Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #694697 > unrolled thread
| Started by | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-08-13 14:28 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-09-02 10:52 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 137 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-13 14:28 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jaworski1978@adres.pl> - 2025-08-13 21:16 +0200
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-13 15:40 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jaworski1978@adres.pl> - 2025-08-13 23:15 +0200
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-13 20:39 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jaworski1978@adres.pl> - 2025-08-13 23:34 +0200
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-13 20:46 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jaworski1978@adres.pl> - 2025-08-14 06:25 +0200
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 07:31 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-14 08:16 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 07:29 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-14 11:13 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 23:51 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-14 20:27 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-15 08:51 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 07:07 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-17 00:17 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-15 08:07 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-15 18:56 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-15 15:28 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 07:09 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-15 19:35 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-15 17:31 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-15 22:18 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-15 20:34 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 07:16 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-16 10:33 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 07:14 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 07:13 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-16 10:32 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-17 00:28 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 07:12 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-16 10:32 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-15 19:17 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-15 15:31 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-15 20:24 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-08-15 16:02 -0500
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-15 22:58 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-08-16 08:36 -0500
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-16 14:44 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-16 11:06 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-08-16 14:44 -0500
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-17 08:45 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-17 03:26 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-17 09:15 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-17 22:15 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-18 10:36 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-18 08:41 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-17 09:16 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-17 22:16 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-18 10:56 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-18 08:43 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-08-16 14:41 -0500
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-17 08:43 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-17 00:48 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-17 09:04 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-18 10:26 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-18 08:58 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-19 00:36 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-19 06:35 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-08-16 18:16 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-17 00:54 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 07:34 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-16 10:36 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-17 09:21 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-17 09:36 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-20 01:46 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-19 21:52 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-20 22:33 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-20 23:12 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-21 07:50 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-08-21 15:03 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-21 23:44 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-08-22 13:00 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-22 18:08 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-21 07:49 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-21 08:15 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-21 08:10 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-23 09:48 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-26 07:31 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-26 19:08 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-30 09:10 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-31 08:27 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-20 03:59 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-20 06:30 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-20 08:17 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-20 08:14 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-17 20:02 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-15 17:34 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-08-16 08:11 -0500
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 07:27 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 07:23 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-16 10:35 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-17 00:34 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-17 09:18 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-17 20:20 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-18 11:02 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-18 09:04 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-19 03:12 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-19 07:05 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-19 09:33 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-19 06:42 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 07:19 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-17 00:25 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-17 09:06 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-17 00:58 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-17 09:08 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-17 09:45 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-17 10:15 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-17 09:50 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-17 22:13 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-18 10:17 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-18 08:54 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-19 06:28 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-18 08:37 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-19 06:23 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-19 09:41 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-20 06:27 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-18 09:45 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-08-18 06:14 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-19 03:10 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-19 07:13 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-17 09:10 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-17 22:07 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-18 10:34 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-18 08:31 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-17 19:55 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 07:28 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-14 11:12 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-14 18:10 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-14 00:39 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-17 01:01 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-17 09:11 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-17 22:19 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-08-18 08:46 -0400
