| | Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar?
>>>>>>>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make
>>>>>>>>> many decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to
>>>>>>>>> say.
>
>>>>>>>> IIRC, the church still says he and his rulings are perfect and must
>>>>>>>> be followed.
>
>>>>> It doesnt even say that. Only a microscopic subset
>>>>> of his pontifications are even claimed to be infallible.
>
>>>> So any priest anywhere can stand up and say that the Pope is full of
>>>> hot air on his rulings on
>>>> homosexuals and letting women be priest and still keep his post in the
>>>> church?
>
>>> Nope, so anyone is welcome to discuss whether a particular
>>> ruling makes sense, and sometimes even a later Pope decides
>>> that the shafting of Galileo made absolutely no sense, even tho
>>> he didnt mention Bruno, presumably because he went up in flames.
>
>>> And anyone with a clue just kept their mouths shut on the question
>>> of whether the sun revolved around the earth, whatever some damned
>>> pope or other ruled, until even that pathetic collection of utterly
>>> corrupt clowns managed to get the basics right on that eventually.
>
>>>> Sorry don't think so.
>
>>> 'think' again.
>
>> Why you just said that I was correct?
>
> No I didnt.
I first thought you were just a closed minded, bigoted jerk but now I'm
starting to think you actually have a mental problem.
>
>>>>>>> Its much more complicated than that, most obviously when the rulings
>>>>>>> change over time.
>
>>>>>> Not really,
>
>>>>> Corse it is.
>
>>>> Not the basic rules.
>
>>> Fraid so. Married priests is an absolutely classic example of that.
>
>> According to the Catholics I know 'the church' has allowed married
>> priests. It usually was only permitted in cases where the priest was
>> living in 'hardship', i.e. a mission to a 'backwards' country.
>
> Completely wrong. Most obviously with the married priests that come from
> other protestant sects like the anglicans in modern first world countrys.
Try asking a Catholic if the church allows or used to allow priest in remote
areas of South America and Africa to marry. I think you will find out you
are the one who is wrong. Of course you'll never admit it. Closed minded
bigots such as yourself will never admit a mistake.
>>> Now those who choose leave a protestant cult and join the roman
>>> catholic cult don't even have to ditch the wife and kids anymore.
>
>>> Bet eventually they'll have to allow priests to marry, just because the
>>> entire organisation will eventually implode if they don't.
>
>> If it is willing to toss out one of its basic beliefs
>
> Thats nothing like one of its most basic beliefs,
> its a relatively recent thing in church history.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>> lends more support to my point that the RC church is more about money,
>> power and politics.
>
> Its actually about something MUCH more basic, survival.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
> In spades with what women are allowed to do in that cult.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>>>> But my point is even if the rules do change what does it matter if you
>>>> ain't following them go begin with?
>
>>> Plenty do make some attempt to follow the more sensible ones.
>
>>> And basically make an obscene gesture in the general direction of Rome
>>> on the most stupid rules like not using any contraception etc.
>
>> IOW, they want to be called Catholic but not be Catholic.
>
> Wrong again. They just realise that things do change over time
> even in that particular cult and that it makes a lot more sense
> to decide stuff for yourself like birth control and not give a damn
> about what one senile old fool in Rome has to say about it.
So if they decided that they don't need to say the prayers, baptize their
children, get married 'in the church' then they are still Catholic? Why not
just say that they could go out and do human sacrifices because that's what
they think makes more sense? After all as long as they say they are
Catholics it doesn't mater what their actions are. Even though you have
stated that people are known by their actions.
>
> The roman catholic church has ALWAYS had
> a hell of a lot of that sort of thing going on.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
> Its rarely been as rabidly hard line as the worst of the rabid protestant
> cults.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
> Which might just be why its lasted a hell of a lot longer than they have.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
> There's always been a lot more than one size fits all on stuff like that.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
> Specially on the trivial crap like whether the mass is in the local
> language or latin etc.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>>>> Just because I eat pork or beef every meal does that mean I'm not a
>>>> vegetarian!! OF COURSE IT
>>>> DOES. It doesn't matter how many times I tell you "I'm a vegetarian."
>>>> if I don't follow the rules
>>>> and eat meat I am NOT a vegetarian NO MATTER how often I say I am.
>
>>> Its nothing like that black and white with eating fish on fridays etc.
