| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Therion Ware" |
| Date: |
07 Aug 2003 08:42:27 AM |
| Object: |
Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
On 7 Aug 2003 01:09:35 -0700 in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, FearRua (FearRua@hotmail.com
(FearRua)) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
"galia" <galia@netrover.com> wrote in message news:<7CfYa.53278$PD3.4551398@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
Have you not noticed John, that Andrew is going through all this trouble
just to verify your claim that there is a Baptist church from 525 AD in
England???
Why bother with such ludicrous claims to begin with? How can a chruch
from the 6th century be claimed by a sect that wasn't even created
until the 17th century? (1609 by John Smyth).
Heh. There's a rationale, you know...
Briefly, it is frequently claimed that the RCC co-opted Christianity
with Constantine, and perverted various doctrines, and so on and so
forth. The "True Church" survived underground and "came out" when and
where possible. So they say.
But then people say a lot of things, frequently will little or no
justification. Mostly because they've never thought about it, looked
it up, and so on... Sometimes, though, they have an axe to grind.
While the continuity of the early Popes, and hence apostolic
succession (not that opponents recognise this), is open to question on
a historical basis in as much as there's not much documentation on the
early years, the "True Church" ideology remains more a matter of faith
for hard-core Protestants than a matter of established fact, and where
each man is his own Pope, "faith" is apt to become a tad self-serving
in as much faith often become ideology.
Speaking as an atheist (which is to say, briefly, that I see no
compelling evidence that there is a God, much less a particular God) I
have to say that the kind of accusations levelled against the RCC by
the likes of John are for the most part simply ludicrous; they're
anti-historical, anachronistic, ideological and perhaps getting on for
pathological..
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 **
.
|
|
| User: "John W" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
08 Aug 2003 01:08:42 PM |
|
|
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On 7 Aug 2003 15:27:08 GMT in alt.atheism, John W (John W
<john_weatherly@yahoo.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:42:27 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On 7 Aug 2003 01:09:35 -0700 in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, FearRua (FearRua@hotmail.com
(FearRua)) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
"galia" <galia@netrover.com> wrote in message news:<7CfYa.53278$PD3.4551398@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
Have you not noticed John, that Andrew is going through all this trouble
just to verify your claim that there is a Baptist church from 525 AD in
England???
Why bother with such ludicrous claims to begin with? How can a chruch
from the 6th century be claimed by a sect that wasn't even created
until the 17th century? (1609 by John Smyth).
Heh. There's a rationale, you know...
Briefly, it is frequently claimed that the RCC co-opted Christianity
with Constantine, and perverted various doctrines, and so on and so
forth. The "True Church" survived underground and "came out" when and
where possible. So they say.
But then people say a lot of things, frequently will little or no
justification. Mostly because they've never thought about it, looked
it up, and so on... Sometimes, though, they have an axe to grind.
While the continuity of the early Popes, and hence apostolic
succession (not that opponents recognise this), is open to question on
a historical basis in as much as there's not much documentation on the
early years, the "True Church" ideology remains more a matter of faith
for hard-core Protestants than a matter of established fact, and where
each man is his own Pope, "faith" is apt to become a tad self-serving
in as much faith often become ideology.
Speaking as an atheist (which is to say, briefly, that I see no
compelling evidence that there is a God, much less a particular God) I
have to say that the kind of accusations levelled against the RCC by
the likes of John are for the most part simply ludicrous; they're
anti-historical, anachronistic, ideological and perhaps getting on for
pathological..
That's right, sport, take a shot!
Not much of a challenge really.
For an admitted atheist to claim ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Christian church is arrogance
bordering on pathology.
[snip]
(John the Baptist)
I really wonder if I need a rant on pathology from a man who
apparently thinks himself "John the Baptist". Still, you can call me
Salome, if it makes you feel any better...
You're funny. You're so brilliant you can just read my mind and KNOW
why I call myself "John the Baptist." How do you read minds like that?