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-02 06:50 +0000
Re: BcacheFS Dev Might be Banned from Linux for Being Blunt & Rude CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-09-02 10:52 -0400
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 09:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <w2%oQ.254312$hYw5.47975@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #695189 |
On 2025-08-18 11:12 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 09:04:03 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: > >> If Jews accepted the blame for Jesus's crucifixion ... > > He was a fake “Messiah”. Remember “he shall be called Emmanuel”? Only this > one never was ... The meaning of "Emmanuel" is "God with us." Jesus Christ was _repeatedly_ called "God with us" by the people who met Him. Your complete lack of understanding of Christianity and the Bible is shocking. Perhaps you should give up before you further embarrass yourself, old chap. -- God be with you, CrudeSausage Islam is the enemy John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 06:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10816db$3io6f$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #695137 |
On 2025-08-18, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > On 2025-08-18 7:02 a.m., RonB wrote: >> On 2025-08-17, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 09:18:56 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote: >>> >>>> This "Judeo-Christian" "Christian-Zionist" BS was the result of the >>>> Rothschild bought and paid for Scofield and his lying commentaries in >>>> the "Scofield Bible." >>>> >>>> Ask any of these people Zionist "Christians" why the Jewish Temple >>>> should be rebuilt since Jesus made the final sacrifice and they'll be >>>> clueless. They've got about ten "proof verses" (taken out of context) >>>> and that's about all they know about the Bible. >>> >>> My religious education as a kid was Catholic and all my friends were in >>> some mainstream Protestant church. In the small town where I grew up you >>> were either Catholic or Dutch Reformed. My mother and my maternal uncle's >>> family were the latter. >>> >>> When all that rapture, dispensationalism, Zionism and so forth started to >>> become a focus I had no idea where it all came from. At least back then >>> the Catholics had a pretty good idea of who killed Christ. >> >> Yep. And now, unfortunately, they participate in Seder meals (even some have >> "Christian versions" of the Seder meal) and they water down the prayer for >> the "perfidious Jews." There is nothing Biblical the Seder meal and the Jews >> of the time accepted responsibility for shedding Christ's blood. "Let it be >> on our hands." Though, of course, the Romans were not blameless (but Jesus >> said to Pilate that he had the "lesser blame." > > If Jews accepted the blame for Jesus's crucifixion, they shouldn't be > surprised that the whole world is turning against them today. How ironic > that their most likely allies today are going to be the ones whose > Messiah they killed. 21 And the governor answering, said to them: Whether will you of the two to be released unto you? But they said, Barabbas. 22 Pilate saith to them: What shall I do then with Jesus that is called Christ? They say all: Let him be crucified. 23 The governor said to them: Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying: Let him be crucified. 24 And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it. 25 And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children. —Mt. 27 The incited mob. Their tactics haven't changed over the centuries. -- Definition of Insanity: Thinking you can beat the Bear on his own territory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-16 07:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107pber$1iojo$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #694850 |
On 2025-08-15, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote: > Le 14-08-2025, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> a écrit : >> On 2025-08-14, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>> >>> To me, all muslims are shit by the very fact that they see a murderous >>> pedophile as an example to follow. I don't care who the nice ones are, >>> they should all be kicked out of the West. >> >> Can't deny anything on these counts against the Muslim founder. But it seems >> like the Shiites are a bit better than their founder when it comes to >> murdering and pedophilia. > > Don't be jealous, your beloved Catholic Church is well versed in > pedophilia, they don't need Muslim help for that. > https://www.bishop-accountability.org/ > > It's long gone the time where Christians were following Jesus Christ. > Now, they follow the money and the power, it's better for them. So basically you're reveling in the destruction of the Catholic Church, which built the (now crumbling) society you live in. What was once referred to as Christendom. More more self-loathing and sniveling cowardice. -- Definition of Insanity: Thinking you can beat the Bear on his own territory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 00:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mgclrlFjqp7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #694912 |
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 07:19:55 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote: > On 2025-08-15, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote: >> Le 14-08-2025, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> On 2025-08-14, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>> >>>> To me, all muslims are shit by the very fact that they see a >>>> murderous pedophile as an example to follow. I don't care who the >>>> nice ones are, >>>> they should all be kicked out of the West. >>> >>> Can't deny anything on these counts against the Muslim founder. But it >>> seems like the Shiites are a bit better than their founder when it >>> comes to murdering and pedophilia. >> >> Don't be jealous, your beloved Catholic Church is well versed in >> pedophilia, they don't need Muslim help for that. >> https://www.bishop-accountability.org/ >> >> It's long gone the time where Christians were following Jesus Christ. >> Now, they follow the money and the power, it's better for them. > > So basically you're reveling in the destruction of the Catholic Church, > which built the (now crumbling) society you live in. What was once > referred to as Christendom. More more self-loathing and sniveling > cowardice. I've said it before but the Catholic Church is a big, easy target. The decentralized pedophiles lurking in I don't know how many Protestant sects, the public school system, youth groups, and so on aren't so easy. Plus, suing a diocese might result in a payday. Suing Pastor Billy Bob of the Church of God With Signs Following* gets you nothing. * Yeah, that's real. They're the snake handlers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 09:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107s628$26kgt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #695004 |
