Church Closures

krudler

J C wrote: »

Hitler was a first rate anti-christ.
If people were immortal ... power-hungry and evil people would take over the World ... and nobody could stop them ... as they wouldn't die and couldn't be killed, no matter what evil they got up to.
Death, unfortunately, is a necessary evil - in a Fallen World ... just as God told Adam and Eve before they Fell.

J C wrote: »

His plan is that everyone should be safe and Saved ... and it would be abusing my free will to undo His plan if I became an 'amber gambler ... or a 'red menace'.:)

Well your first point makes zero sense (like everything else you say), if people couldn't die then why would power hungry people be left take over the world? Killing your enemies off first would be most megalomaniacs first step, if they couldnt do this then how would they take power? And even if they did people could revolt against them without fear of dying as a result.

And your second point, so if someone is stopped at a light and someone plows into them from behind, killing them. Was that god's plan to take an innocent person's life? or did he just sit back and watch as someone killed another human being through carelessness. I know you're going to give the old "as a result of the fall" answer, since you don't have any other way of expressing reasonable arguments. Cowardly trollish posting at it's worst tbh.

krudler

Peregrinus wrote: »

The church is a community, not an individual, and indeed it aspires to be an all-embracing community. So using wealth for church purposes is the opposite of hoarding it for an individual; it's devoting it to the public.

Except gheys.

Peregrinus

krudler wrote: »

Except gheys.

No, they seek to include gays too.

Never mind that they seek to do so on terms that you and I might think no self-respecting gay would be likely to accept. The accusation made against the church here is of hypocrisy in having and using objects of considerable value. Whether the church is hypocritical depends on whethe the church lives up to its own ideals. It's irrelevant whether they live up to your ideals or mine, and its equally irrelevant whether your or I approve of the ideals of the church.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

The church is a community, not an individual, and indeed it aspires to be an all-embracing community. So using wealth for church purposes is the opposite of hoarding it for an individual; it's devoting it to the public.

Is this a Poe? Is it really in the public's interest to spend money on the likes of golden tabernacles and expensive art (and expensive lawyers) as opposed to on helping poor or homeless people?

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, they seek to include gays too.

Never mind that they seek to do so on terms that you and I might think no self-respecting gay would be likely to accept.

You've gone from 'all embracing' to 'including' and it's pretty obvious why. Including someone, but expecting them to repress fundamental unchangeable truths about themselves, is not 'embracing'.

Waitsian

Subpopulus wrote: »

I've often wondered whether catholic churches would start closing with church attendance rates falling so dramatically.

It looks likely that as church attendance continues to trickle downwards, and vocations fall off, that more catholic churches will be shutting doors. I think vocations will probably be the main cause rather than attendance - it won't be possible for elderly priests to say mass multiple times in different churches across a parish on a sunday, so they'll probably have to 'rationalise' their masses, to use a businessy term.

More interestingly for me, as an architect, is what's going to become of these empty church buildings.

Shame about this thread being derailed but if I may I'd like to comment on the original post.

Re using abandoned churches as homes - I have a first cousin who has converted an old Protestant church (COI I think) into a family home in Forkhill. Never been in it myself but I'm told by other family members it's astounding.

As for rationalising 'business' - the parish of Lower Killeavy, where my mother lives, has announced that Sunday morning masses will only be said in each of two separate chapels on alternate months. My mother has told me it's due to a retiring priest not being replaced. That being said attendances in any of them are dire. From their Facebook page:

The Following changes to Sunday Mass times in the Parish of Lower Killeavy will be as follows:

Lislea - 10.00am
Lissummon - 10.30am
Bessbrook - 11.00am
Carrickcruppen 11.00am
Cloughreagh - 12.00pm

The Masses in Bessbrook and Carrickcruppen will alternate on a monthly rota. These changes will take effect from Sunday 5th October. Therefore, there will be Sunday morning Mass in Bessbrook in October and NONE in Carrickcruppen. This will then switch for the month of November and so on.

krudler

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Why do you have a computer/smart phone when there are homeless people in this country?

Because it's gods plan

Cabaal

J C wrote: »

It isn't murder to kill in a just war.