>
>>>> I can claim to be a Christian but if I screw around on my wife and rob
>>>> banks for a living am I a Christian? Nope.
>
>>> But you are still a catholic if you dont always eat fish on fridays.
>
>>>> Therefore you saying that Christians screw around on their wife's and
>>>> rob banks is foolish.
>
>>> Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>
>> It isn't a straw man.
>
> Corse it is.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>> The RC church has rules for its members.
>
> And plenty of them arent anything like as black and white
> as your straw man and you dont get booted out of the cult
> if you dare to eat other than fish on some fridays etc.
Only because the church needs them and their money.
>
> The RC cult has never been as rabidly fantatical as the worst of the rabid
> protestand cults.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland. (and this applies
here because of some of the things the RC church has done in the name of God
its history.)
>
> Which is why it has survived for so long and so many of the worst
> of the rabid protestant cults are lucky to even last a generation.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>> If you don't follow the rules how can you call yourself a Catholic?
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that
> you dont have clue about what that cult is about.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>>>>>>>> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own
>>>>>>>> rules.
>
>>>>>>> And you don't 'think' that the church isnt well aware of that ?
>
>>>>>>>> Seems they don't care as long as they keep
>>>>>>>> getting money from the non-Catholic Catholics.
>
>>>>> It aint primarily about money.
>
>>>> Then explain to me why the non-Catholic Catholics are not tossed out of
>>>> the church?
>
>>> Even the stupidest in rome have noticed that that sort of gung ho
>>> approach
>>> doesnt work and just produces stuff like protestantism and Lutherans
>>> etc.
>
>>> They've noticed that even burning them at the stake doesnt work either.
>
>> IOW, the church is afraid that if they enforce the rules then people will
>> leave the church and take their money with them.
>
> Nope, they've managed to work out what allows a cult like
> that to be viable over the long haul and even you should
> have noticed that they havent done too badly in that regard.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
> I bet those with a clue regret treating Luther like they did and
> that it would have been a lot more viable to not have encouraged
> so many to break away and produce protestantism etc.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
> It aint about money, its about surviving.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
> Which is why they wont maintain the ban on married priests forever,
> because they wont be able to find enough priests if they do.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
> Its not as if its some ruling some damned god or other imposed anyway.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>>>> Why do they allow women who the priest KNOW have screwed around and had
>>>> abortions to be married "in the church".
>
>>> For the same reason they allow priests who **** children to remain in
>>> the church. Basically utterly misguided ideas about it being possible to
>>> get them to stop doing that when it isnt another example of one of those
>>> having managed to make it to bishop or cardinal without being caught
>>> etc.
>
>> Not quite. In that case they didn't want the bad press which would have
>> cut into their money making.
>
> Its got nothing to do with money making. Plenty of societys
> just laugh about what the priests are notorious for getting
> up to unless its the most obscene stuff like ****ing children.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
> There's always been a high level of scepticism about some
> of the sillier stuff priests pontificate about, like raving on about
> the sin of wearing mirror sunglasses, wearing highly polished
> shoes so you can look up women's dresses, etc etc etc.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
> And now the mindlessly silly stuff about contraception etc.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>>>>>> In a lot of cases it has become a joke, allowing 30 year marriages
>>>>>> with 5 kids to be annulled so someone can get married 'in the church'
>>>>>> but not allowing divorce.
>
>>>>> Sure, but thats got nothing to do with money.
>
>>>> Hockey Pucks!
>
>>> You're actually stupid enough to 'think' that using silly
>>> words like that will stop you going up in flames ?
>
>> In this day and age using words like that have more effect. You noticed
>> didn't you?
>
> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>>>> If it ain't about the money then what is it about?
>
>>> They have this rather naive idea that even those can change their ways
>
>> You are the one that is naive if you think that is their reason.
>
> That is a VERY fundamental part of what that pathetic cult
> is about, confessing your sins and promising not to do it again.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>>>>>> In a lot of cases it has become a joke, allowing 30 year marriages
>>>>>> with 5 kids to be annulled so someone can get married 'in the church'
>>>>>> but not allowing divorce.
>
>>>>> Sure, but thats got nothing to do with money.
>
>>>>> Thats just the usual mindless copout when one 'rule' conflicts with
>>>>> another.
>
>>>>> Plenty of examples of that with protestants too, most obviously with
>>>>> the execution of abortionists.
>
>>>> Give me plenty of examples then.