On 2025-08-17, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 07:19:55 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote: > >> On 2025-08-15, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote: >>> Le 14-08-2025, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>> On 2025-08-14, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> To me, all muslims are shit by the very fact that they see a >>>>> murderous pedophile as an example to follow. I don't care who the >>>>> nice ones are, >>>>> they should all be kicked out of the West. >>>> >>>> Can't deny anything on these counts against the Muslim founder. But it >>>> seems like the Shiites are a bit better than their founder when it >>>> comes to murdering and pedophilia. >>> >>> Don't be jealous, your beloved Catholic Church is well versed in >>> pedophilia, they don't need Muslim help for that. >>> https://www.bishop-accountability.org/ >>> >>> It's long gone the time where Christians were following Jesus Christ. >>> Now, they follow the money and the power, it's better for them. >> >> So basically you're reveling in the destruction of the Catholic Church, >> which built the (now crumbling) society you live in. What was once >> referred to as Christendom. More more self-loathing and sniveling >> cowardice. > > I've said it before but the Catholic Church is a big, easy target. The > decentralized pedophiles lurking in I don't know how many Protestant > sects, the public school system, youth groups, and so on aren't so easy. > Plus, suing a diocese might result in a payday. Suing Pastor Billy Bob of > the Church of God With Signs Following* gets you nothing. > > * Yeah, that's real. They're the snake handlers. Many Protestant churches pay for (what is basically) pedophile insurance. These "insurance" companies say the rate of pedophilia in the Protestant sects is as high as in the Catholic Church. (Still no excuse for it in the Catholic Church, which SHOULD have a higher standard than the Protestants or Orthodox Jews.) But to pretend this is only a Catholic (mostly Vatican II) issue instead of admitting it also infecting the public and private schools, Protestantism and Jewry is skewed and dishonest. And you're probably right about the payday availability because Catholics have enough organization to be sued. -- Definition of Insanity: Thinking you can beat the Bear on his own territory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 00:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107r9en$20k71$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #694775 |
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 11:13:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: > To me, all muslims are shit ... But you need their oil, don’t you. Which means you have to be nice to them. Some Christian folk don’t understand any principle other than “money talks” ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 09:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <68a19c06$0$12910$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #695013 |
Le 17-08-2025, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit : > On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 11:13:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: > >> To me, all muslims are shit ... > > But you need their oil, don’t you. Which means you have to be nice to > them. > > Some Christian folk don’t understand any principle other than “money > talks” ... He's not a Christian: he's a Catholic. Which switched from following God to following money a long time ago. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 09:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107s8ck$26kgt$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #695032 |
On 2025-08-17, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote: > Le 17-08-2025, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit : >> On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 11:13:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: >> >>> To me, all muslims are shit ... >> >> But you need their oil, don’t you. Which means you have to be nice to >> them. >> >> Some Christian folk don’t understand any principle other than “money >> talks” ... > > He's not a Christian: he's a Catholic. Which switched from following God > to following money a long time ago. Then he's serving mammon and not God and has exiled himself from the Catholic Church. But, unless you're reading a different Bible than I read, you're told not to judge, that is God prerogative. Although you can certainly judge actions. -- Definition of Insanity: Thinking you can beat the Bear on his own territory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 10:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <68a1abd5$0$422$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #695040 |
Le 17-08-2025, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> a écrit : > On 2025-08-17, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote: >> Le 17-08-2025, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit : >>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 11:13:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: >>> >>>> To me, all muslims are shit ... >>> >>> But you need their oil, don’t you. Which means you have to be nice to >>> them. >>> >>> Some Christian folk don’t understand any principle other than “money >>> talks” ... >> >> He's not a Christian: he's a Catholic. Which switched from following God >> to following money a long time ago. > > Then he's serving mammon and not God and has exiled himself from the Catholic > Church. But, unless you're reading a different Bible than I read, you're > told not to judge, that is God prerogative. Although you can certainly judge > actions. I didn't want to answer any more but I can't let that. You are the one pretending to follow the Bible, so you are the one who have to follow its rules. Not me. Then, why do you refuse me the right to judge when you allow yourself the right to judge? You don't judge only actions, you judge every people unlike you who should be fought whatever what they do and who they are, just depending on their religion. And if you want to follow the Bible as you pretend you do, Jesus told you to love your ennemies. Try to love Muslims, they are not your ennemies. Only a few part of them are and as you want to fight them all, you can't tell the difference. So much for your Bible which must be followed. Your messages are full of hatred, not of the love that Jesus told you to apply. You imagine hordes of Muslims invading France and raping women because it's written in their book. For a fact, I know a lot of people who have been raped, all of them have been raped by one of your beloved Catholic pedophiles. I didn't knew it at the time. I just discovered it a few months ago and I was chocked. He was a real good Catholic, going to the mass and telling people to go to the mass. He was working in a Catholic school. Like you he was judging people not following God and the right way. But a rapist anyway and I had no clue at the time. And that's the reality: most of the rapes aren't done in the street. they're done in close circles, friends of families and the like. That's why there are so many rapes not reported: because a child telling his father his best friend father was abusing him would have issues. He or she wouldn't be believed. But if, by know more rapes are reported, it's not because of your Muslims invasions, it's because reports are taken more seriously into account. It's because a woman reporting a rape doesn't have to prove it's her fault anymore. So, yes, some Muslims are rapist, but they are not enough to be statically consequent in France. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 09:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t6loQ.133239$Fhs6.2973@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #695044 |
On 2025-08-17 6:15 a.m., Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 17-08-2025, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> a écrit : >> On 2025-08-17, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote: >>> Le 17-08-2025, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit : >>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 11:13:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>> >>>>> To me, all muslims are shit ... >>>> >>>> But you need their oil, don’t you. Which means you have to be nice to >>>> them. >>>> >>>> Some Christian folk don’t understand any principle other than “money >>>> talks” ... >>> >>> He's not a Christian: he's a Catholic. Which switched from following God >>> to following money a long time ago. >> >> Then he's serving mammon and not God and has exiled himself from the Catholic >> Church. But, unless you're reading a different Bible than I read, you're >> told not to judge, that is God prerogative. Although you can certainly judge >> actions. > > I didn't want to answer any more but I can't let that. > > You are the one pretending to follow the Bible, so you are the one who > have to follow its rules. Not me. RonB knows the Bible better than you or I do. This statement is a complete lie on your part. > Then, why do you refuse me the right to judge