There we have it, the logic that's also used by Islamic extremists,

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

There we have it, the logic that's also used by Islamic extremists,

And also by many secular thinkers, surely?

The people who think that it is murder to kill in a just war - the strict pacifists - are a pretty small group. (And, frequently, motivated by strong religious conviction.)

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You've gone from 'all embracing' to 'including' and it's pretty obvious why. Including someone, but expecting them to repress fundamental unchangeable truths about themselves, is not 'embracing'.

Fair enough, but my main point stands. The use of property for public purposes in a community which seeks to include everybody is the opposite of hoarding it by individuals.

krudler

J C wrote: »

Like I have said, God doesn't do any of these things ... He simply allows the laws of the post-fall universe to operate ... which is what He told Adam and Eve He would do, if they sided with Satan ... and Fell.

You've just summed up why Christianity is a self contradicting belief. If god created Adam and Eve with free will but is also omnipotent, he knew they'd side with Satan (as you put it), so either he accepted they wouldn't listen to him and did nothing as his plan was for them to succumb to temptation, or he didn't know, which makes him not omnipotent. Either way Jesus died for nothing, since Jesus is also God, his so called sacrifice was worthless. You can't sacrifice yourself to yourself to appease yourself.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fair enough, but my main point stands. The use of property for public purposes in a community which seeks to include everybody is the opposite of hoarding it by individuals.

It's not for public purposes, it's only for those who agree to be members of the church. And the more valuable the property (say, all the priceless art the Vatican owns) the more restricted it's use. How does all that hoarded valuable art help anyone? How does a golden tabernacle help anyone?

EoghanIRL

krudler wrote: »

Because it's gods plan

Ah right . Thanks for clearing that up for me .

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's not for public purposes, it's only for those who agree to be members of the church.

That's "the public", Mark. "The public" doesn't have to mean everyone in the world.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And the more valuable the property (say, all the priceless art the Vatican owns) the more restricted it's use. How does all that hoarded valuable art help anyone? How does a golden tabernacle help anyone?

How does a picture in the National Gallery help anyone? Or an artefact in a museum?

Most of the valuable objects held by churches are in fact used in liturgy, which is a public use, and intended and understood by those who so use it as being for the public benefit. Whether you agree that it's for the public benefit is irrelevant to the question of whether they are hypocritical; all that matters is whether they think so. And they undoubtedly do.

(And of course this is also the purpose for which the artefacts where created, which arguably means they are being put to more fitting use than if they were donated to a museum or sold for inclusion in a private collection.)

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's "the public", Mark. "The public" doesn't have to mean everyone in the world.

Actually it does. Otherwise, by your argument here, there is no such thing as a private club.

Peregrinus wrote: »

How does a picture in the National Gallery help anyone? Or an artefact in a museum?

By being there for any member of the public to view and appreciate or learn from them. How does a golden tabernacle help anyone?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Most of the valuable objects held by churches are in fact used in liturgy, which is a public use, and intended and understood by those who so use it as being for the public benefit. Whether you agree that it's for the public benefit is irrelevant to the question of whether they are hypocritical; all that matters is whether they think so. And they undoubtedly do.

(And of course this is also the purpose for which the artefacts where created, which arguably means they are being put to more fitting use than if they were donated to a museum or sold for inclusion in a private collection.)

So someone stops being a hypocrite if they lie to themselves hard enough? There is no biblical reason why the church needs golden tabernacle or pieces of art, in fact Jesus was very specific on the whole morality of accumulation of wealth.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually it does. Otherwise, by your argument here, there is no such thing as a private club.

1. “The public” can mean a section of the public. That’s why, e.g., a university can be an institution providing education to the public, even though it doesn’t admit anyone under 17.

2. In any event, the church has no such exclusionary rule. Notoriously, the church would like everyone to join. The fact that they haven’t all joined yet doesn’t mean that the church is not open to, and inclusive of, the public. Anyone can join the Catholic church, and everyone is invited to. And people who are not members and have no wish to join are still welcome to attend and assist at its liturgies. That’s pretty public, by any reckoning.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By being there for any member of the public to view and appreciate or learn from them. How does a golden tabernacle help anyone?

