Replies

(SD) you would think that with all the ignorant statements made here daily by you and Havoc and your ilk, that you would be embarrased. Instead, you still present yourselves as knowledgeable, and the cretins lap it up.

Well, I see you aren't playing the victim today. You probably offended and hurt the poor guys feelings, not to mention us cretins :')

Dave can't handle Havoc so he ends up resorting to the use of his nasty tongue. It won't be long before he is reduced to cursing.

(I probably couldn't handle Havoc either. He posts so much stuff it would be necessary to spend hours doing research in order to refute him. Dave has chosen to resort to taunts and dirt.

Dave can't handle Havoc so he ends up resorting to the use of his nasty tongue. It won't be long before he is reduced to cursing.

Havoc duilds himself up as a master, so it is easy to destroy him by pointing out a single flaw. It is much like the enemies of the Church recognize.

(I probably couldn't handle Havoc either. He posts so much stuff it would be necessary to spend hours doing research in order to refute him. Dave has chosen to resort to taunts and dirt.

No dirt. Just truth. Did Havoc yesterday, or did he not rant about baptism and how John's baptism could not be efficaious and that Catholics were stupid for believing so? Well, I told him that he was wrong. That Catholics do not teach that John's baptism was efficacious. Why does our exper on Catholics miss such a simple thing?

Why do you trust him to tell you the truth when on simple matters he fails?

Is this being "dirty" on my part? Is my tongue nasty?

I probably couldn't handle Havoc either. He posts so much stuff it would be necessary to spend hours doing research in order to refute him.

LOL. I'm a little tough to keep up with at times, I'll have to admit. I hadn't really thought about it that much. I just expect sometimes that amongst this crowd some of what I present if not much of it would be known. And when I make a statement, I'm generally quite capable of backing it up and showing from whence it comes - perhaps not as fast sometimes as it takes certain among us to flood me with a flurry of posts protesting that I haven't answered him in 5 minutes while I was at work. I'm happy with my record so far. Sometimes I'd like to do more; but, we all work within the constraints we have - well, most of us anyway. I'm still waiting for a single solid piece of evidence that irrefuteably shows Peter was ever in Rome. And 2 years or more later, it still hasn't been produced. I didn't ask for proof of how long he was their or who he ministered to or anything like that - just a single piece of irrefutable evidence that he'd been there. A single bit of solid archeological fact - not conjecture. If Peter were there for 25 years, there would at a minimum have to be some legal record of it - lord knows there is for Paul - though after all this time I'd have to go hunting the specifics again that I referenced way back when.