when you allow yourself > the right to judge? You don't judge only actions, you judge every people > unlike you who should be fought whatever what they do and who they are, > just depending on their religion. > > And if you want to follow the Bible as you pretend you do, Jesus told > you to love your ennemies. Try to love Muslims, they are not your > ennemies. They are enemies and they remind us of this fact on a regular basis. Watch this for an example of how they speak about their objective here in Canada: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWT9zhKcuJo&pp=ygUUZGF2aWQgbWVuemllcyBtdXNsaW0%3D> > Only a few part of them are and as you want to fight them all, > you can't tell the difference. So much for your Bible which must be > followed. Your messages are full of hatred, not of the love that Jesus > told you to apply. Jesus told us to love our enemies, but He never told us to lower our guards and let them walk all over us. Your inability to understand Christianity beyond "turn the other cheek" is the reason Western Europe is letting these monsters in. You might want to consider Matthew 21:12-13 "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." > You imagine hordes of Muslims invading France and raping women because > it's written in their book. For a fact, I know a lot of people who have > been raped, all of them have been raped by one of your beloved Catholic > pedophiles. Please provide evidence that it was Catholicism that made them pedophiles or encouraged them to commit the sin and crime they have committed. > I didn't knew it at the time. I just discovered it a few > months ago and I was chocked. He was a real good Catholic, going to the > mass and telling people to go to the mass. He was working in a Catholic > school. Like you he was judging people not following God and the right > way. But a rapist anyway and I had no clue at the time. > > And that's the reality: most of the rapes aren't done in the street. > they're done in close circles, friends of families and the like. That's > why there are so many rapes not reported: because a child telling his > father his best friend father was abusing him would have issues. He or > she wouldn't be believed. But if, by know more rapes are reported, it's > not because of your Muslims invasions, it's because reports are taken > more seriously into account. It's because a woman reporting a rape > doesn't have to prove it's her fault anymore. So, yes, some Muslims are > rapist, but they are not enough to be statically consequent in France. Meanwhile, Pakistani muslims in the United Kingdom gangraped little girls and did so because their religion called on them to see white women as something beneath them to be used and abused at will. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal> Once again, Stéphane, get a clue. -- God be with you, CrudeSausage Islam is the enemy John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-17 22:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107tk66$2kffr$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #695070 |
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 09:50:15 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: > RonB knows the Bible better than you or I do. This statement is a > complete lie on your part. Everything in the Bible (or any other religious book) is already a “lie”. Religious argument is basically circular argument, trying to justify a viewpoint by assuming it is true to begin with. > Jesus told us to love our enemies, but He never told us to lower our > guards and let them walk all over us. Your inability to understand > Christianity beyond "turn the other cheek" is the reason Western Europe > is letting these monsters in. See, that’s what I mean by circular reasoning: you don’t think “turn the other cheek” refutes your argument, so you try to argue that by assuming it doesn’t in the first place. > You might want to consider Matthew 21:12-13 > > "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold > and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money > changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It > is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have > made it a den of thieves." But Ecclesiastes 10:19 says “A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things.”. <https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/money.html> “It is written” about things long before your “Jesus” was supposed to have existed. > Please provide evidence that it was Catholicism that made them > pedophiles ... Ah, now you’re trying to change the argument from denying that there are pedophiles among Christians, to trying to claim that the two are not connected.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 10:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107uuji$2vqpe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #695099 |
On 2025-08-17, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 09:50:15 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: > >> RonB knows the Bible better than you or I do. This statement is a >> complete lie on your part. > > Everything in the Bible (or any other religious book) is already a “lie”. > Religious argument is basically circular argument, trying to justify a > viewpoint by assuming it is true to begin with. Or so you say, since your "religion" is pseudo-science where the "priests" of that sect lie to get the results they want to see. >> Jesus told us to love our enemies, but He never told us to lower our >> guards and let them walk all over us. Your inability to understand >> Christianity beyond "turn the other cheek" is the reason Western Europe >> is letting these monsters in. > > See, that’s what I mean by circular reasoning: you don’t think “turn the > other cheek” refutes your argument, so you try to argue that by assuming > it doesn’t in the first place. You're still missing the point. "Turn the other cheek" meant be willing to humiliate yourself. But we were never told to let thugs destroy your families, rape our kids or wife or run roughshod over our religion. Since your knowledge of the Bible is rudimentary and yet you presume to lecture Christians on what the Bible teaches, I'll quote the following passage for you. It differentiates between the humility Christians should have and the care they must have to protect their children. Jesus never taught that protecting your kin was wrong. 18 At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? (2) And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, (3) And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (4) Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. (5) And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. (6) But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. (7) Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. —Matthew 18. And, yes, this dire warning is also directed at pedophile priests who bring scandal on to the Church. Childhood innocence is a great treasure. One that satanic bastards continually try to destroy. (Drag queens reading to small children is just one example.) Some pedophile perverts even admit that shattering this childhood innocence is their main "pleasure" in their perversion. >> You might want to consider Matthew 21:12-13 >> >> "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold >> and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money >> changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It >> is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have >> made it a den of thieves." > > But Ecclesiastes 10:19 says “A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh > merry: but money answereth all things.”. > ><https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/money.html> > > “It is written” about things long before your “Jesus” was supposed to have > existed. We're living under the New Covenant, not the old. The Old Law was imperfect, waiting for the Messiah and the New Covenant, written on our hearts — which is perfect. Find a quote in the New Testament that in any way condones pedophilia. Hint... you won't. But you will find such filth in the Koran and the Talmud, both of which were written AFTER the New Testament. >> Please provide evidence that it was Catholicism that made them >> pedophiles ... > > Ah, now you’re trying to change the argument from denying that there are > pedophiles among Christians, to trying to claim that the two are not > connected. Are you so myopic that you only see pedophilia in the Catholic Church and not anywhere else? (Unfortunately the modern Catholic Church was severely weakened by Modernism, i.e., a compromise with the satanic world, in Vatican II.) But pedophile filth spills out everywhere in our satanic world. -- Definition of Insanity: Thinking you can beat the Bear on his own territory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 08:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <DoFoQ.14135$IZhb.14099@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #695116 |