Anyone can walk into a church and admire the fixtures and fittings. Anyone can attend the liturgies celebrated there, in which those fixtures and fittings are used. But from the church’s perspective the real benefit comes from the fact that the tabernacle has a liturgical function and liturgy - again, from the church’s perspective - is inherently of public benefit, regardless of how many people actually attend or who they are.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So someone stops being a hypocrite if they lie to themselves hard enough?

Or, less contentiously, if they’re just mistaken in their beliefs. Even you, Mark, are not a hypocrite for acting in accordance with your own beliefs, however objectively wrong those beliefs may be.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is no biblical reason why the church needs golden tabernacle or pieces of art, in fact Jesus was very specific on the whole morality of accumulation of wealth.

Only if you read him selectively. After all, he spoke very approvingly of individuals donating their money to the religious authorities; he clearly regarded that as a virtuous act. His issue with wealth was not so much whether you had it at all, but more how used you what you had and whether you were enslaved by it.

eyescreamcone

J C wrote: »

Would you like to expand?

Any talk of gods, Adam and Eve anti- christs etc is a fairytale, untrue, makey-uppy!!!
These stories were made up to gain control over primitive people.
Only primitive people are listening to the fairytale-ists these days also. Good to hear about the church closures. I just hope they pay their rape and abuse bill before they leave for good.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

1. “The public” can mean a section of the public. That’s why, e.g., a university can be an institution providing education to the public, even though it doesn’t admit anyone under 17.

2. In any event, the church has no such exclusionary rule. Notoriously, the church would like everyone to join. The fact that they haven’t all joined yet doesn’t mean that the church is not open to, and inclusive of, the public. Anyone can join the Catholic church, and everyone is invited to. And people who are not members and have no wish to join are still welcome to attend and assist at its liturgies. That’s pretty public, by any reckoning.

1. If that section of the public is "avowed members" then it's not a public institution, it's a private club.
2. You can't get the sacraments if you aren't an avowed member, therefore the valuable items they use for liturgy are only for their members (regardless of whether they let the public see some of them).

Peregrinus wrote: »

Anyone can walk into a church and admire the fixtures and fittings. Anyone can attend the liturgies celebrated there, in which those fixtures and fittings are used. But from the church’s perspective the real benefit comes from the fact that the tabernacle has a liturgical function and liturgy - again, from the church’s perspective - is inherently of public benefit, regardless of how many people actually attend or who they are.

That doesn't answer my question: How does a golden tabernacle help anyone?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or, less contentiously, if they’re just mistaken in their beliefs. Even you, Mark, are not a hypocrite for acting in accordance with your own beliefs, however objectively wrong those beliefs may be.

Only if you read him selectively. After all, he spoke very approvingly of individuals donating their money to the religious authorities; he clearly regarded that as a virtuous act. His issue with wealth was not so much whether you had it at all, but more how used you what you had and whether you were enslaved by it.

Are you really going to try and argue that the church is using it's wealth effectively? That it isn't 'enslaved' by it?

mister gullible

J C wrote: »

I'll let Wikipedia do the 'heavy lifting' on this one.
Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Hitler's and Stalins views on religion:-
Quote :-
"The Religious views of Adolf Hitler were shaped by his upbringing at the hands of his anti-clerical, sceptic father and devout Catholic mother. Baptized as an infant and confirmed at the age of fifteen, he ceased attending Mass and participating in the sacraments in later life.[1] In adulthood, he became disdainful of Christianity but in power was prepared to delay clashes with the churches out of political considerations.[2] Hitler's architect Albert Speer believed he had "no real attachment" to Catholicism, but that he had never formally left the Church. Unlike his comrade Joseph Goebbels, Hitler was not excommunicated[3] prior to his suicide. The biographer John Toland noted Hitler's anticlericalism, but considered him still in "good standing" with the Church by 1941, while historians such as Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock agree that Hitler was anti-Christian - a view evidenced by sources such as the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Speer, and the transcripts edited by Martin Bormann contained within Hitler's Table Talk.[4] Goebbels wrote in 1941 that Hitler "hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."[5] Many historians have come to the conclusion that Hitler's long term aim was the eradication of Christianity in Germany,[6] while others maintain that there is insufficient evidence for such a plan.[7]

