Sandra17012 #fundie

Sandra17012 #fundie rr-bb.com

I believe the American Revolution was completely justified. England was forcing people to be Catholic, that is a violation of God's Law.

176 comments

Pip, is there anything you can get right? Long and bloody civil wars were fought exactly around this very thing.

At the time the first Pilgrims took flight it wasn't perfectly obvious whether England would remain protestant or be retaken by Catholics/ which way a future Monarch might fall.

Or do you not realize the tensions that still existed?

Right now some Protestants are fleeing areas of Islamic control in England. Pinch yourself - it's happening.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320002/How-rise-white-flight-areas-dominated-ethnic-minorities-creating-segregated-UK.html

Of course no f____ing liberals or Gaytopians have to live in those areas. Liberal and Gaytopians are busy telling conservatives they should give everyone a Mercedes Benz to not disenfranchise people who've lived in the country all of fifteen minutes.

Tomall.

No, the point about a critical appraisal of someone's work isn't whether they were elastically stretching the limits of causation. If he is trying to justify the blood spilled during the revolution to the English thrones manipulation by Rome then he can make that call, and expand on his point subsequently.

If he romantically wishes just to maintain the connection between the united states of America and Protestantism then he can make that call. Either way one sentence probably butchered from all context isn't a good reason to accuse him of incorrect causality. Because the connections can be easily made.

KUNO - that's more like insightful.

Kuno, as a German whose forebears fought bloody wars with Rome one would suspect just a little bit of insight into the Gun Powder plot or the work of the Counter Reformationists in multinational institutions.
But if the liberal media aren't talking about it I suspect you are forbidden. Ever seen the masonic map overlaying Washington DC that non state. You have, but dismiss it all as totally innocent anachronism. Surprise me from the home of Luther.
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/wtau.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chapter3/&h=256&w=343&sz=40&tbnid=wD4f0NYC2mzSgM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=123&zoom=1&usg=___rWSWR4DBRCUM8xd0buxLj81Au4=&docid=DYS9Bc9bhJX6TM&sa=X&ei=qHWwUZuSL4rLkwXJxIDYDg&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQ9QEwAg&dur=8261 To you this must be some inane prank about childish symbolism

old comment by Azaqi

Um, P-G?

The Pilgrims did not leave England to come to the colonies to escape religious persecution. They left the Netherlands to come to the colonies to achieve religious isolationism where they could force everyone in their community to adhere to their beliefs. In other words, they did not come to America to escape religious persecution, but rather to commit it.

And if you don't know the contributing factors to the American revolution, well that's just sloppy research and perhaps you should stop claiming to be some kind of authority on it. There was ZERO religious persecution in the colonies originating from England. It was all coming from the colonies themselves.

And just as an observation, do you have the slightest clue how far you are into Tin Foil Hat country? Your laundry list of conspiracy theory buzz words is almost too complete to be legitimate...

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

By the time of the American Revolution Catholics in England had been unable to vote, exercise public office, send their children for education abroad or be a Jesuit or a seminarian for nearly a century. Indeed, Maryland was originally founded by a Catholic, partly as a refuge from persecution in England.

The "Long and bloody civil wars" between Protestant and Catholic were indeed fought, just not in England.

The original Pilgrims were not religious refugees and, besides, at that time, not only was England firmly Protestant but the question was whether the Anglican church would remain close to Lutheranism or veer toward Presbyterianism or Calvinism.

White flight areas have been documented in England since the 1960s and they are called "white flight" for reasons which have nothing to do with Islam. Saying there are no liberals or gays in such areas shows how very little our troll actually knows about Britain.

The trouble with the Jesuit conspiracy stuff, P-G, is that there were no Jesuit missions anywhere near the Thirteen Colonies until long after the Revolution.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

Let's watch the goalposts move:

P-G comment 1: At the time the first Pilgrims took flight it wasn't perfectly obvious whether England would remain protestant or be retaken by Catholics/ which way a future Monarch might fall.

P-G comment 2: Blind Freddie can see that the poster is talking conceptually about imperiousness and English history

P-G comment 3: Who really won the Revolution? Rome Jesuits Freemason or Libertarians?

P-G comment 4: Either way one sentence probably butchered from all context isn't a good reason to accuse him of incorrect causality.

P-G comment 5: But if the liberal media aren't talking about it I suspect you are forbidden.

This is what is known as arguing in bad faith. Intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.

old comment by Jim T

A huge difference. Pretty much an entirely different statement.

You don't seem to be defending the original post: you're writing a non-sequitur. The OP implies that England, as a state, as official policy, was actively forcing people to be catholic. It doesn't imply that the future official religion of England was a concern.

As with most things, there is a twisted grain of truth somewhere in this story. The Quebec Act was seen by some as being too 'kind' to Catholicism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act_of_1774

But seriously, Quebec was largely Catholic when Britain took control. To appease them, they allowed Catholics to be government officials and this has been twisted here into: "England was forcing people to be Catholic". It's also interesting to note that the Quebec Act was done in part so that the Canadians wouldn't feel compelled to support the growing unrest further south. So it definitely implies that this was NOT the original justification for this unrest.

