You have deliberately failed - for your own reasons and even though
reminded of the distinction in the post to which you were responding-a -
to distinguish the Church from individuals within it. Indeed, from all people who - and this includes you as well as me - are far from perfect.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:mn8jjkhdu9jbapi76flk7kpbpsb9uslhjv@4ax.com...
Again you do not let your abysmal lack of knowledge of the Catholic
Church prevent you from making statements about it. Every time a
Catholic attend Mass they hear either 3 or 4 passages from different
parts of the Bible and usually a homily addressing at least one of
those passages.
Passages carefully selected by the priest ! So that's 3 or four
carefully selected passages out or what, 2260 pages ?
And what's the betting the same passages keep coming up, again
and again ?
Why do you persist in demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing
about this stuff?
You really should learn to do a bit of Googling and avoid making such
an idiot of yourself.
So that
"Passages carefully selected by the priest ! So that's 3 or four
carefully selected passages out or what, 2260 pages ?"
is wrong is it ?
Only 2260 pages is what is claimed for the New Catholic Bible on the
Web.
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 16:35:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-10, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:28:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 18:35:00 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:00:47 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:I'm not sure it is you who is getting confused, you ore me, but you
Men and women falling in love with each other is highly relevant to >>>>>>> the material world but physics does offer much of an explanation as to >>>>>>> what that love is.
There is your fallacy; not affecting the material world is not the same as
being fully defined by science. Perhaps the greater part of human experience
is most definitely part of the material world despite not being amenable to
scientific study. Not only philosophy but most of psychology, sociology, >>>>>> politics and economics is not really science but important for all that. >>>>>
seem to be supporting my POV rather than Jon's.
Nope. You seem to have failed to understand what I said.
When I was a lecturer and my students failed to grasp a point I was
making, I started from the assumption that the shortcoming was in my
explanation rather than in their comprehension skills so I would try
to present my point in a more understandable way. YMMV
Ok, but I'm not a lecturer and I'm not getting paid to educate you.
Fair enough though I have kept up the same practice in retirement
without payment. I've always had this idea that a point is not worth
making unless people understand it.
Obviously it isn't just the Catholics who cover up abuse. But it mainly >seems to be Christians.
On 10/12/2025 18:09, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 16:35:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-10, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2025 19:28:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-09, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2025 18:35:00 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2025 at 17:00:47 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Men and women falling in love with each other is highly relevant to >>>>>>>> the material world but physics does offer much of an explanation as to >>>>>>>> what that love is.
There is your fallacy; not affecting the material world is not the same as
being fully defined by science. Perhaps the greater part of human experience
is most definitely part of the material world despite not being amenable to
scientific study. Not only philosophy but most of psychology, sociology,
politics and economics is not really science but important for all that.
I'm not sure it is you who is getting confused, you ore me, but you >>>>>> seem to be supporting my POV rather than Jon's.
Nope. You seem to have failed to understand what I said.
When I was a lecturer and my students failed to grasp a point I was
making, I started from the assumption that the shortcoming was in my
explanation rather than in their comprehension skills so I would try
to present my point in a more understandable way. YMMV
Ok, but I'm not a lecturer and I'm not getting paid to educate you.
Fair enough though I have kept up the same practice in retirement
without payment. I've always had this idea that a point is not worth
making unless people understand it.
When you were a lecturer did you find that your students responded well
to "itch, itch, scratch,scratch" or did they think rather less of you,
and of the other points you were making?
Presumably your lecturing skills were self-taught?
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Unless you continue to defend your religion
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust.
That assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out
where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM.
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 19:40:50 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:mn8jjkhdu9jbapi76flk7kpbpsb9uslhjv@4ax.com...
[...]
Again you do not let your abysmal lack of knowledge of the Catholic
Church prevent you from making statements about it. Every time a
Catholic attend Mass they hear either 3 or 4 passages from different >>>>> parts of the Bible and usually a homily addressing at least one of
those passages.
Passages carefully selected by the priest ! So that's 3 or four >>>>carefully selected passages out or what, 2260 pages ?
And what's the betting the same passages keep coming up, again
and again ?
Why do you persist in demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing
about this stuff?
You really should learn to do a bit of Googling and avoid making such
an idiot of yourself.
So that
"Passages carefully selected by the priest ! So that's 3 or four
carefully selected passages out or what, 2260 pages ?"
is wrong is it ?