>
>>> Most obviously with how individuals who 'lapse' and **** a consenting
>>> adult outside marraige are hardly ever booted out of the cult as long
>>> as they admit that what they did was wrong and promise to never do it
>>> again.
>
>> Doesn't fit.
>
> Corse it does.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>> You implied that protestants supported "the execution of abortionists",
>
> No I didnt. I just said that SOME do stupid stuff like that one rule
> conflicting with another stupidity.
>
>> I don't know any that support adultery.
>
> Never said they did, I JUST said that that doesnt get you booted out of
> the cult much
> as long as you claim to have seen the error of your ways and promise to
> not do it again.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>>> Virtually all of the protestant cults allow remarraige after divorce
>>> now, even tho it took the episcopalians quite some time to cave in on
>>> that.
>
>> True, but that proves my point somewhat.
>
> No it doesnt.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>> If a 'christian church' isn't following the rules laid out by Christ is
>> it really a Christian church?
>
> Its never that black and white on what that fool who got nailed up by the
> romans allowed.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>
>>>>> Eventually even the roman catholics will wake up and smell the coffee
>>>>> and decide that they've wasted enough time on stupid fudges on that
>>>>> stuff.
>
>>>> The weak one
>
>>> It aint weak at all.
>
>>>> you gave fails on three reasons.
>
>>> No it doesnt.
>
>>>> 1) you can't show me one church that calls for that;
>
>>> The whole point of many of the protestant cults is that there aint no
>>> church hierarchy that sets the rules. You're sposed to use that pathetic
>>> collection of fairy storys and work out for yourself what that arsehole
>>> of a god wants you to do instead.
>
>> Still no example of a church that calls for "the execution of
>> abortionists".
>
> Never ever said that even one ever did.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland. (oops that one doesn't
fit that well)
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag. (there that one
works better)
>
>>> You do that yourself on something like giving up on non christians when
>>> you have presented your claims about what some god or other wants us to
>>> do, and they choose to ignore that, when you wave around some bit of
>>> that pathetic collection of fairy storys and don't just show what some
>>> church bigwig has claimed is the rule to follow.
>
>> Huh? I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say.
>
> I'm succeeding in saying that most protestant cults are about
> working out for yourself what that arsehole of a god wants you
> to do from that pathetic collection of fairy storys, and most dont
> even have any church hierarchy that sets the rules for you to follow.
Better do a little more research. I don't know of any church that doesn't
have a 'convent' or other written rules for its members.
>
>> But, if you check most all churches have written rules you are to follow
>> if you are to be a member of that church.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
> have never had a clue about what protestantism is about.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> These rules are set by some 'bigwigs'.
>
> Quite a few protestant cults dont even HAVE any bigwigs at all.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag. (dang, forgot to
change that)
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland. (there)
>
>> In good churches you will find the rules follow the strict teachings of
>> Christ.
>
> No such animal.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>>>> 2) check out what I have been telling you, just because someone calls
>>>> himself a Christian doesn't mean he is;
>
>>> True of you and your ilk in spades.
>
>> That statement makes NO sense.
>
> Corse it does. Your proclaimation that there are just
> two rules is and absolutely classic example of that.
>
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland
> That fool that was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans
> never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
>
> Its just some hare brained idea someone has
> fed you and you have been stupid enough to buy it.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
> Just like the crap about married priests, contraception, fish on
> fridays, 'the body and the blood of christ', graven idols, etc etc etc.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>>>> 3) abortionist are not being killed day in and day out.
>
>>> The frequency is completely irrelevant.
>
>>> There werent all that many examples of people like Bruno being burnt at
>>> the stake because they insisted that the earth revolves around the sun
>>> either, essentially because those with a clue chose to keep their mouths
>>> shut after Bruno had gone up in flames.
>
>> Again you are talking of the RC church.
>
> There's **** all difference on that crap.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>> If you look back you will see that this thread started out with me saying
>> there are a lot of places where the RC church does not follow the
>> teachings of Christ and therefore can't really be called a Christian
>> church.
>
> They say the same thing about fools like you.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
> And they're right on that stupid just 2 rules line of yours too.
>
Show me any 'rule' you find that can not be directly linked back to the two
I mentioned. You won't because you can't.
>> So you are again trying to blame Christians for things they didn't do.