And I love the beautiful irony that being a certain brand of christian is against god's law. As if the catholics can't make any similar claim themselves over other religions. Are religious folk able to take other people's points of view at all?

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

goes to his computer to pick up a newspaper?

It's what a large proportion of the world do these days. And it still showed that you are a liar.

As for your being a rape apologist, to use a quote of which you are so fond, "facts are for juries to decide." I think that thread showed very neatly which way the jury decided on that question. And the irony of your using, among others, Saudi justice to bolster your argument in defense of the lack of a universal definition of rape, neatly demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty.

It isn't as if the Jesuits have not been rather accommodating with their archives pertaining to the Americas. I knew that some people were utterly ignorant of what it is that historians actually do; now I count you among their number.

old comment by Xotan

England, a protestant country that was imposing penal laws on Irish Catholics was forcing Americans to become Catholics. Wicked, wicked England! Naturally they were forcing Catholicism so as to be able to persecute Americans... This is why the Pope ordered the singing of a Te Deum in Rome to celebrate the victory of protestant King William over Catholic King James in Ireland in 1689. /terminal sarcasm

Catholicism in violation of God's law? Where did Sandra get that one. Catholicism was around for a long time before Martin Luther and the Reformation. No Catholicism = no Protestantism. Catholics and Orthodox form the great majority of Christians today. Protestants are a rump. But protestantism did, eventually, free up thinking and consicence. A lot to be thankful for. But that element of protestantism has been rejected by fundyism.

As to the American Revolution being justified, history has already answered that.

To finish, Sandra's ignorance is against Divine and human law.

Hasan, I don't say they are bad men, but I have sat talking with Mason friends and they admit that there are "orders" of masons they don't want anything to do with/ wouldn't visit. If you were a 33rd degree Mason would you be here telling us what you did with whom?

But the bigger question is how does Jacobs Ladder and Jahbulon get into people's psyche? What sort of carrot and stick dance before the donkey is being done? I don't know what happened. But the ownership of certain initiatives becomes totally opaque.
eg.
http://thenewamerican.com/economy/economics/item/15473-world-bank-insider-blows-whistle-on-corruption-federal-reserve People doing disinformation aren't just good at it, they are very good at it.

I don't presume to know much at all about lots of history. But bits of it, like David Kelly's death there will always be a smoking gun, that gets whisked away and never really reported on.

madman Johnson - is a Narwhal a Unicorn.

It just means one horn doesn't it? And as far as I know there isn't a biologist alive who can explain what that "horn" is for. Ps. I have a shofar from Israel. It makes a cool sound.

Don’t hold your breath. We are still waiting for the first time PG-13 here will give a straight answer to a question

Kuno, it's honestly surprised me how many times this gets thrown around as a rhetorical device. It's cheap, so very cheap.

It says something "along the lines" of what people expected Jesus to do.

Jesus Christ Himself saying, you played the fiddle/ the pipe/ and expected me to dance. Kuno wants to win an argument? I'm happy to lose them all.

Tell me Kuno what's this pressing question you haven't had answered? Remind me what I didn't reply to? Anything about David Kelly's blood loss perhaps? The entry of exit wounds in President Kennedy's body? Which Navy Seals photographed Osama Bin Laden - and where are they now? How steel melts in a skyscraper? Why WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint at nearly freefall? You have so many academic questions KUNO of Germany? Where do you want to start? Oh, I know, we don't do fundie conspiracy here, I was only joking; I'm not going to dance for a fool at all. Conspiracy is on the other pages. The demarcation is clear. You're safe with theology and mistakes people make wrt same, right here on these pages.

Phillip-George that other one knows that. A fool or a tool,, what's really the difference? Every war had it's fodder.

There KUNO, you've just won another round. Like Anon-e-moose I suppose. Oh what a winner is he. Just look at him. You and him on the same podium - winners in your mind.

Kitty, Also, some women enjoy anal sex. Just sayin'. How do you know that Kitty? Perhaps they are fibbing? Or do you have particular insight you'd like to approach that OP with?

old comment by NotaReptile

What I think is the saddest is that PG probably tells his friends and family how he bests the godless heathens in the arena of wits. Its no use arguing with PG because he's demonstrated repeatedly that he is not here to debate or learn, just to shout his opinion because his worldview is that he gets Jebuspoints for trying to "save souls".

PG, you're selfish, you aren't doing this for anyone's benefit but your own. The only thing you can expect if there is a god is to be told in front of the heavenly host that you are an ass.

Copyright is a legal matter and its specifically against the law to use copyright symbols when you don't own the copyright nor have you submitted a request for copyright, in which case you could say copyright pending. You can't claim copyright you don't have, and you can't copyright a name.