On 2025-08-18 6:17 a.m., RonB wrote: < snip > >> But Ecclesiastes 10:19 says “A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh >> merry: but money answereth all things.”. >> >> <https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/money.html> >> >> “It is written” about things long before your “Jesus” was supposed to have >> existed. > > We're living under the New Covenant, not the old. The Old Law was imperfect, > waiting for the Messiah and the New Covenant, written on our hearts — which > is perfect. Find a quote in the New Testament that in any way condones > pedophilia. Hint... you won't. > > But you will find such filth in the Koran and the Talmud, both of which were > written AFTER the New Testament. The fact that both the Talmud and the Koran, which seem to be competing for which is worse, were written after the Bible speaks volumes for its authenticity. It is almost as though they were evil's response to the general good produced by Christianity. >>> Please provide evidence that it was Catholicism that made them >>> pedophiles ... >> >> Ah, now you’re trying to change the argument from denying that there are >> pedophiles among Christians, to trying to claim that the two are not >> connected. > > Are you so myopic that you only see pedophilia in the Catholic Church and > not anywhere else? (Unfortunately the modern Catholic Church was severely > weakened by Modernism, i.e., a compromise with the satanic world, in Vatican > II.) But pedophile filth spills out everywhere in our satanic world. The fact that some priests were accused of pedophilia is exactly the opening demons were looking for in their attempt to discredit Christianity. They latch onto that for dear life yet ignore the fact that these accusations rarely lead to any kind of convictions. They seem to be fans of the Napoleonic principle of guilty until proven innocent. -- God be with you, CrudeSausage Islam is the enemy John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 06:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10815ij$3io6f$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #695135 |
On 2025-08-18, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > On 2025-08-18 6:17 a.m., RonB wrote: > >< snip > > >>> But Ecclesiastes 10:19 says “A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh >>> merry: but money answereth all things.”. >>> >>> <https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/money.html> >>> >>> “It is written” about things long before your “Jesus” was supposed to have >>> existed. >> >> We're living under the New Covenant, not the old. The Old Law was imperfect, >> waiting for the Messiah and the New Covenant, written on our hearts — which >> is perfect. Find a quote in the New Testament that in any way condones >> pedophilia. Hint... you won't. >> >> But you will find such filth in the Koran and the Talmud, both of which were >> written AFTER the New Testament. > > The fact that both the Talmud and the Koran, which seem to be competing > for which is worse, were written after the Bible speaks volumes for its > authenticity. It is almost as though they were evil's response to the > general good produced by Christianity. > >>>> Please provide evidence that it was Catholicism that made them >>>> pedophiles ... >>> >>> Ah, now you’re trying to change the argument from denying that there are >>> pedophiles among Christians, to trying to claim that the two are not >>> connected. >> >> Are you so myopic that you only see pedophilia in the Catholic Church and >> not anywhere else? (Unfortunately the modern Catholic Church was severely >> weakened by Modernism, i.e., a compromise with the satanic world, in Vatican >> II.) But pedophile filth spills out everywhere in our satanic world. > > The fact that some priests were accused of pedophilia is exactly the > opening demons were looking for in their attempt to discredit > Christianity. They latch onto that for dear life yet ignore the fact > that these accusations rarely lead to any kind of convictions. They seem > to be fans of the Napoleonic principle of guilty until proven innocent. As Jesus predicted would happen, there have been scandals in the Catholic Church throughout history. I don't think it ever was as universally bad as it is now, but there were always good, holy popes and bishops and some very bad popes and bishops. Humans have a way of screwing up everything. -- Definition of Insanity: Thinking you can beat the Bear on his own territory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 08:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <H8FoQ.42049$fpLb.35496@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #695099 |
On 2025-08-17 6:13 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 09:50:15 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: > >> RonB knows the Bible better than you or I do. This statement is a >> complete lie on your part. > > Everything in the Bible (or any other religious book) is already a “lie”. > Religious argument is basically circular argument, trying to justify a > viewpoint by assuming it is true to begin with. Feel free to debunk it. Smarter people have already attempted to do so and failed, but I'm sure that you'll prove them all wrong. After all, you installed Linux successfully and none of those other people ever managed to do so. You're firing the big guns. Before you begin, I would start with the Shroud of Turin. I'm sure you will be able to explain why there is both pre-mortem and post-mortem blood on there and which force was used to make Jesus's image appear without destroying the linen. >> Jesus told us to love our enemies, but He never told us to lower our >> guards and let them walk all over us. Your inability to understand >> Christianity beyond "turn the other cheek" is the reason Western Europe >> is letting these monsters in. > > See, that’s what I mean by circular reasoning: you don’t think “turn the > other cheek” refutes your argument, so you try to argue that by assuming > it doesn’t in the first place. See below. >> You might want to consider Matthew 21:12-13 >> >> "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold >> and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money >> changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It >> is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have >> made it a den of thieves." > > But Ecclesiastes 10:19 says “A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh > merry: but money answereth all things.”. > > <https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/money.html> > > “It is written” about things long before your “Jesus” was supposed to have > existed. Like I said, start with the Shroud of Turin and explain why the visible injuries on whoever was covered by the Shroud are consistent with what's written in the Holy Bible. >> Please provide evidence that it was Catholicism that made them >> pedophiles ... > > Ah, now you’re trying to change the argument from denying that there are > pedophiles among Christians, to trying to claim that the two are not > connected. I never denied that there are pedophiles who claim to be Christian; I claimed that nothing in the Holy Bible or the religion prompts these monsters to be pedophiles. Try to follow, old chap. -- God be with you, CrudeSausage Islam is the enemy John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 06:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1081599$3io6f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #695130 |
