Wow!
- Thread starter Katy-follower
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
You mean get back to pushing your unsubstantiated far-fetched conspiratorial agendas while superficially dismissing all facts that conflict with it. I've not seen the slightest shred of a desire to have a serious discussion from you. That's why I dismissed you some time ago.
Your discomfort at not being able to carry on with your soliloquy isn't important to me because what others have to share (that don't align with your preconceived agenda) are not important to you.
Your discomfort at not being able to carry on with your soliloquy isn't important to me because what others have to share (that don't align with your preconceived agenda) are not important to you.
A
Yes. I love my country and knowing emperically what actually happened is something every American should want.
There are many theories as well as an official government position. Most are falsifiable. A couple are not and have physical evidence and onsite eyewitness testimonies that appear to be compelling.
It's as murky as JFK.
There are many theories as well as an official government position. Most are falsifiable. A couple are not and have physical evidence and onsite eyewitness testimonies that appear to be compelling.
It's as murky as JFK.
oh.
well jfk isn't that murky now. specially since they did john-john.
the magic bullet was a really bad idea.
and 9-11 is a lock, really.
all the loose ends have been followed.
kinda following the $$ makes that easier.
but, i know its hard to accept.
coming up on that big 10 anniversary here.
i wonder why george bush sr gave his famous new world order speech on Sept 11 1991.
co-in-cidence, i know
what is your working hypothesis AoK? more towards the official story?
well jfk isn't that murky now. specially since they did john-john.
the magic bullet was a really bad idea.
and 9-11 is a lock, really.
all the loose ends have been followed.
kinda following the $$ makes that easier.
but, i know its hard to accept.
coming up on that big 10 anniversary here.
i wonder why george bush sr gave his famous new world order speech on Sept 11 1991.
co-in-cidence, i know
what is your working hypothesis AoK? more towards the official story?
A
Which 9/11 theory do you ascribe to? Provide a link. I'd like to see which one it is. Peace.
oh.
well jfk isn't that murky now. specially since they did john-john.
the magic bullet was a really bad idea.
and 9-11 is a lock, really.
all the loose ends have been followed.
kinda following the $$ makes that easier.
but, i know its hard to accept.
coming up on that big 10 anniversary here.
i wonder why george bush sr gave his famous new world order speech on Sept 11 1991.
co-in-cidence, i know
what is your working hypothesis AoK? more towards the official story?
well jfk isn't that murky now. specially since they did john-john.
the magic bullet was a really bad idea.
and 9-11 is a lock, really.
all the loose ends have been followed.
kinda following the $$ makes that easier.
but, i know its hard to accept.
coming up on that big 10 anniversary here.
i wonder why george bush sr gave his famous new world order speech on Sept 11 1991.
co-in-cidence, i know
what is your working hypothesis AoK? more towards the official story?
A
Are you referring to the theory where JFK was murdered by the Mafia? If so, I've seen several different mafia conspiracies for it which, if nothing else, made for very interesting reading.
John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Etc...
John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Etc...
Mafia? Pfffttt....who do you think controls those DEVOUT ROMAN CATHOLICS?
Hollywood smokescreen.
If you ever want the real story read 'Vatican Assassins - Wounded in the house of my brother' by Eric Phelps.
Cardinal Spellman, the Knights of Malta and the Jesuit order carried out JFK. Phelps fails to make the Zionist connection though. As usual a Christian duped by the DECOY...Rome the Harlot.
Hollywood smokescreen.
If you ever want the real story read 'Vatican Assassins - Wounded in the house of my brother' by Eric Phelps.
Cardinal Spellman, the Knights of Malta and the Jesuit order carried out JFK. Phelps fails to make the Zionist connection though. As usual a Christian duped by the DECOY...Rome the Harlot.
Bull of Pope Clement XIV PERMANENTLY suppressing the Jesuit Order.
Given at Rome on July 21, 1773.
Is that fake too?
The Jesuit Papal Bull Suppression: Dominus ac Redemptor Noster|Marco Ponce Dot Com
BUMP!
Any response to this?
Is it fake?
Given at Rome on July 21, 1773.
Is that fake too?
The Jesuit Papal Bull Suppression: Dominus ac Redemptor Noster|Marco Ponce Dot Com
BUMP!
Any response to this?
Is it fake?
A
The problem is that you dismiss substantiated facts, without a shred of emperical evidence to the contrary, so you can push a far-fetched agenda. Only what strangelove has to say matters to strangelove; nothing else does.