So Brotherly Love, Relief, Truth, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity are evil?

Madman, I'm totally clueless what you mean. Of course they exist. Nobility of mind and spirit are to be aspired to, sought after, protected.

What's that got to do with David Kelly's blood loss?

Kuno, I don't know if you've called it an hypothesis or thesis. Did you? If it's a working thesis you should be able to produce some refutable/ negatable empirical basis of experimentation

If it's an hypothesis it still really only exists in the realm of conjecture. So If I have verballed you somewhere as referring to abiogenesis as a theory then I made a mistake and you've done rightly in disambiguating your claims here. Abiogenesis is no theory. It is, in my humble opinion, one of the most ridiculous bits or faith based speculation in existence. [so there's your "what the hell" - how great a loss was that?]

Now I have work to do. So this will have to wait.

old comment by Kuno

PG-13, don’t bother. I didn’t ask for another discussion about abiogenesis, I already know that you are not interested in honest debate. I asked specifically where I called abiogenesis a theory instead of a hypothesis.

And now, time for context:

[Quoted from PG-13] It remains entirely hypothetical. Which is why I keep telling people to simply reverse engineer it. Just perform the control variable reproducible experiment that turns your hypothesis into a working theory. your non living things into living things.

[My answer]Yes, it is only a hypothesis at the moment. And guess what? Right now scientist all over the world are working on “reverse-engineering” the process (or at least a possible process) and they have already made some interesting progresses. So where is your problem?[/answer]

So even after I agreed with you that it isn’t a theory, you wrote in a later post I would be confident abiogenesis is sound scientific theory. You deliberately either ignored what I really wrote or you lied.

Again, don’t bother trying to argue the point. I will not debate with you. You are liar and a hypocrite and you stopped being interesting and fun a while ago, except maybe as the target of well-deserved mocking.

(For added irony, you didn’t even seem to notice that I agreed with you)

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"England was forcing people to be Catholic"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims_%28Plymouth_Colony%29

(emphasis added):

'The core of the group that would come to be known as the Pilgrims were brought together by a common belief in the ideas promoted by Richard Clyfton, a Brownist parson at All Saints' Parish Church in Babworth, near East Retford, Nottinghamshire, between 1586 and 1605. This congregation held Separatist beliefs comparable to nonconforming movements (i.e., groups not in communion with the Church of England) led by Robert Browne, John Greenwood and Henry Barrowe. Unlike the Puritan group who maintained their membership in and allegiance to the Church of England, Separatists held that their differences with the Church of England were irreconcilable and that their worship should be organized independently of the trappings, traditions and organization of a central church'

British history clearly not on the 'hoemskuling' curriculum of those on Ruptured Retards. You have been comprehensively schooled, Sandra (IQ)1.7012

Class dismissed.

Maybe that's why they (as per a certain person who shall remain clueless) are hating on a certain C-of-E clergyman-to-be, turned-naturalist:

image

...because not only is he buried & memorialised in their Westminster Abbey (from his discoveries to his death, Darwin was an Agnostic), the Church of England embraced with open arms the paradigm-shift (now proven to be facts) that his book "On the Origin of Species" represented.

PROTIP: Church of England = Protestant.

No, Sandra (IQ)1.7012, you - with your opposition to contraception & abortion, which are purely Papist doctrine - are the Catholics.

And then Ruptured Retards - along with all right-wing Fundamentalist Christians like them - were paradoxically destroyed.

old comment by Pule Thamex

It's like, ...whoosh!, get me out of this place... I can't figure reality at all, let alone be able to figure reality as it once was.

I seriously, desperately need to be jetted away from this mortal coil where I neither feel at home nor feel at one with humanity. I need to be somewhere special where special people go.

My concerns with the present only go as far as interfering with the lives of others. Also, history is a terrible thing if it steadfastly refuses to be bent to ones seething inanities and futile blubbering.

Ignorance is my last refuge, I believe that's gotta be worth a Marantha at least, and, as a last resort, maybe even a Gog/Magog or two.

old comment by Askie

And your analogy to the shitty bioware game is?
Maybe next time you shall resort to de-zergified Kerrigan to show us all, that christ indeed was the lord?

Now kiddo, blow you mind, cause I`ve got some stuff coming your way... Yep, I do definately fit in the LGBT minority(you guess where), now I do acknowledge your christ. Awsome guy, awsome ideal in fact, one to follow no matter what. Of course the guy had his own little shitty things, living in the society he did, but still, do you not think, that everything he told us, is precisely "see my example and aspire to it"? Not to pray for it, not pray to me even, but this "do aspire to me" is a common trend in your bible(the new testament ofc.). As much as you would like to cover them ,these are not words of a god, but very much of an exemplar to mankind. To see, to know, to emulate the potential we all have, to be a compassionate, productive members of society. An idea, a great concept, lost in the sea of cultural nori :P

To disclaim, I do love my nori, specially in ramen soup! :)

Right now scientist all over the world are working on “reverse-engineering” the process (or at least a possible process) and they have already made some interesting progresses. So where is your problem?[/answer]

So even after I agreed with you that it isn’t a theory, you wrote in a later post I would be confident abiogenesis is sound scientific theory. You deliberately either ignored what I really wrote or you lied.