If you can show me how, we can make LOTS of money!
;-))
Since you cannot read minds, don't presume that I consider myself
"John the Baptist."
If you are curious, ask POLITELY; if you do not ask, I will presume
you aren't interested in my reasons, and that you prefer your own
instead.
Some people use their brains for hat trees!
That said the genesis of the Christian Church, no matter whether there
is a God, or not, is a purely historical matter: what we can know of
it is determined by existent records, histories and so forth.
The Genesis of the Christian church we can trace from the Old
Testament (pre-history), and then from the new.
Presumably you believe there's been an unbroken succession of Baptist
churches from the days of John the Baptist and the Apostles of Christ;
Correct. My tradition teaches that. There are millions of us. We are
called Southern Baptists.
hence your unsubstantiated claim of the early baptist church in the
Lakenheath / Alconbury area.
If you wish to consider it unsubstantiated, that's fine with me.
However, I don't live for your approval. And I am even now working on
obtaining my OWN set of pictures of both churches.
So even if Andrew doesn't find the church, I'll get pictures of it
from the locals.
Of course, I understand that doesn't mean that you or anyone else will
apologize. I will have changed the history books, but you will not
care. You aren't seeking information; you merely try to keep the pot
stirred up. God will not bless that.
Of course this claim of "unbroken
succession" is entirely without historical merit, but it does explain
why you feel that an atheist can't comment on such matters: your only
validation for this ludicrous theory is the fact that it's necessary
to your beliefs
The existence of the church is not essential to my beliefs, mr know it
all, know nothing. I didn't encounter that church until I was 20 years
old. I have been a Christian since I was 5 years old.
Another of your totally farcical theories down in flames!
- and in such circumstances facts are apt to become
the servants of ideology.
I am not a liar. I don't know that anyone can say that about you.
If I were to give you a list of 100 people who know me, and if you
were to talk with each one, they'd tell you I'm not known for lying.
I'd not have survived to age 10 if I'd been considered a liar at home.
Which is rather a pity, for lots of different reasons.
Don't get hung up! I'm better off than you are!
John W
(John the Baptist)
10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and knowledge of the Holy one is understanding.
Prov 9:10
NIV
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
07 Aug 2003 11:06:43 AM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, John W <john_weatherly@yahoo.com> wrote in
<6qr4jvgtroav0l0l9atvosfjtem0pqn88g@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:42:27 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On 7 Aug 2003 01:09:35 -0700 in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, FearRua (FearRua@hotmail.com
(FearRua)) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
"galia" <galia@netrover.com> wrote in message news:<7CfYa.53278$PD3.4551398@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
Have you not noticed John, that Andrew is going through all this trouble
just to verify your claim that there is a Baptist church from 525 AD in
England???
Why bother with such ludicrous claims to begin with? How can a chruch
from the 6th century be claimed by a sect that wasn't even created
until the 17th century? (1609 by John Smyth).
Heh. There's a rationale, you know...
Briefly, it is frequently claimed that the RCC co-opted Christianity
with Constantine, and perverted various doctrines, and so on and so
forth. The "True Church" survived underground and "came out" when and
where possible. So they say.
But then people say a lot of things, frequently will little or no
justification. Mostly because they've never thought about it, looked
it up, and so on... Sometimes, though, they have an axe to grind.
While the continuity of the early Popes, and hence apostolic
succession (not that opponents recognise this), is open to question on
a historical basis in as much as there's not much documentation on the
early years, the "True Church" ideology remains more a matter of faith
for hard-core Protestants than a matter of established fact, and where
each man is his own Pope, "faith" is apt to become a tad self-serving
in as much faith often become ideology.
Speaking as an atheist (which is to say, briefly, that I see no
compelling evidence that there is a God, much less a particular God) I
have to say that the kind of accusations levelled against the RCC by
the likes of John are for the most part simply ludicrous; they're
anti-historical, anachronistic, ideological and perhaps getting on for
pathological..