Hitler's public relationship to religion has been characterised as one of opportunistic pragmatism.[8] His regime did not publicly advocate for state atheism, but it did seek to reduce the influence of Christianity on society. Hitler himself was reluctant of public attacks on the Church for political reasons, despite the urgings of Nazis like Bormann. Although he was sceptical of religion,[9][10] he did not present himself to the public as an atheist, and spoke of belief in an "almighty creator".[11][12] In private he could be ambiguous.[13][14] Evans wrote that Hitler repeatedly stated that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on science, which in the long run could not "co-exist with religion".[15] Alan Bullock wrote that even though Hitler frequently employed the language of "divine providence" in defence of his own myth, he ultimately shared with the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, a materialist outlook, "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity"

The last summary in red of Hitler's and Stalin's religious outlook looks remarkably like some of the pronouncements of secularists and materialists today.:)

Even a complete bast*rd (Hitler) must get it right on some matters.

joseph brand

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Why do you have a computer/smart phone when there are homeless people in this country?

Whataboutery.

joseph brand

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is this a Poe? Is it really in the public's interest to spend money on the likes of golden tabernacles and expensive art (and expensive lawyers) as opposed to on helping poor or homeless people?

"Yeah, but, eh, a lot of the victims of rape and other filthy acts by clergy are just making it up. They just want money from the innocent church which has become victimised by all these money grabbers." - Irish Catholics

As if it wasn't bad enough being raped by an old man, but to then be accused of only being in it for the cash! Takes some balls.

Ted: I'm not a fascist. I'm a priest. Fascists dress up in black and tell people what to do. Whereas priests...

Cabaal

The Vatican care about money alot,
Infact they care about it more then people, thats clearly evident when they send 90 year old men over to call abuse victims liars.

Reducing a abuse victim to tears and thoughts of killing himself,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iQGczIx6Sg

Nobody, not even the Vatican can claim that they don't love money, They clearly do and they'll do what they can to protect their money and wealth.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. Both belang to the local church community. Always have.

You are seriously mistaken,

The church buildings most definitely belong to the religious orders, this is why they can lease them or sell them back to the local community when they decide to vacate them. I've seen first hand experience of this a number of times.

Don't try and claim that they belong to the community, you know right well they do not.

Funds from the local community might have been used towards building, hell the land might very well be from the local community but the religious orders took ownership of the finished product including any land its built on.

If you think a vacated church simply then belongs to the local community its situated in then you are deluded (unless a specific previous agreement was put in place, which is not the norm).

J C

kylith wrote: »

How do you know that? It's just as likely that the good will win out and the world will be amazing forever?

That's not how things work ... a tiny bit of poison will destroy a whole batch ... and in a 'free for all' ... evil will prevail over good.

That's why we have law ... to promote goodness and hold back evil ... but law has to be enforced ... and it would be impossible to enforce law against recalcitrant immortal evil.

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Funny how that kind of 'real' power is indistinguishable from no power at all

The power not to act is discretion ... which is the better part of valour.

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By that logic all the people killed in the likes of Syria are being killed according to their own wishes, because they choose not to accept the rule of the side.

In a very real sense, a terrorist who takes on the state and is killed as a result, has indeed chosen to be killed, by acting in ways that makes him/her almost certain to be killed.

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How can there be war if everyone is immortal? What would anyone have to fight about?

Human evil will find plenty of things to fight about ... even in the midst of abundance ... one could even say, especially in the midst of abundance.
Immortal evil people would establish invulnerable positions of power over other people and they would unmercifully utilize such power.

J C

krudler wrote: »

Well your first point makes zero sense (like everything else you say), if people couldn't die then why would power hungry people be left take over the world? Killing your enemies off first would be most megalomaniacs first step, if they couldnt do this then how would they take power? And even if they did people could revolt against them without fear of dying as a result.