Again, don’t bother trying to argue the point. I will not debate with you.

Well I am going to bother posting a reply Kuno, because you'll otherwise insist I didn't answer you again. In one paragraph I personally think you contradict yourself and demonstrate my point. You say you haven't claimed it to be a theory but are saying simultaneously that there are people working on it as if it is and you support the notion they will succeed.

and Hasan. Governments have no secrets or you in respectable academic circles would know about it - right - there is complete academic rigor explained.

To summarize: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Ebon's claim that the counter reformation finished is absurd in the extreme; what we "stick up our hands and come out"/ "Its a truce". Satanist explains history to Hasan's satisfaction ???

old comment by Fräulein

NotaReptile: "What I think is the saddest is that PG probably tells his friends and family how he bests the godless heathens in the arena of wits. Its no use arguing with PG because he's demonstrated repeatedly that he is not here to debate or learn, just to shout his opinion because his worldview is that he gets Jebuspoints for trying to "save souls". "

Kafka: On Parables
Many complain that the words of the wise are always merely parables and of no use in daily life, which is the only life we have. When the sage says: “Go over,” he does not mean that we should cross over to some actual place, which we could do anyhow if the labor were worth it; he means some fabulous yonder, something unknown to us, something too that he cannot designate more precisely, and therefore cannot help us here in the very least. All these parables really set out to say merely that the incomprehensible is incomprehensible, and we know that already. But the cares we have to struggle with every day: that is a different matter.

Concerning this a man once said: Why such reluctance? If you only followed the parables you yourselves would become parables and with that rid yourself of all your daily cares.

Another said: I bet that is also a parable.

The first said: You have won.

The second said: But unfortunately only in parable.

The first said: No, in reality: in parable you have lost.

old comment by Kuno

Well I am going to bother posting a reply Kuno, because you'll otherwise insist I didn't answer you again. In one paragraph I personally think you contradict yourself and demonstrate my point.

Shows just how poor your reading comprehension is. Again.

You say you haven't claimed it to be a theory but are saying simultaneously that there are people working on it as if it is and you support the notion they will succeed.

Did that really make sense in your head when you wrote it? Of course they are working on it, how else are they supposed to try to falsify it? Or are you again using “loose” definitions of the words hypothesis and theory, that only you know?

Kuno, an hypothesis is a lot of whatever Kuno wants to say it is.....all conversations revolve around endless definition disputes proving Wittgenstein right again.

A thesis would be a long list of chemical pathways you believe lead to life. That list could then be taken to a laboratory and tried.

The thesis can be tested. Put those chemicals together and watch life emerge from your soup or watch it remain dead. [You can't succeed full stop; but even if you did it would still be a mere theory of origins because no one can run a test on history]

There is no working thesis. Just a whole heap of speculations. Nothing/ Nothing/ Nothing approaches a demonstration. Watching some bits of RNA produce peptides in a highly controlled environment is nothing like the demonstration required. You've just taken the living components of an existing living system and watched them maintaining some functionality outside of a cell.

For you to say "it is being worked on" is like saying I see hand wavers hand waving and it gives me hope.

But from start to finish it is hand waving. Craig Venter creates life. Lenski demonstrates evolution. Miller Urey make the primordial soup. Its all perfect vacuity comparing these to any possible list of chemical reactions that could actually lead to a laboratory demonstration of inorganic material becoming living things.

Time and time again people here hand wave with "must have" "obviously" "early life would have"
"conditions were different" "thermal vents" "clay deposits" - what's in vogue now? The polar ice caps of Mars?

A non refutable hypothesis is just f____ing religion aka scientism with a reinvention of priesthood and high priesthood and human sacrifice dressed up as choice.

O.K. forget abiogenesis. Next. There is no demonstration of any living genera being bred into anything else. Bacteria, fruit flies, etc. do some interesting stuff and switching within the genome, epigenetics, adaptation/ acclimatization/ ?random drift all make for some interesting observations. But then what you have is bacteria and fruit flies. Big fruit flies if you breed them in a hyperbaric chamber. [which isn't evolution]

Though I admit. Porcus Avianus fossils have us all utterly amazed. And reptile feathers - I'm gob smacked. You've got it all. See you win. Everything is evidence for Darwin - including humanities graduates who say "Yes baby, yes."

Here comes Anon=e=moose with his outstanding scientific insights/

You know pow=tato. I don't care what Sandra was thinking.
I don't care what Pip was thinking.

A whole heap of people want to pull one sentence out of somewhere, almost always without proper context that explains it, and say this proves Christianity can't be right!