>
> Not blaming anyone for anything. Just rubbing your stupid nose
> in the FACT that ALL of your stupid fools that claim to be 'christian',
> ALL ignore the bits that that fool who was stupid enough to get
> nailed up by the romans said when it suits you.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
> You personally ignore everything he said and did except for those 2 rules
> you wave around.
Just pointed out that everything in a Christian's live is based on 2 rules
and 2 rules alone.
>
> You're no 'christian', you're just another rabid fantatic that hasnt got a
> clue and who does plenty of stuff that that fool that was stupid enough
> to get nailed up by the romans said would see you consigned to hell.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>>>>>>>>> You missed 60's and love, love, love.
>
>>>>>>>> Still a lot of hate there.
>
>>>>>>> Just another of your silly little fantasys.
>
>>>>>> Really?
>
>>>>> Yep.
>
>>>>>> Weren't there several lynchings in the 60's?
>
>>>>> Not by those spewing that love ****.
>
>>>> So you admit that there were lynchings in the 60's
>
>>> Corse I do.
>
>>>> and there was still a lot of hate.
>
>>> A tiny number of lynchings in the 60s doesnt qualify as 'still a lot of
>>> hate'
>
>> Takes a lot of hate for even one lynching
>
> Fanatasy. The lynchings were actually about keeping those they lynched
> under the thumb.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
>
>> and even more to allow the lynchers to go free.
>
> Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy. They just agreed with the
> lynchings.
Oh man I forgot about that line. I'll start using it some later.
>
>>>> Using your logic we don't have any hate now because there are those
>>>> "spewing that love ****."
>
>>> You wouldnt know what logic was if it bit you on your lard arse.
>
>> More of your award winning debating skills in use.
>
> Yours in spades.
Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.
>>> You're the one stupid enough to believe that what some fool that was
>>> stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans is purported to have said
>>> has any relevance what so ever to today.
>
>> Let's see. Love your neighbor as yourself. Are you saying that living by
>> that rule has no relevance today?
>
> Yes, you have to consider who your neighbour is and even if your
> neighbour is a very decent person, there isnt any point in loving
> them as yourself anyway, they are just your neighbour, not yourself.
Your neighbor is everyone else. If I love my neighbor as myself I'm going
to help them and respect them. You statement shows how you think, no one
maters but you. If you have to screw your neighbor to get what you want, no
problem.
>
> Most of the 10 commandments make no sense anymore either.
None of them make any sense to someone like you. Why not kill if someone
has what you want?
>
> And plenty of them like the proclaimation of pride is
> ignored by almost all who claim to be 'christians' anyway.
I think you are FINALLY begining to get it. Those who CLAIM to be
christians, not those who ARE Christians.
>
> And what is the point of grovelling to some damned god thats such
> an arsehole that it just yawned as 10M of its 'chosen people' were
> pumped up the crematoria chimneys and allows the worst child abuse ?
Which makes my point very well. That's not following the rules of Christ
therefore not Christian.
>
>>> A fool born to some slut with a rather novel way to explain the
>>> unexpected brat, 'god dun it'. Yeah, right.
>
>> And you believe that there was a big bang and poof there was then
>> something made from nothing.
>
> You have absolutely no idea what I believe on that.
True, but everyone has to believe that at some point something had to come
from nothing.
>
>> What's the difference?
>
> Pathetic, really.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>>>> How many military people did you hug and say you loved in the 60's?
>
>>>>>> Never been into stupid stuff like that.
>
>>>> And yet you claim that my stating there was hate in the 60's
>
>>> Nothing like what you actually said.
>
>>>> was "Just another of your silly little fantasys."
>
>>> Yep, thats what you actually said is.
>
>>>>> Yeah, I guess I'm just fantasizing all that.
>
>>>> Or havent got a clue about what was being discussed.
>
>>> You seem to be the one unable to follow the topic at hand.
>
>>> Easy to claim.
>
>> Easy to prove, just have someone read the posts and try to follow you
>> thoughts.
>
> Easy to claim.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.>
>>>>>>>> Racist have a lot of love, as long as you are the right color.
>>>>>> Most of them don't.
>
>>>>>> Sure they do, just read their literature on how much they love
>>>>>> themselves.
>
>>>>> Pathetic.
>
>>>> Another thing you and they have in common.
>
>>> Pathetic.
>
>> You repeating yourself again.
>
> Corse you never ever do anthing like that yourself, eh ?