On 2025-08-18, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > On 2025-08-17 6:13 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 09:50:15 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: >> >>> RonB knows the Bible better than you or I do. This statement is a >>> complete lie on your part. >> >> Everything in the Bible (or any other religious book) is already a “lie”. >> Religious argument is basically circular argument, trying to justify a >> viewpoint by assuming it is true to begin with. > > Feel free to debunk it. Smarter people have already attempted to do so > and failed, but I'm sure that you'll prove them all wrong. After all, > you installed Linux successfully and none of those other people ever > managed to do so. You're firing the big guns. Before you begin, I would > start with the Shroud of Turin. I'm sure you will be able to explain why > there is both pre-mortem and post-mortem blood on there and which force > was used to make Jesus's image appear without destroying the linen. > >>> Jesus told us to love our enemies, but He never told us to lower our >>> guards and let them walk all over us. Your inability to understand >>> Christianity beyond "turn the other cheek" is the reason Western Europe >>> is letting these monsters in. >> >> See, that’s what I mean by circular reasoning: you don’t think “turn the >> other cheek” refutes your argument, so you try to argue that by assuming >> it doesn’t in the first place. > > See below. > >>> You might want to consider Matthew 21:12-13 >>> >>> "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold >>> and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money >>> changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It >>> is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have >>> made it a den of thieves." >> >> But Ecclesiastes 10:19 says “A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh >> merry: but money answereth all things.”. >> >> <https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/money.html> >> >> “It is written” about things long before your “Jesus” was supposed to have >> existed. > > Like I said, start with the Shroud of Turin and explain why the visible > injuries on whoever was covered by the Shroud are consistent with what's > written in the Holy Bible. There are so many of these that the only thing atheists can do is ignore them. Oh, they'll make snarky comments on the side, but they won't deal with the facts. The miracle connected with Our Lady of Las Lajas (Our Lady of the Rocks) is pretty much impossible to deny. And there's absolutely no scientific explanation for it. Imprinted on the face of the cliff was an image of the Blessed Virgin holding her infant Son in her arms. Both are smiling sweetly. The Virgin’s hair is long and dark brown, extending to about the elbow. Her eyes are large and innocent, and her garments beautiful to behold. On one side of them is an image of Saint Dominic and on the other is Saint Francis of Assisi. Mary is extending her hand toward Saint Dominic, holding a Rosary. The Holy Infant holds a Franciscan cord which he appears to be giving to Saint Francis. The spiritual sons of these two holy saints were responsible for the conversion of the people of Central and South America. ... This image, known as Our Lady of Las Lajas, is clearly of miraculous origin. The colors have not lost any of their brilliance over the centuries, and they are not a paint or coloring that has been applied to the surface of the stone. Geological samples collected have proven that the color actually permeates the rock, for, as impossible as it may sound, the colors of the image are perfectly evenly distributed and reach several feet into the face of the cliff. Scientists cannot explain it, while those who hate God deny the obvious and attempt to distort the truth of its miraculous origin. https://www.roman-catholic-saints.com/our-lady-of-las-lajas.html This image appeared in the late 1700s. There's a story behind it (see the link) but fact that they've taken core samples and find the colors go several feet into the stone can not be explained (as mentioned at the beginning). This is just one of many miracles atheists ignore. Link to image using Tiny URL ... https://tinyurl.com/nhzjtueh The golden crowns have been painted on. (Not really a fan of that, but it is what it is.) >>> Please provide evidence that it was Catholicism that made them >>> pedophiles ... >> >> Ah, now you’re trying to change the argument from denying that there are >> pedophiles among Christians, to trying to claim that the two are not >> connected. > > I never denied that there are pedophiles who claim to be Christian; I > claimed that nothing in the Holy Bible or the religion prompts these > monsters to be pedophiles. Try to follow, old chap. > -- Definition of Insanity: Thinking you can beat the Bear on his own territory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-19 09:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fa%oQ.56361$J7x2.38621@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #695191 |
On 2025-08-19 2:23 a.m., RonB wrote: > On 2025-08-18, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >> On 2025-08-17 6:13 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 09:50:15 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: >>> >>>> RonB knows the Bible better than you or I do. This statement is a >>>> complete lie on your part. >>> >>> Everything in the Bible (or any other religious book) is already a “lie”. >>> Religious argument is basically circular argument, trying to justify a >>> viewpoint by assuming it is true to begin with. >> >> Feel free to debunk it. Smarter people have already attempted to do so >> and failed, but I'm sure that you'll prove them all wrong. After all, >> you installed Linux successfully and none of those other people ever >> managed to do so. You're firing the big guns. Before you begin, I would >> start with the Shroud of Turin. I'm sure you will be able to explain why >> there is both pre-mortem and post-mortem blood on there and which force >> was used to make Jesus's image appear without destroying the linen. >> >>>> Jesus told us to love our enemies, but He never told us to lower our >>>> guards and let them walk all over us. Your inability to understand >>>> Christianity beyond "turn the other cheek" is the reason Western Europe >>>> is letting these monsters in. >>> >>> See, that’s what I mean by circular reasoning: you don’t think “turn the >>> other cheek” refutes your argument, so you try to argue that by assuming >>> it doesn’t in the first place. >> >> See below. >> >>>> You might want to consider Matthew 21:12-13 >>>> >>>> "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold >>>> and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money >>>> changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It >>>> is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have >>>> made it a den of thieves." >>> >>> But Ecclesiastes 10:19 says “A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh >>> merry: but money answereth all things.”. >>> >>> <https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/money.html> >>> >>> “It is written” about things long before your “Jesus” was supposed to have >>> existed. >> >> Like I said, start with the Shroud of Turin and explain why the visible >> injuries on whoever was covered by the Shroud are consistent with what's >> written in the Holy Bible. > > There are so many of these that the only thing atheists can do is ignore > them. Oh, they'll make snarky comments on the side, but they won't deal with > the facts. > > The miracle connected with Our Lady of Las Lajas (Our Lady of the Rocks) is > pretty much impossible to deny. And there's absolutely no scientific > explanation for it. > > Imprinted on the face of the cliff was an image of the Blessed Virgin > holding her infant Son in her arms. Both are smiling sweetly. The > Virgin’s hair is long and dark brown, extending to about the elbow. Her > eyes are large and innocent, and her garments beautiful to behold. On one > side of them is an image of Saint Dominic and on the other is Saint > Francis of Assisi. Mary is extending her hand toward Saint Dominic, > holding a Rosary. The Holy Infant holds a Franciscan cord which he > appears to be giving to Saint Francis. The spiritual sons of these two > holy saints were responsible for the conversion of the people of Central > and South America. ... > > This image, known as Our Lady of Las Lajas, is clearly of miraculous > origin. The colors have not lost any of their brilliance over the > centuries, and they are not a paint or coloring that has been applied to > the surface of the