It is just such a daft thing to do full stop. With the level of integrity here it wouldn't surprise me if the two sentences in that quote were on separate pages. Sandra might be a 14 year old. Or Catholic might have meant just "universalist" to her. As in Catholic doesn't even mean Roman Catholic.

There is the Anglican Catholic confession
So what might a 14 girl in a chat room have meant. Who knows, who cares?

The process is so flawed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Catholic_Church

Has anyone tried to approach Sandra for a full paragraph to explain herself. Was she still just shitty perhaps about Bloody Queen Mary or Mary Queen of Scots getting off with only a dignified beheading.

To Kuno.....
Yadda , Yadda, definitions I don't like.

Show me to the laboratory demonstration Kuno. That's right, you can't.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

and Hasan. Governments have no secrets or you in respectable academic circles would know about it - right - there is complete academic rigor explained. [...] To summarize: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Which shows you haven't a clue about academic rigor and would certainly not have made the grades to attend my lectures. 1) The Society of Jesus is not a government and its activities in the 18th century are well-known to those that bother to find them out; 2) Freemasons were seen by the Catholic church as a strongly anti-clerical force which resulted in strong clashes between Catholics and Masons in mainland Europe and Latin America where, like the US, many of the founding fathers were Masons. 3) History relies on evidence not fact-free, fanciful notions. Unless you can produce some evidence to suggest what you say is true, then you are just arguing for the sake of it. In other words, trolling.

Jesuit Generals holding a skull?

This really is a scream. So, you know nothing about art history either. The skull is a memento mori, an acknowledgement that all will face death. It is a very widespread theme found across Europe, particularly from the 16th to 18th centuries. The skull in a portrait of Jesuit Generals seems particularly appropriate.

Keep moving those goalposts around.

Having sat down with several Freemasons to see what 'animates' them I have a personal angle on this. I've seen a little bit inside shadow lands.

Questions like was Alexander the Great poisoned are open findings. Questions like did David Kelly suicide, for me, are not.

That Washington DC was built on a twin axis including Freemasonry isn't open to dispute. That it incorporates anti Christ spiritualism is not open to dispute. That Jesuits have used front organizations is not open to dispute.
\That you live in a sanitized fantasy world of half truths is my assumption here.
http://www.remnantofgod.org/jes-oth.htm look at the words in red.

Shrinker below:

there continues to be at least one imposter here. The other "me(s)" below are not me".

#1549759 Phillip-George(c)2013
Even if you guys were right, I still think that Bush is a lizard man. /7/2013 9:33:15 AM

is not me.

old comment by Captain Bacardi

Speaking as a former Master Mason who attained the 32nd Degree of the Scottish Rite (it's not a big deal... you pay some fees and watch a bunch of plays) and who was an officer at his Blue Lodge for a time...

The idea that Masons run the world from behind the scenes is downright absurd. You would think that an organization which supposedly hides behind the scenes pulling the strings would be more competent when managing the affairs of its own lodges and grand lodges. Observation of the difficulty Masons often seem to have simply getting dinner properly coordinated for a regular bi-monthly stated communication dispels any illusions that they coordinate world affairs.

Second, for all the talk that Masonry is a secret society, I have never once heard of a secret society which A) Is joined simply by asking, B) Clearly labels its meeting places, C) Advertises those meeting places in the phone book D) Openly publishes its meeting times with said meeting places, and E) Openly publishes its rituals, signs, and tokens (handshakes), which, incidentally, are its main "secrets." If Freemasonry is a secret society, it certainly seems to be doing it wrong.

Third, it seems a bit odd that Freemasons and Catholics would be secretly colluding together, seeing as the Catholic Church outright forbids its members from becoming Masons under penalty of automatic excommunication while vocally denouncing Masonry at every turn. In the US, the Catholic Church even founded a fraternal organization of its own (Knights of Columbus) to offset any interest that Catholics might have in Masonry.

That seems an odd manner to treat the organization you're secretly in cahoots with, no?

@PG-13 -- Fun fact... contrary to popular opinion, the phrase is actually "toeing the line." I used to think it was "towing the line" too until someone corrected me. One popular origin story traces it back to the Royal Navy, where barefooted seamen would line up on deck along the seams of the wooden planks. I throw this out there not to nitpick but rather because I thought you would find it an interesting piece of trivia.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

An interesting little hate site you have there, P-G; I particularly liked the photoshops. Something read into the Congressional Record in 1913 is not wholly convincing without independent supporting evidence. The use of the phrase "Roman Catholic" in the "Oath" is, by the way, a dead giveaway as to its real origin, along with the concentration on the British Isles. Furthermore, much of it reflects the Syllabus of Errors which was standard Catholic doctrine at the time; the same Syllabus that condemned Freemasonry with just as much venom as it did Protestantism and liberalism.