Only 2260 pages is what is claimed for the New Catholic Bible on the
Web.
[...]
Just to let other people see just how nonsensical the garbage is that
you spout with such confidence about the Catholic Church:
From Catholic Answers: https://www.catholic.com/qa/percentage-of-the-bible-in-the-lectionary
================================================
Question:
How much of the Bible is read after going through the cycles of daily
Mass and Sunday Mass?
Answer:
Sunday Masses use a three-year cycle of readings, whereas daily Masses
use a two-year cycle.
It has been reported by Fr. Felix Just [1], S.J., that the Sunday and
weekday Lectionaries contain:
13.5 percent of the Old Testament (not counting the Psalms)
54.9 percent of the non-Gospel New Testament
89.8 percent of the Gospels
71.5 percent of the entire New Testament
[1] https://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm
==========================================
First result from a simple Google search "catholic church how many
different mass readings" but you don't do even the minimum of research
before spouting your nonsense, you clearly prefer to wallow in your
bigotry.
I think you are right that at one point the Church discouraged Bible reading >among the laity,
or, indeed, any form of literacy.
So that's
86.5 percent of the Old Testament
45.1 percent of the non-Gospel New Testament
10.2 percent of the Gospels
28.5 percent of the entire New Testament
that Catholics never ever get to hear about at all.
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
Unless you continue to defend your religion
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust.
That assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out
where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM.
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example.
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so
easily shown for what they are?
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>wrote:
[...]
Unless you continue to defend your religion
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust.
That assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out
where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM.
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example.
In just this current thread alone:
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> ><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> ><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> ><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> ><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> ><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> ><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> ><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> ><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so
easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure
there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>wrote:
[...]
Unless you continue to defend your religion
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust.
That assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out
where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM.
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example.
In just this current thread alone:
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so
easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure
there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"...
So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual
errors that people make and defending that about which they are making
the factual errors.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>wrote:
[...]
Unless you continue to defend your religion
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust.
That assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM.
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example.
In just this current thread alone:
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >>><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >>><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >>><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >>><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >>><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >>><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >>><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >>><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so
easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"...
So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual
errors that people make and defending that about which they are making
the factual errors.
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:56:20 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>wrote:
[...]
Unless you continue to defend your religion
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust.
That assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>>where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM.
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example.
In just this current thread alone:
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >>>><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >>>><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >>>><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >>>><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >>>><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >>>><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >>>><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >>>><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so
easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>>there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"...
So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual
errors that people make and defending that about which they are making
the factual errors.
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
I was going to say that your accusation might have some credibility if
you could point out anything that I posted that was not a correction
of an error posted by someone else but then I double checked and
realised that one of them was, the third from bottom of your list. It
was in response to Roger criticising religious organisations
(including the Catholic Church):
"it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating
this behaviour so reprehensible."
To which I replied:
"Yes, I agree totally with that and that is why they deserve
particular criticism."
Mind you, it is a rather peculiar example of me defending my religion
at every opportunity.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:33:06 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
[...]
So that's
86.5 percent of the Old Testament
45.1 percent of the non-Gospel New Testament
10.2 percent of the Gospels
28.5 percent of the entire New Testament
that Catholics never ever get to hear about at all.
Err, no - the figures are for what they hear just at Mass. Do try to
keep up.
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 12:44:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 11:54:00 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:56:20 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
[...]
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example.Unless you continue to defend your religionThat assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>>>>>>where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM. >>>>>>>>>
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust. >>>>>>>>>>
In just this current thread alone:
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >>>>>>>><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >>>>>>>><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >>>>>>>><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >>>>>>>><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >>>>>>>><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >>>>>>>><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >>>>>>>><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >>>>>>>><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so >>>>>>>>> easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>>>>>>there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"...
So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual >>>>>>> errors that people make and defending that about which they are making >>>>>>> the factual errors.
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
I was going to say that your accusation might have some credibility if >>>>> you could point out anything that I posted that was not a correction >>>>> of an error posted by someone else but then I double checked and
realised that one of them was, the third from bottom of your list. It >>>>> was in response to Roger criticising religious organisations
(including the Catholic Church):
"it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral >>>>> authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating >>>>> this behaviour so reprehensible."
