(August 20, 2015 at 9:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 8:08 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote: She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose semen was like that of horses.

Where would something like this have been written?

Ezekiel 23:20.

What, that's all you have to say on material of this nature? Your sacred book is full of such porn because it's written by none other than ordinary mortal humans.

---

(August 20, 2015 at 9:17 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 8:27 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote: Oh, now, for having called you out for the hypocrite which you are, that makes me "pathetic"? Well, I happen to be quite familiar with that word, and it's always used by Christians against those who they can't change, for utter and most "pathetic" failure in giving any good reasons for the same.

By the way, I'm also a former Catholic, and most of my family still is. Their still Catholic, but they think very low of bigoted assholes such as you.


Acts Chapter 5 Peter is angry when he knows that Ananias and his wife Sapphira did not give him all of the money they made from the sale of their property. So they both suddenly drop dead.

Are you really cynically ignorant enough to believe it was a supernatural god (and one so loving and forgiving as that would only be uncharacteristic of Jesus) who killed this couple, and not Peter in a fit of rage when he knew they tried to decieve him? Peter was no fucking saint, no sir. He was Tony Soprano, and he saw that you would do as he said or else!

Your faith is built on a very flimsy house of cards.

You pathetic former Protestant. It is a shame that you have READ the scriptures but not understood them because you have relied on your own private judgment and not upon the infallible Church that God established upon Peter the rock (cf. Mt. 16:18, Is. 20:22)

Quote:When was the first of the four Gospels written?

How conservative do you want me to be? Most scholars would say around AD 70 for the Gospel of Mark, but I have provided a convincing argument that pushes Mark to about AD 50 and the proto-creed of the Church found in 1 Cor. 15 to about AD 35 or about five years after the resurrection of Jesus.

All of that is documented in this post.

If you're confused about anything, feel free to ask questions...that's why I'm here.

(August 20, 2015 at 9:20 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 9:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Ezekiel 23:20.

What, that's all you have to say on material of this nature? Your sacred book is full of such porn because it's written by none other than ordinary mortal humans.

You asked "where", and I answered.

If you need any additional help understanding anything in the scriptures, I'll be happy to help as best I can.

(August 20, 2015 at 9:17 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 8:27 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote:  
Acts Chapter 5 Peter is angry when he knows that Ananias and his wife Sapphira did not give him all of the money they made from the sale of their property. So they both suddenly drop dead.

Are you really cynically ignorant enough to believe it was a supernatural god (and one so loving and forgiving as that would only be uncharacteristic of Jesus) who killed this couple, and not Peter in a fit of rage when he knew they tried to decieve him? Peter was no fucking saint, no sir. He was Tony Soprano, and he saw that you would do as he said or else!

Your faith is built on a very flimsy house of cards.

You pathetic former Protestant. It is a shame that you have READ the scriptures but not understood them because you have relied on your own private judgment and not upon the infallible Church that God established upon Peter the rock (cf. Mt. 16:18, Is. 20:22)

Quote:When was the first of the four Gospels written?

How conservative do you want me to be? Most scholars would say around AD 70 for the Gospel of Mark, but I have provided a convincing argument that pushes Mark to about AD 50 and the proto-creed of the Church found in 1 Cor. 15 to about AD 35 or about five years after the resurrection of Jesus.

All of that is documented in this post.

If you're confused about anything, feel free to ask questions...that's why I'm here.

Argument is the art of bullshit. Come back when you have empirical evidence.

(August 20, 2015 at 9:29 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 9:17 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: You pathetic former Protestant. It is a shame that you have READ the scriptures but not understood them because you have relied on your own private judgment and not upon the infallible Church that God established upon Peter the rock (cf. Mt. 16:18, Is. 20:22)


How conservative do you want me to be? Most scholars would say around AD 70 for the Gospel of Mark, but I have provided a convincing argument that pushes Mark to about AD 50 and the proto-creed of the Church found in 1 Cor. 15 to about AD 35 or about five years after the resurrection of Jesus.

All of that is documented in this post.

If you're confused about anything, feel free to ask questions...that's why I'm here.

Argument is the art of bullshit. Come back when you have empirical evidence.

Evidence for what?

(August 20, 2015 at 9:29 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote: [...]Argument is the art of bullshit. Come back when you have empirical evidence.

Yeah... No - that's not going to happen. Randy does not have evidence. His main line of "reasoning" is getting angry at people for not sucking on catholic d*ck, like he does... If he has no pre-made propaganda to copy-paste in response to a particular argument - he just ignores it and goes on as if it never happened.

(August 20, 2015 at 9:32 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 9:29 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote: [...]Argument is the art of bullshit. Come back when you have empirical evidence.

Yeah... No - that's not going to happen. Randy does not have evidence. His main line of "reasoning" is getting angry at people for not sucking on catholic d*ck, like he does...

(August 20, 2015 at 9:36 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 9:32 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote: Yeah... No - that's not going to happen. Randy does not have evidence. His main line of "reasoning" is getting angry at people for not sucking on catholic d*ck, like he does...

That's what you wish. If you were happy, you wouldn't be wasting your time here. You'll never win anybody to your side because you don't know how to, and if you did you probably wouldn't be Catholic.

Did I mention that I'm not just a former Protestant, but also a former Catholic? Most of my family still is Catholic, but they would not have any respect for your chest-pounding bullshit either.

(August 20, 2015 at 9:44 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote: Did I mention that I'm not just a former Protestant, but also a former Catholic? Most of my family still is Catholic, but they would not have any respect for your chest-pounding bullshit either.

Well - that's probably because they're not "true catholics". When one's a prick as self-important, pompous and oblivious as Randy - no one can stand up to the scrutiny and everyone is wrong, unless they agree with him. That's the kind of thing many catholics are taught since childhood - in between the molestation, I suppose...

(August 20, 2015 at 9:44 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 9:36 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

That's what you wish. If you were happy, you wouldn't be wasting your time here. You'll never win anybody to your side because you don't know how to, and if you did you probably wouldn't be Catholic.

Did I mention that I'm not just a former Protestant, but also a former Catholic? Most of my family still is Catholic, but they would not have any respect for your chest-pounding bullshit either.

I'm not here to provide bullshit, NoFaith. Just Catholic Answers as best I can. And I think they would respect my solid responses which are faithful to the Magisterium of the Church (assuming they are of that mindset).

If you have a question about your former faith that bugs you, feel free to ask it here.

Ask a Catholic
http://atheistforums.org/thread-33377-po...#pid942504

(August 20, 2015 at 9:59 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 20, 2015 at 9:44 pm)NoFaith2Burn4 Wrote: That's what you wish. If you were happy, you wouldn't be wasting your time here. You'll never win anybody to your side because you don't know how to, and if you did you probably wouldn't be Catholic.

Did I mention that I'm not just a former Protestant, but also a former Catholic? Most of my family still is Catholic, but they would not have any respect for your chest-pounding bullshit either.

I'm not here to provide bullshit, NoFaith. Just Catholic Answers as best I can. And I think they would respect my solid responses which are faithful to the Magisterium of the Church (assuming they are of that mindset).

If you have a question about your former faith that bugs you, feel free to ask it here.

Ask a Catholic
http://atheistforums.org/thread-33377-po...#pid942504

You can only have a cognitive disorder for expecting anybody here to care about your shit whatever you think it's worth. No atheist will ever be impressed with your arguments on authority. You need to go start your own forum where there's Catholics who would be interested.