That's right, sport, take a shot! For an admitted atheist to claim ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Christian church is arrogance
bordering on pathology.
I wonder if this works, too:
For an admitted enemy of the Roman Catholic Church to claim ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Catholic church is arrogance bordering
on pathology.
Nope, not even that one works in a general sense. On need not believe a
religion to understand it or know its history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
08 Aug 2003 11:38:33 PM |
|
|
On 8 Aug 2003 10:35:31 -0700, (jwk) posted in
alt.atheism:
There should be lots of those. How about: For an admitted *human to
claim ANY knowledge of veterinary medicine is arrogance bordering on
pathology. <Only dogs should treat dogs.>
What others?
How can a doctor treat an engineer? Only engineers should treat
engineers.
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
08 Aug 2003 01:19:46 PM |
|
|
jwk wrote:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<05u4jv0pdm6ff17r2d17jbbsrg42knvq3e@4ax.com>...
In alt.talk.creationism, John W <john_weatherly@yahoo.com> wrote in
<6qr4jvgtroav0l0l9atvosfjtem0pqn88g@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:42:27 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On 7 Aug 2003 01:09:35 -0700 in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, FearRua (FearRua@hotmail.com
(FearRua)) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
"galia" <galia@netrover.com> wrote in message news:<7CfYa.53278$PD3.4551398@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
Have you not noticed John, that Andrew is going through all this trouble
just to verify your claim that there is a Baptist church from 525 AD in
England???
Why bother with such ludicrous claims to begin with? How can a chruch
from the 6th century be claimed by a sect that wasn't even created
until the 17th century? (1609 by John Smyth).
Heh. There's a rationale, you know...
Briefly, it is frequently claimed that the RCC co-opted Christianity
with Constantine, and perverted various doctrines, and so on and so
forth. The "True Church" survived underground and "came out" when and
where possible. So they say.
But then people say a lot of things, frequently will little or no
justification. Mostly because they've never thought about it, looked
it up, and so on... Sometimes, though, they have an axe to grind.
While the continuity of the early Popes, and hence apostolic
succession (not that opponents recognise this), is open to question on
a historical basis in as much as there's not much documentation on the
early years, the "True Church" ideology remains more a matter of faith
for hard-core Protestants than a matter of established fact, and where
each man is his own Pope, "faith" is apt to become a tad self-serving
in as much faith often become ideology.
Speaking as an atheist (which is to say, briefly, that I see no
compelling evidence that there is a God, much less a particular God) I
have to say that the kind of accusations levelled against the RCC by
the likes of John are for the most part simply ludicrous; they're
anti-historical, anachronistic, ideological and perhaps getting on for
pathological..
That's right, sport, take a shot! For an admitted atheist to claim ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Christian church is arrogance
bordering on pathology.
I wonder if this works, too:
For an admitted enemy of the Roman Catholic Church to claim ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Catholic church is arrogance bordering
on pathology.
Nope, not even that one works in a general sense. On need not believe a
religion to understand it or know its history.
There should be lots of those. How about: For an admitted *human to
claim ANY knowledge of veterinary medicine is arrogance bordering on
pathology. <Only dogs should treat dogs.>
What others?
There's the "Chickenhawk" one: For anybody who didn't serve in the
military (or in a war) to discuss any aspect of military policy is etcetera.
--
Fred Stone
Conquering the Galaxy since 2003
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
08 Aug 2003 03:19:46 PM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<3F33E9C2.6020505@earthling.com>:
jwk wrote:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<05u4jv0pdm6ff17r2d17jbbsrg42knvq3e@4ax.com>...
In alt.talk.creationism, John W <john_weatherly@yahoo.com> wrote in
<6qr4jvgtroav0l0l9atvosfjtem0pqn88g@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:42:27 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On 7 Aug 2003 01:09:35 -0700 in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, FearRua (FearRua@hotmail.com
(FearRua)) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
"galia" <galia@netrover.com> wrote in message news:<7CfYa.53278$PD3.4551398@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
Have you not noticed John, that Andrew is going through all this trouble
just to verify your claim that there is a Baptist church from 525 AD in
England???