To which I replied:
"Yes, I agree totally with that and that is why they deserve
particular criticism."
Mind you, it is a rather peculiar example of me defending my religion >>>>> at every opportunity.
Not letting up with your constant lying I see. You also said in that post: >>>>
"what we must do is face up to those wrongs, learn from them and do >>>> our utmost not to make the same mistakes again. I think the Church
has done well in that regard - it is now, for example, classed as
world best in its child protection measures."
Perhaps you could paint out anything in that which is not a simple
statement of fact correcting what someone else has posted.
Why would I want to do that? I've pointed out many occasions in this
one thread alone where you have "defended your religion". Even if it
were true that everything you said was a "factual correction", you
didn't say "factual corrections don't count" and it would have been >>nonsensical if you had.
Invoking Godwin's Law, if someone posted that the Nazis slaughtered 12
Invoking Godwin's Law, if someone posted that the Nazis slaughtered 12 million Jews and I pointed out that it was actually 6 million Jews,
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6s7ljk9cth4p0orvgbdrsrhts5tisaiu43@4ax.com...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:33:06 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
[...]
So that's
86.5 percent of the Old Testament
45.1 percent of the non-Gospel New Testament
10.2 percent of the Gospels
28.5 percent of the entire New Testament
that Catholics never ever get to hear about at all.
Err, no - the figures are for what they hear just at Mass. Do try to
keep up.
These are the figures for Canadians
quote
Sixty-five percent of respondents reported that they have a
physical copy of the Bible at home. When broken down into
the three traditions, 93 percent of Evangelicals, 72 percent
of mainline Protestants, and 52 percent of Roman Catholics
reported having a Bible in book form at home.
[...]
A full 76 percent of Roman Catholics reported that they never
or hardly ever read their copy of the Bible at home. For
mainline Protestants the figure is 70 percent, and for
Evangelicals it is 32 percent.
:unquote
https://www.cardus.ca/research/faith-communities/reports/the-bible-and-us-canadians-and-their-relationship-with-scripture/
So that while 52 percent have a Bible at home, 72 percent of that 52 percent never or hardly ever read it.
So that makes only 9.44 percent of Canadian Catholics who ever read
the Bible at all !
bb
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:6s7ljk9cth4p0orvgbdrsrhts5tisaiu43@4ax.com...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:33:06 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
[...]
So that's
86.5 percent of the Old Testament
45.1 percent of the non-Gospel New Testament
10.2 percent of the Gospels
28.5 percent of the entire New Testament
that Catholics never ever get to hear about at all.
Err, no - the figures are for what they hear just at Mass. Do try to
keep up.
These are the figures for Canadians
quote
Sixty-five percent of respondents reported that they have a
physical copy of the Bible at home. When broken down into
the three traditions, 93 percent of Evangelicals, 72 percent
of mainline Protestants, and 52 percent of Roman Catholics
reported having a Bible in book form at home.
[...]
A full 76 percent of Roman Catholics reported that they never
or hardly ever read their copy of the Bible at home. For
mainline Protestants the figure is 70 percent, and for
Evangelicals it is 32 percent.
:unquote
https://www.cardus.ca/research/faith-communities/reports/the-bible-and-us-canadians-and-their-relationship-with-scripture/
So that while 52 percent have a Bible at home, 72 percent of that 52 percent >never or hardly ever read it.
So that makes only 9.44 percent of Canadian Catholics who ever read
the Bible at all !
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 12:44:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 11:54:00 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:56:20 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual >>>>>>>> errors that people make and defending that about which they are making >>>>>>>> the factual errors.
In just this current thread alone:On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
[...]
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example. >>>>>>>>>Unless you continue to defend your religionThat assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>>>>>>>where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM. >>>>>>>>>>
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust. >>>>>>>>>>>
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so >>>>>>>>>> easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>>>>>>>there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"... >>>>>>>>
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
I was going to say that your accusation might have some credibility if >>>>>> you could point out anything that I posted that was not a correction >>>>>> of an error posted by someone else but then I double checked and
realised that one of them was, the third from bottom of your list. It >>>>>> was in response to Roger criticising religious organisations
(including the Catholic Church):
"it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral >>>>>> authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating >>>>>> this behaviour so reprehensible."
To which I replied:
"Yes, I agree totally with that and that is why they deserve
particular criticism."
