can't. But if you do, it does.
Prime examples being "on that day you shall surely die", deceiving
everybody by making a young world look old by planting fossils etc.
Ummmmmm... Have you seen a doctor lately?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
22 Aug 2007 07:36:14 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:31:23 -0400, wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
GOD DOESN'T LIE. Duke does.
And you!
Don't forget, Elaine! You lie, too!
;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
22 Aug 2007 04:53:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ummmm.....No. All you have to point out is the flawed reasoning about
infants dying. Even if the wages of sin were death, it would not follow
that all people who die, die because of sin. It would still be possible
for some people to die for reasons other than sin.
And A&E didn't die until after they had sinned.
That still doesn't prove that sin was the cause of their death.
It's all in the evidence. Gen 3:22.
For all
we know they would have died anyway, regardless of sins.
You pays you money, you takes you chances.
That was
probably just one more lie from Yahweh.
Probably???
I mean it's very suspicious that
there was a Tree of Life that Yahweh didn't want them to eat from. Why
would there need to be a Tree of Life before sin entered the world if it
were the only cause of death.
The tree wasn't their problem. It was the prop. Their problem was that God
said "no", and A&E said "they'd decide".
They were in the Garden of
Eden.
They were created as fucking slaves to work the garden. Maybe your idea
of paradise is being the HNIC at the plantation, but, unlike you,
intelligent people reject your ridiculous formulation.
They had not a care in the world. Just say "yes" to God.
The wages of sin is death, and infants and preborn die.
That does not prove that they die because of sin.
Yep, yes it does.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
23 Aug 2007 02:23:08 AM |
|
|
In article <sobpc35udgsqf3ig96hvacuib8me61vl22@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:55:58 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ummmm.....No. All you have to point out is the flawed reasoning about
infants dying. Even if the wages of sin were death, it would not follow
that all people who die, die because of sin. It would still be possible
for some people to die for reasons other than sin.
And A&E didn't die until after they had sinned.
That still doesn't prove that sin was the cause of their death.
It's all in the evidence. Gen 3:22.
• Genesis = Evidence ?. chortle
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
24 Aug 2007 11:31:09 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:23:08 -0700, (•R L Measures) wrote:
That still doesn't prove that sin was the cause of their death.
It's all in the evidence. Gen 3:22.
• Genesis = Evidence ?. chortle
Actually, yes it is evidence, rl.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
25 Aug 2007 05:28:48 AM |
|
|
In article <bt1uc3t93ipeigprl5tt12d0licmtvrod4@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:23:08 -0700, (•R L Measures) wrote:
That still doesn't prove that sin was the cause of their death.
It's all in the evidence. Gen 3:22.
• Genesis = Evidence ?. chortle
Actually, yes it is evidence, rl.
• a guy impegnates not just one of his daughters, but two of them, on
successive nights no less, and, incredibly both of them are virgins to
boot -- but the next day the stud muffin can't remembers nuthin' -- and
Duke buys it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "les_on_usenet" |
|
| Title: Re: ARE YOU A CATHOLIC? |
24 Aug 2007 12:05:07 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:31:09 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:23:08 -0700, (•R L Measures) wrote:
That still doesn't prove that sin was the cause of their death.
It's all in the evidence. Gen 3:22.
• Genesis = Evidence ?. chortle
Actually, yes it is evidence, rl.
but evidence for what?
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