Why bother with such ludicrous claims to begin with? How can a chruch
from the 6th century be claimed by a sect that wasn't even created
until the 17th century? (1609 by John Smyth).
Heh. There's a rationale, you know...
Briefly, it is frequently claimed that the RCC co-opted Christianity
with Constantine, and perverted various doctrines, and so on and so
forth. The "True Church" survived underground and "came out" when and
where possible. So they say.
But then people say a lot of things, frequently will little or no
justification. Mostly because they've never thought about it, looked
it up, and so on... Sometimes, though, they have an axe to grind.
While the continuity of the early Popes, and hence apostolic
succession (not that opponents recognise this), is open to question on
a historical basis in as much as there's not much documentation on the
early years, the "True Church" ideology remains more a matter of faith
for hard-core Protestants than a matter of established fact, and where
each man is his own Pope, "faith" is apt to become a tad self-serving
in as much faith often become ideology.
Speaking as an atheist (which is to say, briefly, that I see no
compelling evidence that there is a God, much less a particular God) I
have to say that the kind of accusations levelled against the RCC by
the likes of John are for the most part simply ludicrous; they're
anti-historical, anachronistic, ideological and perhaps getting on for
pathological..
That's right, sport, take a shot! For an admitted atheist to claim ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Christian church is arrogance
bordering on pathology.
I wonder if this works, too:
For an admitted enemy of the Roman Catholic Church to claim ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Catholic church is arrogance bordering
on pathology.
Nope, not even that one works in a general sense. On need not believe a
religion to understand it or know its history.
There should be lots of those. How about: For an admitted *human to
claim ANY knowledge of veterinary medicine is arrogance bordering on
pathology. <Only dogs should treat dogs.>
What others?
There's the "Chickenhawk" one: For anybody who didn't serve in the
military (or in a war) to discuss any aspect of military policy is etcetera.
But that's not exactly what the Chickenhawk criticism is. It is that the
newly minted hawk was definitely chicken (not dovish, but chicken) and
found a way to duck (legally or illegally) their responsibility at the
point of the draft.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
07 Aug 2003 11:27:38 AM |
|
|
In article <6qr4jvgtroav0l0l9atvosfjtem0pqn88g@4ax.com>, John W says...
snippage
That's right, sport, take a shot! For an admitted atheist to claim ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Christian church is arrogance
bordering on pathology.
Still advertising on the Internet for incest pornography, sweetie?
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
07 Aug 2003 01:29:11 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:27:38 GMT in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Robibnikoff (Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
In article <6qr4jvgtroav0l0l9atvosfjtem0pqn88g@4ax.com>, John W says...
snippage
That's right, sport, take a shot! For an admitted atheist to claim ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Christian church is arrogance
bordering on pathology.
Still advertising on the Internet for incest pornography, sweetie?
Is there a message ref?
.
|
|
|
| User: "david asman" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
07 Aug 2003 01:49:48 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:27:38 GMT in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Robibnikoff (Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
In article <6qr4jvgtroav0l0l9atvosfjtem0pqn88g@4ax.com>, John W says...
snippage
That's right, sport, take a shot! For an admitted atheist to claim ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Christian church is arrogance
bordering on pathology.
Still advertising on the Internet for incest pornography, sweetie?
Is there a message ref?
<ng's snipped to a.a.>
Here's a google to the post (or more accurately-- here's a make
a shorter link that leads to a google archive of one of his posts):
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y15051685
There's another one about incest, here's a post from him saying it was
somebody else using his computer to make the post:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N38012685
Dave
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John W" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
07 Aug 2003 01:35:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:27:38 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <6qr4jvgtroav0l0l9atvosfjtem0pqn88g@4ax.com>, John W says...
snippage
That's right, sport, take a shot! For an admitted atheist to claim ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Christian church is arrogance
bordering on pathology.