The fact that megalomaniacs can be killed themselves; places a considerable restraint on their blood lust ... if they were immortal, no such restraint would exist ... and they would eternally torture other equally immortal victims.

krudler wrote: »

And your second point, so if someone is stopped at a light and someone plows into them from behind, killing them. Was that god's plan to take an innocent person's life? or did he just sit back and watch as someone killed another human being through carelessness. I know you're going to give the old "as a result of the fall" answer, since you don't have any other way of expressing reasonable arguments.

God allows the physical laws of the universe to proceed unhindered ... and He also recognises Human free will ... accidents such as you describe can result from the interaction of these two phenomena.

krudler wrote: »

Cowardly trollish posting at it's worst tbh.

This is a perfect descriptor of your own posting style - and not mine.:)

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is this a Poe? Is it really in the public's interest to spend money on the likes of golden tabernacles and expensive art (and expensive lawyers) as opposed to on helping poor or homeless people?

This is what Jesus had to say about such 'faux-concen' for the poor:-

Mt 26:6-12
6 And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. 8 But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9 For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor.”

10 But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. 11 For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always. 12 For in pouring this fragrant oil on My body, she did it for My burial.

PopePalpatine

Five J C posts in a row...you'd feel like Andy Dufresne after wading through them.

J C

Cabaal wrote: »

There we have it, the logic that's also used by Islamic extremists,

The prosecution of a just war isn't the logic of religious warfare (which tends to use god(s) as the reason for war) ... the just war doctrine is the moral and legal basis for the use of warfare in the defense of nations and peoples that have been targeted by an unjust war.

J C

krudler wrote: »

You've just summed up why Christianity is a self contradicting belief. If god created Adam and Eve with free will but is also omnipotent, he knew they'd side with Satan (as you put it), so either he accepted they wouldn't listen to him and did nothing as his plan was for them to succumb to temptation, or he didn't know, which makes him not omnipotent.

God Created Adam and Eve (and gave them free-will) knowing they would Fall ...
... but He also knew that you and me would also be born and He obviously reckoned that, on balance, this was a good thing
... and I for one, am very happy and grateful that he did.

krudler wrote: »

Either way Jesus died for nothing, since Jesus is also God, his so called sacrifice was worthless. You can't sacrifice yourself to yourself to appease yourself.

Jesus Christ, being totally God and totally man, is the only person capable of making a just atonement for all sin ... and I for one, am very happy and grateful that he did.

Mark Hamill

J C wrote: »

The power not to act is discretion ... and it is the better part of valour.

The power not to act is also pretty indistinguishable from no power to act.

J C wrote: »

In a very real sense, a terrorist who takes on the state and is killed as a result has indeed chosen to be killed, by acting in ways that makes him/her almost certain to be killed.

By that logic if someone pulls a gun on you and you get shot trying to defend yourself, the attacker has nothing to answer for as you have chosen to be killed. You have done a lot of bizarre redefining of English in the past J C but now you've just redefined murder as suicide.

J C wrote: »

Human evil will find plenty of things to fight about ... even in the midst of abundance ... one could even say, especially in the midst of abundance.
Immortal evil people would establish invulnerable positions of power over other people and they would unmercifully utilize such power.

Empty assertion with no explanation. What would people have to fight over if they were immortal? Why would they want power over anyone else?

Mark Hamill

J C wrote: »

This is what Jesus had to say about such 'faux-concen' for the poor:-

Mt 26:6-12
6 And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. 8 But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9 For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor.”

10 But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. 11 For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always. 12 For in pouring this fragrant oil on My body, she did it for My burial.

Ah, so because Jesus was completely inconsistent in his message it's ok for the church to be inconsistent too. At least the church is consistent in it's inconsistency

J C

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Any talk of gods, Adam and Eve anti- christs etc is a fairytale, untrue, makey-uppy!!!
These stories were made up to gain control over primitive people.
Only primitive people are listening to the fairytale-ists these days also.

... or so you say.
You're entitled to your opinion ... but the evidence denies that the religious people who constructed the great churches and cathedrals of the world were anything but highly sophisticated and very intelligent.

... and the people of faith working at the highest levels within science today, who have scientifically proven that God exists, are equally sophisticated and intelligent.