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, I wish it were that simple, but it is not.
>
>>>>>>>> What exactly is Iraq, a holy war, an anti-terrorist war, or an oil
>>>>>>>> war??
>
>>>>>>> All.
>
>>>>>> Nope, it aint a holy war for starters.
>
>>>>> Tell that to the Sunnis who are killing the Shiite or the Shiite who
>>>>> are killing the Sunnies
>
>>>> That aint a holy war.
>
>>> Let's see, they are killing each other because of difference in religion
>
>> No they arent. Its just the usual sectarian ****, they kill kurds etc
>> even more enthusiastically.
>
>> What is the difference between "sectarian ****" and a holy war?
>
> Most obviously when its mindless tribal **** between those of the same
> sect.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>>>> but you don't call that a holy war. Just how do you define a holy war?
>
>>> Stuff like the crusades and the spread of islam thru north africa.
>
>> So for you to be a holy war it has to be one religion against another?
>
> Nope.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>>>>>> or others who believe they have to kill the infidels.
>
>>>> There are **** all of those too.
>
>>> I give up what does that even mean?
>
>> **** all of those are killing infidels because they are infidels.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> They are getting killed because they are the invaders instead.
>
>> Ok, you left out a comma,
>
> No I didnt.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> got it now.
>
>>>>>>>> The terrorists are using false religious teachings to recruit
>>>>>>>> people for a 'holy war' for control of the oil and the money it
>>>>>>>> brings.
>
>>>>>>> Have fun explaining the terrorists from countrys that have no oil.
>
>>>>>> Frist off there's no need. We are talking about why the terrorist
>>>>>> want control of Iraq.
>
>>>>> No we arent.
>
>>>> Try to stay on topic.
>
>>> How is me denying that claim you made me not staying on topic ?
>
>> You keep changing topics in mid reply.
>
> Like hell I do.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> The question raised was why terrorist wanted to control Iraq
>
> No it wasnt. YOU made that stupid pig ignorant claim about what terrorists
> are about.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> and I said it was about oil money.
>
> Pity that the primary support for the terrorists in Iraq is coming from
> countrys that have plenty of their own oil. They dont need Iraqi oil.
But with more oil there's more money which means more weapons and the like.
>
>>>> Not editing so much might help,
>
>>> I didnt edit a damned thing.
>
>> Yes you have.
>
> No I havent.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> For one thing you split my replies
>
> That aint editing, thats splitting.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> making it very difficult to see what was said.
>
> Your selective deletion of what was said is much worse in that regard.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>>>> The point you are responding to is the fact that terrorist need money
>
>>>> > No they don't.
>
>> Explain to me how you support a terrorist system w/o money.
>
> I just did with those fools that blew themselves to bits in London so
> recently.
But you edited out the part where YOU pointed out that those fools used
money to buy what they needed. Thereby proving the point that you have to
have money. The bigger the 'job' the more money needed. You MIGHT be able
to show that some attacks are carried out using some stolen stuff but in the
end they all have to buy stuff.
>
> ALL they need is the basic information on how to blow themselves
> to bits effectively and even someone as stupid as you should have
> noticed that its completely trivial to do that for free using the
> internet.
But you need materials. Even they had to buy the H202.
>
> And much of the terrorism in Iraq is done using what they
> stole from the arms dumps at the end of the invasion.
Covered above.
>
>>>> and oil is a good way to get it.
>
>>> It aint the only way to get it.
>
>>>> You tried to change the topic
>
>>> No I didnt. I just rubbed your nose in that fact that that stupid claim
>>> about money is just plain wrong, as evidence by the fact that there is
>>> plenty of terrorism where no oil is involved at all, most obviously with
>>> the palestinians.
>
>> Are you truly that dense or just playing stupid?
>
> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
HEY STOP USING THE PHRASES I'M USING!
>
>> Please note we are not talking specifically about oil but about money
>> derived from oil.
>
> Pity that palestinian terrorism aint about money from anywhere.
Concentrate real hard and remember that we are't saying that terrorism is
ABOUT money its supported BY money. If you haven't edited it out you will
find that I pointed out that the Palestinian terrorist have been getting oil
money for years and years.
>
>> Where do you think the Palestinians get money from? A lot of it comes
>> from people in Saudi Arabia who get their money from oil.