So if I say that George Washington was the first president and that is a historical fact with plenty of physical emperical evidence substantiated by qualified historical scholars and it doesn't fit with your conspiracy that George Washington was really murdered by the Jesuits and an imposter was the first president then you simply make a snarky comment and dismiss the aggregate of the world's evidence proving George Washington was, in fact, the first president (without proving he wasn't) because it doesn't fit with your conspiracy agenda.
That's the problem and we do not find it acceptable.
This is not the strangelove conspiracy hour where all real evidence and scholarship is meaningless and only starngelove's far-fetched conspiracies have meaning.
You'll have to build your own forum for that purpose and find a way to attract people to it or learn how too interrelate with people here on CC on something other than a delusional narcisstic sarcastic level where you actually begin to deal with the evidence others bring to the table in a meaningful way. That is if you want anyone to care two pennies as to what you have to say.
So if I say that George Washington was the first president and that is a historical fact with plenty of physical emperical evidence substantiated by qualified historical scholars and it doesn't fit with your conspiracy that George Washington was really murdered by the Jesuits and an imposter was the first president then you simply make a snarky comment and dismiss the aggregate of the world's evidence proving George Washington was, in fact, the first president (without proving he wasn't) because it doesn't fit with your conspiracy agenda.
That's the problem and we do not find it acceptable.
This is not the strangelove conspiracy hour where all real evidence and scholarship is meaningless and only starngelove's far-fetched conspiracies have meaning.
You'll have to build your own forum for that purpose and find a way to attract people to it or learn how too interrelate with people here on CC on something other than a delusional narcisstic sarcastic level where you actually begin to deal with the evidence others bring to the table in a meaningful way. That is if you want anyone to care two pennies as to what you have to say.
A
So Eric Phelps is a primary source for your epstimology (e.g. your body of knowledge)?
I've not read his book on the Vatican but is this the same Phelps that is reputed to hate Christians who oppose New Age occultism while asserting the Jesuits are responsible for just about everything diabolical in the world since 1540 ordering the hit on JFK; running the Korean and Vietnam Wars; secretly controlling all the world’s banks; secretly running the U.S. Congress and all U.S. presidents, that Roman Catholic priests are all actual spies with many trained as assasians, that they are behind all of the world's important fraternal orders, supervise the world's economic and political forums, control Wall Street, and founded both Communism and Nazism?
The same Phelps that asserts the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are 100% fact?
I've not read his book on the Vatican but is this the same Phelps that is reputed to hate Christians who oppose New Age occultism while asserting the Jesuits are responsible for just about everything diabolical in the world since 1540 ordering the hit on JFK; running the Korean and Vietnam Wars; secretly controlling all the world’s banks; secretly running the U.S. Congress and all U.S. presidents, that Roman Catholic priests are all actual spies with many trained as assasians, that they are behind all of the world's important fraternal orders, supervise the world's economic and political forums, control Wall Street, and founded both Communism and Nazism?
The same Phelps that asserts the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are 100% fact?
A
A decree signed under secular pressure by Pope Clement XIV in July 1773 suppressed the Order for a period but Pope Pius VII restored it with the bull Sollicitudo omium ecclesiarum in August 1814.
The doctrine of papal infallibility was not defined dogmatically (e.g. bona fina de fide credenda) until the First Vatican Council of 1870 and there are conditions for it.
Listen, I'm no Catholic who holds to papal infallibility but in the interests of truth you guys should at least try to understand what Papal infallibility actually is according to the Catholic Church. It's not enough to bring two documents that oppose each other from two different popes BEFORE papal infallibility was first defined and then to ignore the conditions of it.
Simply projecting your own view on it is a meaningless exercise. If you want to refute papal infallibility, you'll need to do so within context of what it actually is and not just set up a strawman of your own to knock down.
The doctrine of papal infallibility was not defined dogmatically (e.g. bona fina de fide credenda) until the First Vatican Council of 1870 and there are conditions for it.
Listen, I'm no Catholic who holds to papal infallibility but in the interests of truth you guys should at least try to understand what Papal infallibility actually is according to the Catholic Church. It's not enough to bring two documents that oppose each other from two different popes BEFORE papal infallibility was first defined and then to ignore the conditions of it.
Simply projecting your own view on it is a meaningless exercise. If you want to refute papal infallibility, you'll need to do so within context of what it actually is and not just set up a strawman of your own to knock down.