stone. Geological samples collected have proven that > the color actually permeates the rock, for, as impossible as it may > sound, the colors of the image are perfectly evenly distributed and reach > several feet into the face of the cliff. Scientists cannot explain it, > while those who hate God deny the obvious and attempt to distort the > truth of its miraculous origin. > > https://www.roman-catholic-saints.com/our-lady-of-las-lajas.html > > This image appeared in the late 1700s. There's a story behind it (see the > link) but fact that they've taken core samples and find the colors go > several feet into the stone can not be explained (as mentioned at the > beginning). This is just one of many miracles atheists ignore. > > Link to image using Tiny URL ... https://tinyurl.com/nhzjtueh > > The golden crowns have been painted on. (Not really a fan of that, but it is > what it is.) I don't know but if an inexplicable image suddenly appeared and there was no scientific explanation for how it arrived there, the absolute last thing I would do is modify it. < snip > -- God be with you, CrudeSausage Islam is the enemy John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-20 06:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1083psl$5tga$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #695209 |
On 2025-08-19, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > On 2025-08-19 2:23 a.m., RonB wrote: >> On 2025-08-18, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>> On 2025-08-17 6:13 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 09:50:15 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>> >>>>> RonB knows the Bible better than you or I do. This statement is a >>>>> complete lie on your part. >>>> >>>> Everything in the Bible (or any other religious book) is already a “lie”. >>>> Religious argument is basically circular argument, trying to justify a >>>> viewpoint by assuming it is true to begin with. >>> >>> Feel free to debunk it. Smarter people have already attempted to do so >>> and failed, but I'm sure that you'll prove them all wrong. After all, >>> you installed Linux successfully and none of those other people ever >>> managed to do so. You're firing the big guns. Before you begin, I would >>> start with the Shroud of Turin. I'm sure you will be able to explain why >>> there is both pre-mortem and post-mortem blood on there and which force >>> was used to make Jesus's image appear without destroying the linen. >>> >>>>> Jesus told us to love our enemies, but He never told us to lower our >>>>> guards and let them walk all over us. Your inability to understand >>>>> Christianity beyond "turn the other cheek" is the reason Western Europe >>>>> is letting these monsters in. >>>> >>>> See, that’s what I mean by circular reasoning: you don’t think “turn the >>>> other cheek” refutes your argument, so you try to argue that by assuming >>>> it doesn’t in the first place. >>> >>> See below. >>> >>>>> You might want to consider Matthew 21:12-13 >>>>> >>>>> "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold >>>>> and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money >>>>> changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It >>>>> is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have >>>>> made it a den of thieves." >>>> >>>> But Ecclesiastes 10:19 says “A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh >>>> merry: but money answereth all things.”. >>>> >>>> <https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/money.html> >>>> >>>> “It is written” about things long before your “Jesus” was supposed to have >>>> existed. >>> >>> Like I said, start with the Shroud of Turin and explain why the visible >>> injuries on whoever was covered by the Shroud are consistent with what's >>> written in the Holy Bible. >> >> There are so many of these that the only thing atheists can do is ignore >> them. Oh, they'll make snarky comments on the side, but they won't deal with >> the facts. >> >> The miracle connected with Our Lady of Las Lajas (Our Lady of the Rocks) is >> pretty much impossible to deny. And there's absolutely no scientific >> explanation for it. >> >> Imprinted on the face of the cliff was an image of the Blessed Virgin >> holding her infant Son in her arms. Both are smiling sweetly. The >> Virgin’s hair is long and dark brown, extending to about the elbow. Her >> eyes are large and innocent, and her garments beautiful to behold. On one >> side of them is an image of Saint Dominic and on the other is Saint >> Francis of Assisi. Mary is extending her hand toward Saint Dominic, >> holding a Rosary. The Holy Infant holds a Franciscan cord which he >> appears to be giving to Saint Francis. The spiritual sons of these two >> holy saints were responsible for the conversion of the people of Central >> and South America. ... >> >> This image, known as Our Lady of Las Lajas, is clearly of miraculous >> origin. The colors have not lost any of their brilliance over the >> centuries, and they are not a paint or coloring that has been applied to >> the surface of the stone. Geological samples collected have proven that >> the color actually permeates the rock, for, as impossible as it may >> sound, the colors of the image are perfectly evenly distributed and reach >> several feet into the face of the cliff. Scientists cannot explain it, >> while those who hate God deny the obvious and attempt to distort the >> truth of its miraculous origin. >> >> https://www.roman-catholic-saints.com/our-lady-of-las-lajas.html >> >> This image appeared in the late 1700s. There's a story behind it (see the >> link) but fact that they've taken core samples and find the colors go >> several feet into the stone can not be explained (as mentioned at the >> beginning). This is just one of many miracles atheists ignore. >> >> Link to image using Tiny URL ... https://tinyurl.com/nhzjtueh >> >> The golden crowns have been painted on. (Not really a fan of that, but it is >> what it is.) > > I don't know but if an inexplicable image suddenly appeared and there > was no scientific explanation for how it arrived there, the absolute > last thing I would do is modify it. > >< snip > That's the way I look at it. -- Definition of Insanity: Thinking you can beat the Bear on his own territory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 09:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107uso3$2v91i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #695044 |
On 2025-08-17, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
> Le 17-08-2025, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> On 2025-08-17, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 17-08-2025, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
>>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 11:13:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To me, all muslims are shit ...
>>>>
>>>> But you need their oil, don’t you. Which means you have to be nice to
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> Some Christian folk don’t understand any principle other than “money
>>>> talks” ...
>>>
>>> He's not a Christian: he's a Catholic. Which switched from following God
>>> to following money a long time ago.
>>
>> Then he's serving mammon and not God and has exiled himself from the Catholic
>> Church. But, unless you're reading a different Bible than I read, you're
>> told not to judge, that is God prerogative. Although you can certainly judge
>> actions.
>
> I didn't want to answer any more but I can't let that.
>
> You are the one pretending to follow the Bible, so you are the one who
> have to follow its rules. Not me.
And what rules do you imagine I'm not following (or at least I don't admit I
should be following)?
> Then, why do you refuse me the right to judge when you allow yourself
> the right to judge? You don't judge only actions, you judge every people
> unlike you who should be fought whatever what they do and who they are,
> just depending on their religion.
The judgment I'm speaking of is the ultimate judgment of whether a man
dies in a state of grace or not. I do not have the right to say a man is
going to hell, but I can certainly can say that his actions (if not amended)
will lead to hell. The reason I can say that is that the same rules apply to
me and I have no right pretend I'm ignorant of them.
Actions are either good or evil. Pedophilia is evil. Murder is evil.