Mind you, it is a rather peculiar example of me defending my religion >>>>>> at every opportunity.
Not letting up with your constant lying I see. You also said in that post: >>>>>
"what we must do is face up to those wrongs, learn from them and do >>>>> our utmost not to make the same mistakes again. I think the Church >>>>> has done well in that regard - it is now, for example, classed as >>>>> world best in its child protection measures."
Perhaps you could paint out anything in that which is not a simple
statement of fact correcting what someone else has posted.
Why would I want to do that? I've pointed out many occasions in this
one thread alone where you have "defended your religion". Even if it
were true that everything you said was a "factual correction", you
didn't say "factual corrections don't count" and it would have been >>>nonsensical if you had.
Invoking Godwin's Law, if someone posted that the Nazis slaughtered 12
You lost.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:c2iljkp9seu9vo78nrj3fd4v9m67co7vgd@4ax.com...
Invoking Godwin's Law, if someone posted that the Nazis slaughtered 12
million Jews and I pointed out that it was actually 6 million Jews,
Indeed. As any more than 6 million and the Pope would definitely
have noticed !
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 13:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 12:44:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 11:54:00 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:56:20 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 10:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-12-11, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:30:21 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:So you don't understand the difference between pointing out factual >>>>>>>>> errors that people make and defending that about which they are making
In just this current thread alone:On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:45:40 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
[...]
"At every opportunity" yet you cannot give even one example. >>>>>>>>>>Unless you continue to defend your religionThat assertion might gain some credibility if you could point out >>>>>>>>>>>>where I have ever defended my religion either here or in UKLM. >>>>>>>>>>>
at every opportunity maybe your faith will crumble to dust. >>>>>>>>>>>>
<p7ldjk535t04vr763q61glfrve8a4sgbi1@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>><sbtgjklg5l90tt0fv7rmkdoa53qunb52a3@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>><5gkijktq8605imhbu7srk369fl26h1df72@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>><ek5ljk53nkfnae19ou8tit82oh2jcaubpl@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>><30kijkd224q1okgnbid1gfrbbrf3ia5j7o@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>><mh4jjkp7cc2tjiknd57rus2d5qn0iqcr73@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>><438jjk59tpd0id48u20e7tnge8psdi2lp8@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>><id7ejkpmv05mialjacnv91kfpp5maasrr7@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>>><499gjk51uen25ada9tu8itfafggi4c1vsh@4ax.com>
Do your never get tired of posting false accusations that are so >>>>>>>>>>> easily shown for what they are?
Do you never get tired of posting obvious lies?
I'm very far from an expert on Christianity but I feel pretty sure >>>>>>>>>>there's something in there about "not bearing false witness"... >>>>>>>>>
the factual errors.
The lack of understanding is on your part.
That disappoints me, I thought you were better than that.
You need to keep notes - you've tried that lie before.
I was going to say that your accusation might have some credibility if >>>>>>> you could point out anything that I posted that was not a correction >>>>>>> of an error posted by someone else but then I double checked and >>>>>>> realised that one of them was, the third from bottom of your list. It >>>>>>> was in response to Roger criticising religious organisations
(including the Catholic Church):
"it is religious organisations' claimed moral superiority, and moral >>>>>>> authority over their members, which makes their history of tolerating >>>>>>> this behaviour so reprehensible."
To which I replied:
"Yes, I agree totally with that and that is why they deserve
particular criticism."
Mind you, it is a rather peculiar example of me defending my religion >>>>>>> at every opportunity.
Not letting up with your constant lying I see. You also said in that post:
"what we must do is face up to those wrongs, learn from them and do >>>>>> our utmost not to make the same mistakes again. I think the Church >>>>>> has done well in that regard - it is now, for example, classed as >>>>>> world best in its child protection measures."
Perhaps you could paint out anything in that which is not a simple
statement of fact correcting what someone else has posted.
Why would I want to do that? I've pointed out many occasions in this >>>>one thread alone where you have "defended your religion". Even if it >>>>were true that everything you said was a "factual correction", you >>>>didn't say "factual corrections don't count" and it would have been >>>>nonsensical if you had.
Invoking Godwin's Law, if someone posted that the Nazis slaughtered 12
You lost.
So Godwin's Law is something else that you don't quite grasp. Or maybe
you see it as a convenient excuse for getting out of your badly formed
claim.