J C

wrote:

Originally posted by J C
he (Hiitler) ultimately shared with the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, a materialist outlook, "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity"


mister gullible
Even a complete bast*rd (Hitler) must get it right on some matters.

... so you admit that Hitler and Stalin were anti-christs and irreligionists - and this was a primary motor for their behaviour.

That was precisely my point ... thank you.

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The power not to act is also pretty indistinguishable from no power to act.

... it all depends on whether you are omnipotent ... or have no power at all.
In the former case it is the use of discretion ... and in the latter it is the result of impotence.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By that logic if someone pulls a gun on you and you get shot trying to defend yourself, the attacker has nothing to answer for as you have chosen to be killed.

That wasn't my logic at all ... I was talking about a terrorist who takes on the state and pulls a gun on a policeman and gets shot as a result ... in that case it can be said that the terrorist has indeed chosen to be killed, by acting in a way that makes him/her almost certain to be killed.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You have done a lot of bizarre redefining of English in the past J C but now you've just redefined murder as suicide.

You have attempted that particular feat ... but you have spectacularly failed to do so.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Empty assertion with no explanation. What would people have to fight over if they were immortal? Why would they want power over anyone else?

That's what power-grabbing mortals do ... and there is no reason to believe that they would do something different, if they were immortal.

Brian Shanahan

more than S.A.D. wrote: »

Sometimes real power is having the power not to act

And zen believes that true wisdom only comes from spouting nonsense.

Your statement is equally full of derp.

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ah, so because Jesus was completely inconsistent in his message it's ok for the church to be inconsistent too. At least the church is consistent in it's inconsistency

Where was Jesus inconsistent?
In the parable of the talents, He recognized that hard work is required to generate the wealth to help anybody, including oneself ... and the poor.

He did tell people who considered that they were 'perfect' and sinless to go and sell everything and follow Him ... thereby showing them that their attachment to worldly goods meant that they weren't as perfect or as sinless as they thought they were.

Piliger

J C wrote: »

... so you admit that Hitler and Stalin were anti-christs and irreligionists - and this was a primary motor for their behaviour.

That was precisely my point ... thank you.

More elementary school colour coding I see. At least we know the level of debate you aim at.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And zen believes that true wisdom only comes from spouting nonsense.

I'm not into Zen ... so I wouldn't know.

... but If that is what it says ... I won't be bothered to find out either.:)

J C

Piliger wrote: »

More elementary school colour coding I see. At least we know the level of debate you aim at.

Whatever level my debate is at ... it's roundly defeating you guys on every point you make!!!:)

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

Whatever level my debate is at ... it's roundly defeating you guys on every point you make!!!:)

Your conceit knows no bounds!!!!

Cabaal

J C wrote: »

Whatever level my debate is at ... it's roundly defeating you guys on every point you make!!!:)

Yeah, you keep thinking that.
Thankfully your belief that you are somehow "winning" this discussion is about as realistic as you're belief in the Muhammad, Thor etc being all knowing.

eyescreamcone

J C wrote: »

Whatever level my debate is at ... it's roundly defeating you guys on every point you make!!!:)

Still no comeback on the rape bill that the god squad owe the state here.
The cheque is in the post a while now!!!

Your made up god would be so proud of the RCC wouldn't he?

Hotblack Desiato

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Still no comeback on the rape bill that the god squad owe the state here.
The cheque is in the post a while now!!!

Your made up god would be so proud of the RCC wouldn't he?

Maybe Big Ian was right :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

... and the people of faith working at the highest levels within science today, who have scientifically proven that God exists

Noted and quoted for future reference, but you will not be getting the desired response from me.

krudler

J C wrote: »

This is a perfect descriptor of your own posting style - and not mine.:)

How so? You can't answer a direct question without robotic answers over and over again. "Because god did it/said it was" isn't an honest way of posting and you know it.

krudler

J C wrote: »

Whatever level my debate is at ... it's roundly defeating you guys on every point you make!!!:)

You've never once defeated any argument anyone has put to you, it's obvious you're just a windup merchant at this point

PopePalpatine

Someone do everybody a favour and ban J C. There's sewage pipes that spew less shit than him.