The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Just checked down with all kings profile and this came up.

No current Freeper by that name.

Hes out of here.

BigMack

[Dustbunny]

Welcome. And BTW, that's "wretch." "Retch" is to vomit. :-)

LOL... yes, I know. That is what happens when you are in a hurry. Thanks for the reminder.

[SoothingDave]

No current Freeper by that name.

I don't see anything all that offensive in what he posted. Doubting the existence of God, or even calling people stupid who do believe, is not exactly out of the ordinary here.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

I'll tell you guys what. Next time some Catholic tries to rewrite history. . .

It's a lot tougher now than it was 1,200 - 1,500 years ago when much history was rewritten, or more accurately, invented. We'd catch you pretty quickly.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

There must have been something alot worse later in that other thread that we didn't catch. IMO, anyway. Oh well, we tried:)

Becky

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I don't see anything all that offensive in what he posted. Doubting the existence of God, or even calling people stupid who do believe, is not exactly out of the ordinary here.

Your right, but out in Freeper land on the stand alone threads, folks get a bit touchy, they don't really know were the other person is coming from like we do.

BigMack

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Hey Steven are you out there? Or did the "ball and chain" read your last post and make you go back to work? :)

BigMack

[malakhi]

I don't see anything all that offensive in what he posted. Doubting the existence of God, or even calling people stupid who do believe, is not exactly out of the ordinary here.

He was a newbie, "member since" today. He's not gonna get the same slack a regular would. Too much history of people coming here trolling and baiting on threads. I don't think this particular fellow was doing that, but I'm not the one in charge.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Has anyone on this thread ever been banned because someone pushed the abuse button? Does it take more then one person reporting abuse to get banned?

Mack came in here and wants me to ask you if you ever got a reply back from JR.

Becky

[OLD REGGIE]

How about the World Almanac for any of the last 40 years ? There is a list of all the popes Peter, Linus, Cletus (or Anacletus), Clement, Etc.

It might be more interesting if this list always was, and is today, the same.

FYI

Corrections Made to Official List of Popes
Revelations of "Pontifical Yearbook 2001"

...

"The most significant historical doubt affects Peter's second successor. After Linus, Cletus (80-92) or Clement could have been Pope, either between 68 and 76; or between 92 and 99. Therefore, one could have been Pope before the other."

Go Here for "Pontifical Yearbook 2001"

[SoothingDave]

What exactly is it about the list of the Popes that makes you think that this historical fact is supposed to be a matter covered infallibly?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

I see your's riding a fast strong horse along a forest trail beside a river; I see yours riding free – with nothing left to prove to Mack, to your family or to yourself. You can lay that heavy load down now, you've done it; there is nothing left to be gained from carrying it around anymore.

I don't quite know where you are going with this. Are you suggesting Becky shouldn't post any more? Or is it that you don't agree with her thoughts and beliefs? No matter what, it is you who makes the choice whether you will read, respond, or just plain go away. Bye bye.

[malakhi]

There must have been something alot worse later in that other thread that we didn't catch.

No, I went back and looked at the thread, and there didn't appear, judging from the other people's posts, to have been anything more inflammatory later. Must've been a touchy reader and an Admin Moderator with a quick trigger.

Has anyone on this thread ever been banned because someone pushed the abuse button?

I got a one day timeout once, for pushing a parody too far. Back when the democRATS were trying to get McCain the Republican presidential nomination, I conceived of the idea of launching a similar effort to get Gore to make Al Sharpton his running mate. It was a joke that kind of took on a life of its own. We had our own website, a campaign motto ("Two Al's are better than one"), another freeper was making up bumper stickers... Then, someone posted something over the top on a thread I had started, and a few of us got our posting privileges temporarily revoked. I guess the powers-that-be thought that some might take what we were doing seriously, or felt we had pushed the joke too far.

Does it take more then one person reporting abuse to get banned?

Depends on the offense. Something really bad could get a person yanked with just one complaint.

For general misbehavior, a one day timeout is typical. I'm really surprised that they not only yanked his account, but nuked all his posts, too. It is possible that they looked at his IP address, and saw that he was a poster who had been banned previously. In that case, the nuke button would be instantaneous.

Mack came in here and wants me to ask you if you ever got a reply back from JR.

No, I haven't. JR typically only replies if he has something to say, so in this case, no news is good news.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Hey Steven are you out there? Or did the "ball and chain" read your last post and make you go back to work? :)

I'm still here. Taking a few calls, that's all. My wife's upstairs. Still on the payroll but upstairs. Oh well.

[al_c]

Now who is being mean:) You know what I mean. Charlie is one of the kindest hearted, sincerest, loving men you will ever meet. I am not saying he is a saint, but he breaks hearts all the time, especially among older women because he is so considerate and not afraid to talk about loving his wife and family in front of people.

Oh I wasn't slamming Charlie ... just your use of the Catholic definition of the word "till." ;o)

[al_c]

Of course, you know this undermines your interpretation of Matthew 1;25...

Actually just the opposite. Becky helped the Catholic arguement with her use of "till." She in no way intended to say that Charlie is now uglier than you know what ... only that up to this day he was/is beautiful. See my point?

;o)

[al_c]

Better not pray to St. Jerome anymore. :-)

Never have. I might have asked him to pray for me, tho. ;o)

[OLD REGGIE]

What exactly is it about the list of the Popes that makes you think that this historical fact is supposed to be a matter covered infallibly?

Where in the world do you get, or invent, the idea I think the "List of Popes" is claimed to be infallible? What historical fact? The fact there is no historical fact? The only "fact" is, there is no verifiable List of Popes. If I were a skeptic I'd say the list is fiction. I might go even further and suggest to Becky that Peter didn't know he was "Pope" because he wasn't during his lifetime. He was elected posthumously and he selected his "successor" posthumously.

[al_c]

Comment #24230 Removed by Moderator

So, will this correct one of our skips? ;o)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Actually just the opposite. Becky helped the Catholic arguement.

Who's arguing? I'm not. The meaning is obvious. Quit forgetting to include verse 24 when ya talk about Matthew 25.