On 10/12/2025 12:05, JNugent wrote:
You have deliberately failed - for your own reasons and even though
reminded of the distinction in the post to which you were responding
- to distinguish the Church from individuals within it. Indeed, from
all people who - and this includes you as well as me - are far from
perfect.
You might also say that one should distinguish the Nazi Pary from
naughty individuals within it. Of course. Focus on the good, not the
bad. Maybe it makes you feel better about your own sins - you say you
aren't perfect and maybe your conscience is troubling you, but you
should speak for yourself.
Obviously it isn't just the Catholics who cover up abuse. But it mainly seems to be Christians. The fact that sometimes police officers cover up abuse by their own colleagues does not lessen the scandal of churches covering up abuse by priests.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/14/friendship-with-prince- charles-made-paedophile-bishop-peter-ball-impregnable
The disgraced paedophile bishop Peter Ball made himself apparently rCLimpregnablerCY by cultivating friendships with Prince Charles and other senior establishment figures who later rushed to support him when he was accused of sexual abuse, according to a BBC documentary.
Ball, the former bishop of both Lewes and Gloucester who died last year, boasted of his role as rCLcounsellor to royaltyrCY, Cliff James, one of his victims, says in the programme. He cultivated friendships with Margaret Thatcher, peers of the realm, senior judges and headmasters of leading public schools.
The former bishop was investigated by police in the early 1990s, which resulted in a police caution. In 2015, he was convicted of sexual
offences against 17 teenagers and young men and jailed for 32 months. He
was released in February 2017 after serving half his sentence.
unquote
https://hls.harvard.edu/today/panel-on-spotlight-film-explores-priest- sex-abuse-scandal-institutional-cover-up-and-advocacy-for-victims/Then clearly, "everybody" did not know about it.
The film rCLSpotlightrCY focuses on the dogged pursuit by Boston Globe reporters to expose the Catholic ChurchrCOs cover-up of the sexual abuse
of children by Boston priests. But there is much more to the story, as evidenced by a wide-ranging panel discussion of the movie last week at Harvard Law School that touched on legal issues, secrets and shame, and
even a potential lawsuit against the filmmakers.
rCLIt was the worst-kept secret in Boston that these priests were
molesting children. Everybody seemed to know but no one seemed to do anything about it.rCY
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mpua55Fuea4U2@mid.individual.net...
On 10/12/2025 07:14 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mptls4Fr9idU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/12/2025 02:28 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mpt68bFonsiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/12/2025 09:56 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mprsm6Fi7qiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 09/12/2025 11:02 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/12/2025 09:57 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
On 09/12/2025 07:59 pm, billy bookcase wrote
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
The main point is that you should treat other people the way you would
want to be treated in their situation.
I don't recognise that from Catholic teaching.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
What about the words you gratuitously added?
There: "in their situation"?
Taken literally, it would mean the negation of all criminal law, since the
criminal
would rather you treated him differently than as a criminal and no-one
committing
or
contemplating the commission of a crime wants to be arrested, tried and
punished.
It of course, implies no such thing
So that for instance, should a person say be tempted to be a thief >>>>>>>
"Only steal from others, if you yourself are prepared to have others steal from
you in turn"
It is simply an exhortation to "think of the effect on the other person"
before performing any action. So that if indeed you found yourself in their
situation, in this instance the victim of the theft you are about to perform,
then how would you feel ?
This is just so elementary.
And no this isn't some sort of re-iteration of the Old Testament >>>>>>> exhortation of "An eye for an eye". It's just a further expression of the
so-called "Golden Rule"; which ideally should govern all behaviour. >>>>>>> "How would you feel if somebody else did this to you ?"
As I said, this is just so elementary.
You are just making your position worse.
So that according to you what does
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Actually mean ?
Check that with someone qualified to undertake religious instruction.
So that you're totally incapable of supporting your own argument.
Given which it would clearly be a complete waste of anyones time
to read any more of your nonsense
That was a pretty good wriggle.
Not really.
Suggesting that somebody should check something out with "someone
qualified to undertake religious instruction", is simply an admission
on your part, that you simply haven't had a clue as to what you
were talking about, all along;
and have finally realised you'd got
so far out of your depth, that simple lies and evasions will no
longer suffice. .
Not that that's anything new for you, of course.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 12:13:26 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
5 files (10,064K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,378 |