So what we are left with is a group of Masons, who existed, conspiring with their natural enemies the Catholic Church, through the offices of the Jesuits of the Thirteen Colonies, who didn't exist, to overthrow George III because his religious convictions was supposedly weak, despite the evidence of his strong Anglican faith. And this was all because England was forcing people to be Catholic. Or something.

Make-it-up-as-you-go-along history larded with conspiracy theories, does, I suppose, bring color to the lives of the dullest and most ignorant.

old comment by Captain Bacardi

@MadmanJohnson

To be fair, the degrees were rather well done in my Valley (Valleys are the local sub-divisions of the Scottish Rite). You don't actually sit through all of them, but rather certain key degrees with the right to go back and catch the ones you skipped after attaining the 32nd Degree. The best part was definitely the excellent catering we had beforehand.

York Rite ritual is a bit more hands on (York Rite Degrees go Mark Master, Virtual Past Master, Most Excellent Master, Royal Arch Mason, Royal Master, Select Master, Super Excellent Master, Illustrious Order of the Red Cross, Order of Malta, and Knights Templar). One actively participates in those degrees the same way as one goes through the Blue Lodge degrees (Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason for those that don't know).

It should be pointed out, however, that none of these degrees is considered higher in Masonry than the Third Degree, that of Master Mason. The Scottish Rite, The York Rite, the Shriners, and all other Masonic groups within a Masonic jurisdiction operate at the will and pleasure of that area's Grand Lodge, and one can become Grand Master of that Grand Lodge without having done anything beyond the Blue Lodge. The other "degrees" are really simply alongside the main three degrees and are "added explanations" of the lessons learned in them, if you will.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=94507&Page=4#1546715

@Kuno (emphasis added):

"His last postings sound more and more frustrated.

My theory (in the not-scientific way, before he gets any ideas) is that he assumed that he would be banned early on and then could feel as a martyr.

Not his only assumption that was wrong (did he get one thing right in his hilarious time here?)."

There's been a few examples of the likes of P-G being permabanned ('TOS[ser the troll]', 'Erik (Bullshit)Brewer', 'Rubalamew Buttherts') from FSTDT in the past, so would another martyr with a subconscious 'Persecution Complex' do us any harm to have P-G (both faux- & actual) ultimately denied his lulz...?!

old comment by AIF

PG13,

Protestants are the majority in this country, so there are decidedly many left. Including my own father that I no longer speak to, who would happily see you stripped of basic rights, because he's under the rather flawed understanding that this is expressly a "protestant" nation. This argument struck me as so retarded when I heard it that I found myself unable to take him seriously enough to ask which of all the mutually exclusive protestant flavors he'd elevate to de facto rulers of the country.

I shudder to think what such a devoted dittohead would do if he actually read the OT, and saw that Gawd not only approved of but commanded the killing of people outside the "True Belief" or Un-True Believers (UTB for brevity). All based on a book that's as verifiably accurate as the tales of Gor.

So i Have the Barbarians (and those that continue to support them)on one side and the self protecting kiddy diddlers (and those that continue to support them) on the other. I'd rather both parties quit trying to tell our elected officials what to do. If anything I'd appoint the Church of England as the state church here. They've done a pretty good job of lowering the religiosity of England...

All I want is the church out of my government, and freedom to practice or not practice as I wish.

Back to the point though, PG13. I'm just REALLY curious about your tendency to come to the defense of those that would happily throw you to the lions. Especially as this person is claiming that the Revolutionary War was actually a pogrom all about the spilling of Catholic blood. I'm unable to fathom your lack of outrage at this.

AIF -

sure a lot of sects of Christianity would lynch me at the drop of a pin, I know a tension of controlling competing forces will always exist.

I just recoil from pseudo intellectual "lynchings" - as in this one.

Going after 'Sandra' for a laugh or as if to prove some point is obviously too ridiculous to put into words. What if she is 14 or 11 or a young boy doing a chat room hoax?

Or what if she is a grown up who barely can tell the difference between Oliver Cromwell and George Washington?

If she really is simple what difference would that make to anyone. If she is being glib or simply obtuse what difference would that make?

She could be saying the English deserve to be punished forever for having ever participated in any version of Roman Catholicism. That would be harsh wouldn't it?

What if she means the English Crown is permanently Blood Stained? What if she means that the Crown Corporation of London has forced a Catholicism on everyone right now?

old comment by AIF

PG13, You have a point, she could simply be retarded or tragically dumb.... But considering the source forum, I find it quite unlikely that her belief in this twisted form of reality is not deliberate. It takes a special kind of bending over backward to believe the majority of what's presented at Rapture Ready, and membership isn't accidental. You have to WANT to be there.

And it's not simple eschatology laid out for others to review like a sheet of findings from an experiment or analysis. If it were none of us would care. It's like a masturbatory competition to see who can hate the world the most and smear the most groups in the process.

