And you dear boy are a semi literate with spelling difficulties. Truely. You are also a rather nasty piece of work who has very little to contribute to the debate other than random insults like the one above. But here's your chance to shine. Rather than sling insults about perhaps you can address the question which I light heartedly hinted at in my post to Bernard. Which do you rate more ridiculous? Believing that the world was created only 6,000 years ago despite all the scientific and geological evidence to the contrary. Believing that the host at mass literally turns to the body and blood of Christ in the celebrant's stomach, this despite no post mortem ever finding such a thing? A rational man would discount both equally. You on the other hand choose not only to abuse the creationists but anyone questioning transubstantiation. Why would that be?
I'll see your Dominus vobiscum and raise you one urbi et orbi Cardinal. Oh, just one thing Sasanach. If you want to play you have to ante up. That means posting your stake in the middle. An original thought related to the debate perhaps or something else of value. Unfortunately irrational gratuitous personal abuse isn't legal tender in civilised discussion. But if you really prefer just a sledging session do let me know and I'll accommodate you although you may not find the accommodation all that comfortable. Nugator ac nerbula.
Thank you for those kind words. I'm a great admirer of yours too. Rest assured your secret is sage with me Sasanach. I won't tell a soul you're really the current head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith moonlighting.
Ah, sure you're the sly on OK Bernard. Leaving out the more extreme bits now, like "fundamentalist lunatics". Wee bit of air brush revision to sound less nasty than it was it really was?
I'm hurt at your lack of confidence in my understanding of Roman Catholic Dogma. Consistently I've exposed its cynical traducement of Christianity when compared to Christ's actual teaching as recorded in the New Testament which the Roman Catholic church claims to follow closely. Does that not show understanding?
Had you forgotten that your last message to me prior to the current ones was that I was a person of no account with whom you would no longer correspond? Or perhaps we should all just ignore promises you make while venting? Anyway, when I reminded you I'd have thought a good Catholic would make the obvious connection with excommunication?
"It's just that, for historical reasons, the fundamentalist lunatics are politically powerful. when you're railing against republicanism and the paranoia about Rome rule, the extremist fundamentalist protestants are going to have the loudest voices." What card would that be? Ace of spades?
Are you sure that what gets furthest up your nose is that my contempt for Roman Catholic dogma is based on the fact that I understand it only too well?
Anyway, you swore you'd excommunicated me. Honestly, just can't rely on a single thing you promise at all Bernard.
Trust you to play the MOPE card Bernard. But sticking strictly to the subject, I'd have thought that anyone who can swallow transubstantiation should't have too much trouble with creationism.
Just replied but not shown as linked to you.
Often disagree with you aodagain but this is undoubtedly the sanest, best balanced comment on either side of any of the various recent threads on the subject.
Yeah. Sorry. Been ticked off about that by a few people. At suggestion of Alec_Pies I'll add :) when I'm fooling about. The original post would definitely have had one. On that basis, what was your comment gonna be?
Nah mate. Never work. Like car insurance. Gougers never bother and the rest of us pay in higher premiums and what you gonna do to the gougers that'll worry them? Trust me. Firing squad. Now that's a deterrent. :)
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Joint