tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post116609922779922067..comments2024-03-28T03:54:21.932-04:00Comments on Canadian Cynic: "But when I say Biblical innerancy, I don't mean, you know, 'innerant'."CChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1166465946591307762006-12-18T13:19:00.000-05:002006-12-18T13:19:00.000-05:00sounds like scoville is the only one of you that a...sounds like scoville is the only one of you that actuall yhas any working knowledge of the history of the christian movement. CC- I have to say piss off, not cuz your opinion is not amusing ( you are a good one to laugh at), but you are in this case (and in general) un-researched and unknowledgable of the topic of which you incessantly whine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1166341654331882142006-12-17T02:47:00.000-05:002006-12-17T02:47:00.000-05:00What's with those tittles, anyway? Is a tittle bi...What's with those tittles, anyway? Is a tittle bigger or smaller than a jot?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1166201001324681752006-12-15T11:43:00.000-05:002006-12-15T11:43:00.000-05:00Wanna really see them twitch? Try to present evide...Wanna really see them twitch? Try to present evidence to a fundie that their so-called 'religion' is nothing other than a death cult. <BR/><BR/>I have yet to hear back from Jinx on this one:<BR/><BR/>http://shockandblog-exposed.blogspot.com/<BR/><BR/>Perhaps that's the way to get WB and others like him to fuck off...force them to take a good hard look at their 'good book' and realize it's anything but.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1166130048374462502006-12-14T16:00:00.000-05:002006-12-14T16:00:00.000-05:00Chester, you're right, of course. I believed the s...Chester, you're right, of course. I believed the same way when I was a fundie.<BR/><BR/>The point really is that it makes no sense, for starters. And it's oh-so-incredibly-convenient too. And oh-so-coincidentally always just happens to back up the person's own beliefs. Imagine that!<BR/><BR/>I'd like Kathy to tell us if she keeps her mouth shut in church, and dutifully wears a hat. Because those, too, are biblical commandments, and by golly, they're in the NEW Testament -- not the old.<BR/><BR/>We had no problem, in my fundie church, explaining all THAT away. 'Cause we women weren't going to shut up, and by golly, we weren't going to wear hats either. So imagine our joy that the "explanation" of those things just happened to coincide with our own feelings on the matter.<BR/><BR/>Whew!Phylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11847701912261320347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1166123790098313732006-12-14T14:16:00.000-05:002006-12-14T14:16:00.000-05:00http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/13/bakker.brown.comm...http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/13/bakker.brown.commentary/index.html<BR/><BR/>Seems like some Christians aren't too happy either....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1166118368398194252006-12-14T12:46:00.000-05:002006-12-14T12:46:00.000-05:00To be fair to Kathy (and I do hate being fair to K...To be fair to Kathy (and I do hate being fair to Kathy), she's not making that distinction up. It's been operative in Western Christianity for about 1500 years now, ever since Augustine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1166110667204244472006-12-14T10:37:00.000-05:002006-12-14T10:37:00.000-05:00Just to make a further complication of things, one...Just to make a further complication of things, one would have to ask what the Catechism says - since that is the "interpretative guide" that the R/C's rely upon for handling scriptural questions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1166108380742460812006-12-14T09:59:00.000-05:002006-12-14T09:59:00.000-05:00I think Kathy Hatele needs to re-re-lapse, or laps...I think Kathy <I>Hate</I>le needs to re-re-lapse, or lapse back or something. She's never been particularly coherent, but lately, she's just sounding moronic.<BR/><BR/>Biblical "stuff?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1166104640145339412006-12-14T08:57:00.000-05:002006-12-14T08:57:00.000-05:00But CC, ol' boy, dontcha know...?Jesus' birth, lif...But CC, ol' boy, dontcha know...?<BR/><BR/>Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection DID fulfill the whole damn Law & the Prophets.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this should mean that NONE of the Old Testament stuff applies now. And Kathy hasn't yet explained how she decides which stuff is "time-bound" and which stuff is "eternal."<BR/><BR/>(For example -- prohibitions against homosexuality <I>can't be eternal!</I> Because there's no sex or marriage in heaven, right? So that's a "time-bound" one, and I suspect, therefore, that Christ did away with that prohibition when he fulfilled all the law. If Kathy has information to the contrary, she'd better explain where she got it and why she believes it.)<BR/><BR/>So, since she's contradicting Jesus here, I'd say it's still Jesus: 1. Kathy: 0.Phylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11847701912261320347noreply@blogger.com