Still advertising on the Internet for incest pornography, sweetie?
If you are talkilng to me, John W, then the answer is, no, I never
advertised for incest porn. And I'm not your sweetie.
John W
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
07 Aug 2003 02:15:45 PM |
|
|
In article <vu65jvk89m7hd8t1r60ou9nqjurv76qaou@4ax.com>, John W says...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:27:38 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <6qr4jvgtroav0l0l9atvosfjtem0pqn88g@4ax.com>, John W says...
snippage
That's right, sport, take a shot! For an admitted atheist to claim ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Christian church is arrogance
bordering on pathology.
Still advertising on the Internet for incest pornography, sweetie?
If you are talkilng to me, John W, then the answer is, no, I never
advertised for incest porn.
Oh, so this wasn't you?
From: John W (john_Weatherly47@yahoo.com)
Subject: Wanted REAL Incest Videos M-S, F-D, B-S
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories
Date: 2002-12-30 02:41:18 PST
Wanted REAL Incest Videos M-S, F-D, B-S
Genetic Relationship must be CLEARLY visible. Sex must be full
penetration, fully visible.
Oral, anal AND f***ing req'd.
Get back to me
In Christ,
John W
And I'm not your sweetie.
Hoowhee, you got that right ;)
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "John W" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
07 Aug 2003 02:45:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 19:15:45 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <vu65jvk89m7hd8t1r60ou9nqjurv76qaou@4ax.com>, John W says...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:27:38 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <6qr4jvgtroav0l0l9atvosfjtem0pqn88g@4ax.com>, John W says...
snippage
That's right, sport, take a shot! For an admitted atheist to claim ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Christian church is arrogance
bordering on pathology.
Still advertising on the Internet for incest pornography, sweetie?
If you are talkilng to me, John W, then the answer is, no, I never
advertised for incest porn.
Oh, so this wasn't you?
From: John W (john_Weatherly47@yahoo.com)
Subject: Wanted REAL Incest Videos M-S, F-D, B-S
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories
Date: 2002-12-30 02:41:18 PST
Wanted REAL Incest Videos M-S, F-D, B-S
Genetic Relationship must be CLEARLY visible. Sex must be full
penetration, fully visible.
Oral, anal AND f***ing req'd.
Get back to me
In Christ,
John W
And I'm not your sweetie.
Hoowhee, you got that right ;)
I say again, this was not me.
John W
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
07 Aug 2003 10:47:37 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:45:58 -0700, John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
I say again, this was not me.
No, it was some other John Weatherly who has an identical account.
Look again, John, this isn't some kiddie room on AOL.
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John W" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
07 Aug 2003 04:30:37 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 19:15:45 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <vu65jvk89m7hd8t1r60ou9nqjurv76qaou@4ax.com>, John W says...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:27:38 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <6qr4jvgtroav0l0l9atvosfjtem0pqn88g@4ax.com>, John W says...
snippage
That's right, sport, take a shot! For an admitted atheist to claim ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Christian church is arrogance
bordering on pathology.
Still advertising on the Internet for incest pornography, sweetie?
If you are talkilng to me, John W, then the answer is, no, I never
advertised for incest porn.
Oh, so this wasn't you?
From: John W (john_Weatherly47@yahoo.com)
Subject: Wanted REAL Incest Videos M-S, F-D, B-S
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories
Date: 2002-12-30 02:41:18 PST
Wanted REAL Incest Videos M-S, F-D, B-S
Genetic Relationship must be CLEARLY visible. Sex must be full
penetration, fully visible.
Oral, anal AND f***ing req'd.
Get back to me
I'm confused. How come you are being so respectful and so nasty at the
same time?
You think you're the first person who's mentioned that trash?
John W
In Christ,
John W
And I'm not your sweetie.