>
> **** all of it does for terrorism.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> Also if you do a little research you will find that Iraq used to pay
>> $10,000US to families of terrorist bombers. Money which came from oil
>> sales.
>
> It would have happened anyway, stupid.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>>>> to terrorist from countries w/o oil.
>
>>> Because thats the evidence that your silly claim that its always about
>>> money is just plain wrong.
>
>> Money is what makes the world turn and w/o money you can't change the
>> world.
>
> Wrong with terrorism.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> How long do you think the crusades would have lasted if the crusaders
>> didn't have money to pay for food?
>
> The world's moved on just a tad since those days.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
> Modern terrorists pay for their food just like you and I do, by working
> for it etc.
>
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>>>> But because you asked its simple they get money from terrorist
>>>>>> who get money from oil or poppies.
>
>>>>> Wrong again. There's plenty of terrorists where there is no oil or
>>>>> poppies.
>
>>>> Ok, first you need to check to see if its time to take another dose of
>>>> your meds because you seem to be completely losing your ability to
>>>> focus here.
>
>>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>>> And your obscenity of a god doesnt allow you to behave like that anyway.
>
>> Wrong again.
>
> You'll see...
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>>>> Next carefully re-read what I wrote.
>
>>> Pointless, mindless pig ignorant silly **** stays mindless pig ignorant
>>> silly **** no matter how often its reread.
>
>>>> The statement above has nothing to do with the terrorist being where
>>>> the oil and poppies are
>
>>> Never said it did.
>
>> then why did you say "There's plenty of terrorists where there is no oil
>> or poppies."
>
> Because there has always been plenty of terrorism that aint funded that
> way.
What does where the terrorism happening have to do where the money comes
from?
>
>>>> only they are getting money from other terrorist who get their money
>>>> from oil and poppies.
>
>>> Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.
>
>> Nope, its supported by data.
>
> Like hell it is with those fools who blew themselves to bits in London
> recently.
Why not point out the ones who have blown up abortion clinics in the US?
Just because you can point out a couple of small incidents doesn't disprove
my statement.
>
>>>> Where do you think binny boy got his money to run his little holy war?
>
>>> Irrelevant to what plenty of other terrorists have managed to do
>>> without.
>
>> Tell me how they did it then?
>
> They mostly just do what everyone else does, work, get
> paid for that, and are terrorists in their own time as well.
Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.
>
>>>> From selling magazines door to door? Nope from his family's oil
>>>> business.
>
>>> Irrelevant to what plenty of other terrorists have managed to do
>>> without.
>
>> How?
>
> See above.
Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.
>
>>> Have a look at the background of the terrorists that blew themselves
>>> to bits in england recently and you will find that they werent
>>> funded by oil or poppys. What minimal funding they did need
>>> essentially came from their parents or their employment.
>
>> I never said that ALL terrorist were funded by oil/drug money.
>
> You said its all about money. Quite a bit of the time it aint about money
> at all.
>
Nope, I the need to control Iraq is oil and its money because they need
money to be able to force their religion upon the world. I never said it
was ALL about money.
> Just rabid fantatics being rabid fanatics.
Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.
>
>>>>>>>> The more money they have the faster they can force their
>>>>>>>> religion on the rest of the world under the threat of terrorist
>>>>>>>> and death.
>
>>>>>>> It aint about money.
>
>>>>>>>> Everything is about money.
>
> There.
Yep. They need money to force their religion on the world. So I guess at
the very base it all does have to do with money. Mea culpa, see a man can
admit he made a mistake.
>
>>>>> Just another mindlessly silly fantasy.
>
>>>> IOW, you can't counter my point.
>
>>> Just another mindless fundy fantasy.
>
>>>>>> Without money nothing happens in this world.
>
>>>>> Just another mindlessly silly fantasy.
>
>>>> IOW, you can't counter my point.
>
>>> Just another mindlessly silly fundy fantasy.
>
>>>>>> They are told that their religion> is the only correct religion
>
>>>>> Another pig ignorant lie.
>
>>>> IOW, you can't counter my point.
>
>>> Just another mindlessly silly fundy fantasy.
>
>> Here we go again. IOW, you can't counter my point.
>
> Already did, in spades, fundy.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>>>> And it is true.
>
>>> No it isnt.
>
>>>> Study their own words.
>
>>> Been doing that likely since before you were even born thanks.
>
>>>>>> and they are to force it upon the rest of the unbelieving world.