If more Christians kept to Matt 6:6 and prayed in their closet to keep it between them and their lord, nobody would have a problem with them at all. They would have little influence in education, and we wouldn't have politicians declaring the world only 6000 years old while promoting the mining of Uranium, a fuel for a power system that uses the same principles to work as the science that demonstrates the world is far far older than that.

In short we care because these beliefs do not exist in a vacuum.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

I just recoil from pseudo intellectual "lynchings" - as in this one.

Going after 'Sandra' for a laugh or as if to prove some point is obviously too ridiculous to put into words. What if she is 14 or 11 or a young boy doing a chat room hoax?

Or what if she is a grown up who barely can tell the difference between Oliver Cromwell and George Washington?

If she really is simple what difference would that make to anyone. If she is being glib or simply obtuse what difference would that make?

She could be saying the English deserve to be punished forever for having ever participated in any version of Roman Catholicism. That would be harsh wouldn't it?

What if she means the English Crown is permanently Blood Stained? What if she means that the Crown Corporation of London has forced a Catholicism on everyone right now?

This might be a good time to remind ourselves that we've come a very long way from the argument of P-G's first post -

Pip, is there anything you can get right? Long and bloody civil wars were fought exactly around this very thing.

At the time the first Pilgrims took flight it wasn't perfectly obvious whether England would remain protestant or be retaken by Catholics/ which way a future Monarch might fall.

If a "pseudo-intellectual lynching" was what P-G objected to, he could have said so on his first post. But no, we went through any number of crazy theories and conspiracies to get to the admission that her statement is "obviously too ridiculous to put into words." A masterclass in arguing in bad faith.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

The English Civil War ended in 1651, with the Catholic Cavaliers beaten by the Protestant Roundheads. I should know, as it effectively [i]started[/i] in my home city of Hull, in 1642.

The American Revolutionary War started in 1775.

@P-G

"Its putting a word in for the victim, Sandra. Innocent until proven guilty used to mean something."

The Court of Reality finds Sandra (IQ)1.7012 guilty of making a complete arse of herself, condemning herself out of her own mouth, her own guilt - committing the crime of First Degree Ignorance due to being educationally inferior - is such that even Stevie Wonder can see it.

Sandra (IQ)1.7012 is hereby sentenced to be Pointed And Laughed At by her intellectual superiors in perpetuity, until she receives a non 'hoemskule'-based education that isn't Americentric, and takes into account other countries' histories, with that of Britain taking priority above all others, as this is relevant to this particular case. Also, she must recant of her unjustifiable 'beliefs', admitting that such are inferior, and becoming an Atheist. It wouldn't kill her to do so, seeing as it's those exact same 'beliefs' that have reduced her to being the herp-a-derp-derp educationally [i]inferior[/i] fundie freak moron she is.

Moral: 'Assume'. Where you make an ASS out of U, but not ME. That phrase exists for a reason. Ass-u-ming it was the reason why that was the motive behind the American Revolution, when...:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom#French_Revolutionary_and_Napoleonic_Wars

'As part of his Irish policy, Pitt planned to remove certain legal disabilities that applied to Roman Catholics. George III claimed that to emancipate Catholics would be to violate his coronation oath, in which Sovereigns promise to maintain Protestantism'

...it's monarch - George III, whom America was rebelling against, thus the Revolutionary War - was a Protestant.

Right-wing Fundamentalist Christians these days - such as those on Ruptured Retards, and exampled here by Sandra (IQ)1.7012 - are all against contraception and abortion. Now, I may be wrong, but last time I heard those were purely Catholic doctrines are they not; as in Papist...?! [/Ian Paisley]

As I've said before, but bears repeating: no, right-wing Fundamentalist Christians, you are the Catholics.

And then Sandra (IQ)1.7012's self-prosecuted case was open and shut.

In conclusion: The words of the religiously - and egregiously - ignorant means less than nothing, and there is no defence of such, as ignorance is unjustifiable, as are the so-called 'beliefs' that allow educational inferiority like this to exist. One word: China. Even homeschooling & private tutoring in the UK has to conform to the National Curriculum. PROTIP: 'Faith' schools in this country - if they are to continue to receive state funding - have to teach the Big Bang and Evolution as fact, as it's compulsory under the National Curriculum to do so. Thus no Kitzmiller vs. Dover required here.

(*Black Cap with the words 'You FAIL' on such is placed on head*)

Sentence shall be carried out by all good people and true on FSTDT. And may Richard Dawkins have mercy on your (non-existent) soul.

Court is adjourned.

...oh, and why I always say that 'hoemskuling' should be illegal worldwide; and why the UK has the National Curriculum? Your call, P-G.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@P-G

Yadda yadda from the intellectual midget inferior Cre(a)ti(o)notard (Who apparently wasn't available to help the defendants with their so-called [i]superior[/i] 'science' several years ago, even though their case had so much going for it, bias-wise) who tried to express Pi exactly and wants to mock those educationally superior to him. QED fatherfucker.