Hoowhee, you got that right ;)
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
(John the Baptist)
10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and knowledge of the Holy one is understanding.
Prov 9:10
NIV
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
08 Aug 2003 09:45:19 AM |
|
|
In article <o3h5jvgtsgn77u05rmfupmbj94fbhbdhku@4ax.com>, John W says...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 19:15:45 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <vu65jvk89m7hd8t1r60ou9nqjurv76qaou@4ax.com>, John W says...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:27:38 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <6qr4jvgtroav0l0l9atvosfjtem0pqn88g@4ax.com>, John W says...
snippage
That's right, sport, take a shot! For an admitted atheist to claim ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Christian church is arrogance
bordering on pathology.
Still advertising on the Internet for incest pornography, sweetie?
If you are talkilng to me, John W, then the answer is, no, I never
advertised for incest porn.
Oh, so this wasn't you?
From: John W (john_Weatherly47@yahoo.com)
Subject: Wanted REAL Incest Videos M-S, F-D, B-S
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories
Date: 2002-12-30 02:41:18 PST
Wanted REAL Incest Videos M-S, F-D, B-S
Genetic Relationship must be CLEARLY visible. Sex must be full
penetration, fully visible.
Oral, anal AND f***ing req'd.
Get back to me
I'm confused. How come you are being so respectful and so nasty at the
same time?
Because I can do what I like, thanks much ;)
You think you're the first person who's mentioned that trash?
Of course not - I was following this little saga starting from when you left
alt.atheism after bitching about crossposting, but refusing to stop doing it
yourself, right into alt.fan.bob.larson where your affinity for pornography
(still writing it too, BTW?) was exposed.
In other words, don't try pulling the "I'm a holier-than-thou-christian and
therfore much better than you atheists" ***** here, darling.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "John W" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
08 Aug 2003 12:57:53 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 14:45:19 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <o3h5jvgtsgn77u05rmfupmbj94fbhbdhku@4ax.com>, John W says...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 19:15:45 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <vu65jvk89m7hd8t1r60ou9nqjurv76qaou@4ax.com>, John W says...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:27:38 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <6qr4jvgtroav0l0l9atvosfjtem0pqn88g@4ax.com>, John W says...
snippage
That's right, sport, take a shot! For an admitted atheist to claim ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Christian church is arrogance
bordering on pathology.
Still advertising on the Internet for incest pornography, sweetie?
If you are talkilng to me, John W, then the answer is, no, I never
advertised for incest porn.
Oh, so this wasn't you?
From: John W (john_Weatherly47@yahoo.com)
Subject: Wanted REAL Incest Videos M-S, F-D, B-S
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories
Date: 2002-12-30 02:41:18 PST
Wanted REAL Incest Videos M-S, F-D, B-S
Genetic Relationship must be CLEARLY visible. Sex must be full
penetration, fully visible.
Oral, anal AND f***ing req'd.
Get back to me
I'm confused. How come you are being so respectful and so nasty at the
same time?
Because I can do what I like, thanks much ;)
You think you're the first person who's mentioned that trash?
Of course not - I was following this little saga starting from when you left
alt.atheism after bitching about crossposting, but refusing to stop doing it
yourself, right into alt.fan.bob.larson where your affinity for pornography
(still writing it too, BTW?) was exposed.
In other words, don't try pulling the "I'm a holier-than-thou-christian and
therfore much better than you atheists" ***** here, darling.
You know, pipsqueak, if you keep talking like that, in about 2929 AD,
I'm gonna start getting upset.
John W
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
(John the Baptist)
10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and knowledge of the Holy one is understanding.
Prov 9:10
NIV
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John W" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
17 Aug 2003 06:01:17 AM |
|
|
On 9 Aug 2003 22:00:57 -0700, (Robert A. Walker)
wrote:
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<vj4tjc2ddf40c9@corp.supernews.com>...
"John W" <john_weatherly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6qr4jvgtroav0l0l9atvosfjtem0pqn88g@4ax.com...