>
>>>>> Another pig ignorant lie.
>
>>>> IOW, you can't counter my point.
>
>>> Just another mindlessly silly fundy fantasy.
>
>> IOW, you can't counter my point.
>
> Already did, in spades, fundy.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.>
>> Read their own words as well the history.
>
> Been doing that likely since before you were even born thanks.
So now you are claiming to have been studing Islamic terrorist that long.
Now you are doing nothing but lying. I knew you have been lying but now
there's proof.
>
>>>>>>>> Can't do that w/o money.
>
>>>>> Another pig ignorant lie.
>
>>>> Ok, tell me how to spread a religion around the world w/o money.
>
>>> No one said anything about 'spread a religion around> the world'
>
>> Ok then tell me how "they are to force it upon the rest of the
>> unbelieving world" w/o money.
>
> No one said anything about forcing anything on the rest of the world
> either.
Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.
>
> And you cant force anything on the rest of the world with money anyway.
Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.
>
>>> Plenty of religions arent even into spreading their religion at all.
>
>> We are talking about one specific religion. Remember?
>
> No we arent.
Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.
>>>> I'd love to know so that I can start spreading mine at no cost.
>
>>> Even someone as stupid as you should be able to work out how that is
>>> done using the internet if someone was actually stupid enough to lend
>>> you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.
>
>> Wow, you know where to get free internet web site hosting and bandwidth?
>
> Yep.
lying again are ya?
>
>> Tell me so I can stop paying my hard earned money.
>
> No thanks, there's enough fundy **** out there already.
As your words are proving; the more you let a fool talk the more the world
can see just how a big of a fool he is. You can't even support your own
points. You have to use little catch phrases such as:
You are pathetic.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.
At best you are a closed mined, ignorant, bigoted, big mouth, fool who can't
support his arguments without insults and stupid little catch phrases. At
worse you are a mentally unstable person in need of proper treatment.
>
> <reams of your mindless repetitive **** flushed where it belongs>
>
>>>>>>>> If I think you are going to Hell I'll tell you and tell you what
>>>>>>>> you can do to prevent it.
>
>>>>> And I'll tell you to shove it where the sun don't shine.
>
>>>> I don't care,
>
>>> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
>>> irrlevant.
>
>> Make up your mind.
>
> Made it up before you were even born thanks.
I doubt it, you strike me as not even being out of school yet, unless you
dropped out. Seeing as how poor your comminuting skills are I'd guess a
drop out.
>
>> As a Christian am I a danger to the world
>
> Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
You have implied that all religions are a danger to the world. Therefore I,
as a member of a religon, am a danger.
>
>> or "completely and utterly irrlevant"?
>
> Who said he was as thick as a brick ?
I give up, who?
>
>>>> I have done my part.
>
>>> Just another mindlessly silly fundy fantasy.
>
>>>> The rest is up to you and God.
>
>>> There is no god, just an endless variety of crutches for pathetically
>>> inadequate 'minds'
>
>> Please show this inadequate mind what was happening before the big bang?
>
> I never said a word about the big bang, fundy.
No, that was me. See I'm asking you a question. You are supposed to reply
to the question not ignore it. Of course that is what you seem to do quite
often.
>
>>>>>> But I will never try to force you, by physical force or by using the
>>>>>> police power of the state, to change.
>
>>>>> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
>>>>> irrelevant.
>
>>>> Me in specific or me as a Christian in general?
>
>>> All of the above.
>
>> So now you claim both.
>
> Must be one of those rocket scienist rabid fundys.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> If you believe this then why do you fear us so?
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed rabid fantasys.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>>>>>>> IOW, you are nothing more than a closed minded bigot who thinks he's
>>>>>>> the only one who knows what right in the world.
>
>>>>>> You'll burn child. That fool that was stupid enough to get nailed up
>>>>>> by the romans said very unambiguously indeed that you cant do that
>>>>>> sort of thing.
>
>>>>>> Just another rabid fundy that cant even manage to work out what that
>>>>>> fool who was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans told him to
>>>>>> do.
>
>>>> I do think you should talk to the docs about adjusting your meds.
>
>>> Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, child.
>
> <reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
> where it belongs>
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
> You'll burn, fundy.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.>
I do have to admit that it is a lot easier to use your method of debating.
No need to think or provide support for your side just insert a catch phrase
>
|