Defrauding the poor is evil. Murdering unborn babies is evil. A man who
commits any of these crimes, in full knowledge that they are a mortal sin,
will be damned if he does not repent. Period. (And only God knows if he's
fully aware of the nature of the sin he commits. That's why I can't judge
his soul — but there's no doubt that sins mentioned above (and many others)
are evil, even satanic.) So, yes, I can judge actions, God has given every
man a conscience and the intellect to know right from wrong.
> And if you want to follow the Bible as you pretend you do, Jesus told
> you to love your enemies. Try to love Muslims, they are not your
> ennemies. Only a few part of them are and as you want to fight them all,
> you can't tell the difference. So much for your Bible which must be
> followed. Your messages are full of hatred, not of the love that Jesus
> told you to apply.
Loving your enemies doesn't mean saying whatever they do is a-ok. That is
hatred because it means you don't care about their soul. A big part of
loving your enemies is warning them that the sins they commit will
lead them to hell if they do not repent. You can't tolerate evil actions and
pretend they're good. And, no, I don't walk down the street ringing bells
and telling everyone I disagree with that they'll go to hell if they don't
repent. But I also do not pretend that their actions (many of them) aren't
wrong.
> You imagine hordes of Muslims invading France and raping women because
> it's written in their book. For a fact, I know a lot of people who have
> been raped, all of them have been raped by one of your beloved Catholic
> pedophiles. I didn't knew it at the time. I just discovered it a few
> months ago and I was chocked. He was a real good Catholic, going to the
> mass and telling people to go to the mass. He was working in a Catholic
> school. Like you he was judging people not following God and the right
> way. But a rapist anyway and I had no clue at the time.
I don't imagine it, I read about in the news. Big difference. Tell me, is
France safer today than it was in the years ago before the mass Muslim
migration?
As far as "beloved pedophiles," go, what utter and complete bullshit you
spew. I despise pedophiles WHEREVER they are found, including in the
Catholic Church. Apparently you're the one who is selective and only
identifying pedophiles in one group, so you don't have to admit that your
"beloved" Muslim pedophiles and rapists exist. I call that selective myopia.
You definitely do come across as a self-loathing European.
> And that's the reality: most of the rapes aren't done in the street.
> they're done in close circles, friends of families and the like. That's
> why there are so many rapes not reported: because a child telling his
> father his best friend father was abusing him would have issues. He or
> she wouldn't be believed. But if, by know more rapes are reported, it's
> not because of your Muslims invasions, it's because reports are taken
> more seriously into account. It's because a woman reporting a rape
> doesn't have to prove it's her fault anymore. So, yes, some Muslims are
> rapist, but they are not enough to be statically consequent in France.
Yeah, yeah. Answer one question. Are women and children safer now or were
they safer ten or fifteen years ago before the mass migration of Muslim
thugs into Europe? (I already know the answer. I've got a feeling you know
the answer as well, but you're too gullible, blind or dishonest to admit
it.)
That said, I know they're are many good Muslims, my favorite doctor was from
Iran. But I also know that when Europe didn't have the Muslim thugs, they
had a lot less raping of women and children or plowing cars into crowds of
people, or mass stabbings. All "benefits" of the mass migration of Muslims
into Europe. Simple fact.
A quote from G.K. Chesterton in his book "Orthodoxy."
“Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon
the organ of conviction where it was never meant to be. A man was meant
to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth: this has
been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert
is exactly the part he ought not to assert-himself. The part he doubts
is exactly the part he ought not to doubt - the Divine Reason... The old
humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping: not a nail in
his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a
man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But
the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make
him stop working altogether.”
--
Definition of Insanity: Thinking you can
beat the Bear on his own territory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-18 06:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <z2DoQ.221695$Bui1.121933@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #695114 |
On 8/18/25 5:45 AM, RonB wrote: > On 2025-08-17, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote: > >> Then, why do you refuse me the right to judge when you allow yourself >> the right to judge? You don't judge only actions, you judge every people >> unlike you who should be fought whatever what they do and who they are, >> just depending on their religion. > > The judgment I'm speaking of is the ultimate judgment of whether a man > dies in a state of grace or not. I do not have the right to say a man is > going to hell, but I can certainly can say that his actions (if not amended) > will lead to hell. The reason I can say that is that the same rules apply to > me and I have no right pretend I'm ignorant of them. > > Actions are either good or evil. Pedophilia is evil. Murder is evil. > Defrauding the poor is evil. Murdering unborn babies is evil. A man who > commits any of these crimes, in full knowledge that they are a mortal sin, > will be damned if he does not repent. Period. (And only God knows if he's > fully aware of the nature of the sin he commits. That's why I can't judge > his soul — but there's no doubt that sins mentioned above (and many others) > are evil, even satanic.) So, yes, I can judge actions, God has given every > man a conscience and the intellect to know right from wrong. Abortion rights protect women from harm, and cancel rape-babies. Deal with that. Do you want a rapist's spawn forced on someone? That's demented. >> And if you want to follow the Bible as you pretend you do, Jesus told >> you to love your enemies. Try to love Muslims, they are not your >> ennemies. Only a few part of them are and as you want to fight them all, >> you can't tell the difference. So much for your Bible which must be >> followed. Your messages are full of hatred, not of the love that Jesus >> told you to apply. > > Loving your enemies doesn't mean saying whatever they do is a-ok. That is > hatred because it means you don't care about their soul. A big part of > loving your enemies is warning them that the sins they commit will > lead them to hell if they do not repent. You can't tolerate evil actions and > pretend they're good. And, no, I don't walk down the street ringing bells > and telling everyone I disagree with that they'll go to hell if they don't > repent. But I also do not pretend that their actions (many of them) aren't > wrong. Hitler killed 11 million people systematically. But he came back as a rich man, and is currently in the White House. If you believe in this "going to hell" crap, you are missing something. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web