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:42:27 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On 7 Aug 2003 01:09:35 -0700 in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, FearRua (FearRua@hotmail.com
(FearRua)) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
"galia" <galia@netrover.com> wrote in message
news:<7CfYa.53278$PD3.4551398@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
Have you not noticed John, that Andrew is going through all this
trouble
just to verify your claim that there is a Baptist church from 525 AD
in
England???
Why bother with such ludicrous claims to begin with? How can a chruch
from the 6th century be claimed by a sect that wasn't even created
until the 17th century? (1609 by John Smyth).
Heh. There's a rationale, you know...
Briefly, it is frequently claimed that the RCC co-opted Christianity
with Constantine, and perverted various doctrines, and so on and so
forth. The "True Church" survived underground and "came out" when and
where possible. So they say.
But then people say a lot of things, frequently will little or no
justification. Mostly because they've never thought about it, looked
it up, and so on... Sometimes, though, they have an axe to grind.
While the continuity of the early Popes, and hence apostolic
succession (not that opponents recognise this), is open to question on
a historical basis in as much as there's not much documentation on the
early years, the "True Church" ideology remains more a matter of faith
for hard-core Protestants than a matter of established fact, and where
each man is his own Pope, "faith" is apt to become a tad self-serving
in as much faith often become ideology.
Speaking as an atheist (which is to say, briefly, that I see no
compelling evidence that there is a God, much less a particular God) I
have to say that the kind of accusations levelled against the RCC by
the likes of John are for the most part simply ludicrous; they're
anti-historical, anachronistic, ideological and perhaps getting on for
pathological..
JohnW: That's right, sport, take a shot! For an admitted atheist to claim
ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Christian church is arrogance
bordering on pathology.
Tom: So, you think that it is impossible for an atheist to know the history
of the church? What conceited ignorance.
So you think that you , an atheist, can tell me about church history?
What conceited ignorance!
Considering he calls everyone who disagrees with him, or worse - shows
him to be wrong, a demoniac, it's hardly surprising.
And YOU who spits on the Bible, have NO room to criticize!
I only call "demoniac" those who appear to be.
John W
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton Episode 1...The Farting Menace" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
17 Aug 2003 07:51:37 PM |
|
|
"John W" <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i1oujvc1ch7j6qb2guacpvoo9jv6imvid4@4ax.com...
So you think that you , an atheist, can tell me about church history?
What conceited ignorance!
...And the fuckwittage meter crosses into the red killfile area.
Congratulations on clearly demonstrating the inherent stupidity of theism.
Bye bye moron.
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
17 Aug 2003 06:18:44 AM |
|
|
In article <i1oujvc1ch7j6qb2guacpvoo9jv6imvid4@4ax.com>, John W says...
snippage
JohnW: That's right, sport, take a shot! For an admitted atheist to claim
ANY
knowledge of the genesis of the Christian church is arrogance
bordering on pathology.
Tom: So, you think that it is impossible for an atheist to know the history
of the church? What conceited ignorance.
So you think that you , an atheist, can tell me about church history?
What conceited ignorance!
Many atheist are ex-christians, deary. Just because they no longer believe
certainly doesn't mean that they don't know about church history. And you're
quite a fool to suggest otherwise.
Considering he calls everyone who disagrees with him, or worse - shows
him to be wrong, a demoniac, it's hardly surprising.
And YOU who spits on the Bible, have NO room to criticize!
Why not? Because YOU say so?
I only call "demoniac" those who appear to be.
Ooooh - I'm sure they're shaking in their boots.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: JOHN, why don't you answer Andrew! |
17 Aug 2003 07:11:23 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 04:01:17 -0700, John W
<john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Tom: So, you think that it is impossible for an atheist to know the history
of the church? What conceited ignorance.
So you think that you , an atheist, can tell me about church history?
What conceited ignorance!
So you think that you , a non-African, can tell me about African
history? What conceited ignorance!
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