And who abandons threads when he's proved wrong in every conceivable way about everything he says/does/thinks/'believes':

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=94643&Page=2

Now try building a wheel using the 'true' mathematical model in your precious 'Word of God' which states - as 'fact' - that Pi = exactly 3.

image

Show me how Pi = exactly 3, o P-G? Decimals are everything.

Afterwards, you can try to make a man using a lump of dirt, seeing as that's how it went exactly in your story for Cre(a)ti(o)n(ist)s like you. Fairy stories. Still waiting on your so-called 'God' trying to fill that empty cage...!

'Try'? Do or do not. There is no 'Try'. [/Yoda]

And your 'God' couldn't even try to think about building a wheel using Pi = exactly 3, when I've assembled them in my time working in a bicycle shop. Ergo, I am superior to God. Q.E. and D., bitch.

Go ahead, P-G. Build me a wheel using Pi = exactly 3. You'll have proved your inferiority to me when you can't. Just as when time & again you refuse to answer anyone's questions with a direct non-bullshit answer.

@Kuno

@Originally posted by PG-13

question withdrawn, this is not a dialogue - just an endless stream of bombasticism

Finally, some honesty!"

P-G the schizophrenic handicapped mentally inferior retard. He even condemns himself out of his own mouth (remember Troll4Life claiming that one of two posts weren't by her, yet a simple IP trace by our Admin proved she was lying?). Further proof of his inferiority.

And like him, mentally inferior 'hoemskuled' educationally subnormal retards more than deserve to be Pointed And Laughed At because they are inferior.

All it takes is a little superior state education to cure mental inferiority. Also fundietardedness. And eliminates ignorance that proves their inferiority.

Distind, it's time to clean house of subhuman trolls.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@P-G

"the intellectual Darwiniotard who tried to express Pi in decimal places". Oh-ho-ho-ho, it is to laugh! [/hyper-sarcasm] Simply point out where I failed to express Pi in decimals then? [/bluff-calling] Seeing as there isn't enough hard drive space on the planet to store all of Pi's full value (PROTIP: Graham's Number is larger than the number of atoms in the observable universe - and it ends in a '7'). Pi to just 39 places can describe a perfect circle the size of our observable universe. The ancient Greek mathematicians were able to express Pi to 75 decimal places. Yet, you think that 'rounding off' and 'integers' are an excuse, when your 'omnipotent' God can't build a wheel based on his own exact mathematical model of Pi = exactly 3.

You want to keep digging that argumental hole deeper than the drill on the ship Narada can (in the JJ Abrams "Star Trek" film), you go right ahead. I 'try' to express Pi in decimal places? You 'try' to point that out. Good luck with that. And good luck with trying to persuade others here in FSTDT that I failed (when at least I included decimals past just '3'. Want to destroy me further? YOU express Pi to ALL it's decimal places. Good luck with finding more hard drives to store that infinite number [/bluff-calling II]).

Using an extremely weak point like that as a (weaksauce) method of putting me down argumentally, you only serve to prove your own FAIL. Ad hominems - 'Darwiniotard' - are the last resort of those who know they've lost the argument (and 'mocking'? That's the raison d'etre of FSTDT. After all, if the fundies don't want to have what they say quoted - and thus mocked - here in FSTDT, then they shouldn't so much as think the way they do. Find for me a quote by a Quaker, Amish/Mennonite or Unitarian Universalist. Good luck with that [/bluff-calling III]). Point out where stating facts is Trolling? How can Reality troll? Only handicapped mentally inferior retards think of Trolling. Unlike what you're doing* since you infected FSTDT. I don't troll. Never have. Why should I? That's the $64 trillion question. Care to answer that one, o P-G...?! [/bluff-calling IV]

Or are you going to say 'question withdrawn' again, or simply abandon the thread as you have done before? Oh, and 'the odds outweighed against us' by a 'one and only Christian' overwhelming us'...?!

(*Presses Tannoy microphone button*)

Paging Liberal Christian. Would FSTDT commenter Liberal Christian please go to Argument Annihilation Room 5, as a patient who is deluded into 'believing' he is a 'one and only True Christian here', is waiting.

'one and only one Christian here'? 'still overwhelming out weighs the odds against you.'? Oh no more, please Mr. Wilde, I am bereft of ribs! [/mega-sarcasm]

*- See that handicapped mentally inferior retard (a Catholic who 'knows more about his own 'beliefs' via 'interpretation' & 'history' than we Atheists, yet he didn't know that the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith = The Inquisition: http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=74131&Page=6)?:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=74197&Page=7#1177290

That's you, that is.

And TOS(ser) was ultimately banned from FSTDT for Trolling. As per Sharia Law & Biblical Law, Al-Qaeda & right-wing Fundamentalist Christians: TOS(ser the troll) and you? Nope, not seeing any difference.

You sound worse than Mary does here: http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=85272

Sandra17012 #fundie rr-bb.com

176 comments

Confused?