PDA

View Full Version : The Hidden Wealth of the Catholic Church



Hardrock69
06-16-2010, 09:05 AM
Frank Zappa once said: "Tax THE CHURCHES........tax the businesses OWNED by the churches".

Seems if that were to be done, there would be a shitload of revenue for the tax authorities all over the world.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0%2C1518%2C700513%2C00.html






06/14/2010

Financial Scandals

The Hidden Wealth of the Catholic Church

By Anna Catherin Loll and Peter Wensierski

Photo Gallery: 4 Photos
DPA

The Catholic Church in Germany, already struggling to cope with the sex abuse scandal, has been hit by revelations of theft, opaque accounting and extravagance. While the grassroots faithful are being forced to make cutbacks, some bishops enjoy the trappings of the church's considerable hidden wealth.

Shortly before Pentecost, Pastor S. received an unexpected early morning visit, not from the Holy Ghost, but from the police.

For the authorities, the words of the Gospel of Luke came true on that morning: He who seeks finds. More than €131,000 ($158,000) were hidden in various places in the rooms of the Catholic priest, tucked in between his laundry or attached to the bottom of drawers. The reverend was arrested on the spot. After several weeks in custody, Hans S., 76, is now back at the monastery, waiting for his trial.

And lo and behold, the proliferation of cash may have been even more miraculous than initially assumed. The public prosecutor's office in the southern city of Würzburg now estimates that S. may have embezzled up to €1.5 million from collections and other church funds. The members of his flock in a wine-growing village in the northern Bavarian region of Franconia are stunned. They had blindly trusted their shepherd, who always seemed so humble and modest.

The Catholic Church is currently being shaken by a number of financial scandals, not only in Franconia but also in Augsburg, another Bavarian city, where Bishop Walter Mixa's dip into funds from a foundation that runs children's homes recently made headlines.

More than €40 million have gone missing in the Diocese of Magdeburg in eastern Germany, €5 million have disappeared in Limburg near Frankfurt, and it was recently discovered that a senior priest in the Diocese of Münster had 30 secret bank accounts. And while parishes throughout Germany are cutting jobs and funds for community work, many bishops are still living on the high horse. A brand-new residence? An ostentatious home for their retirement? Restoration of a Marian column to the tune of €120,000? None of these expenditures presents a problem to high-ranking church officials from Trier in the west to Passau in the southeastern corner of Bavaria, whose coffers are brimming with cash.

In many places, this blatant disparity, along with reports of mismanagement, misappropriation and pomposity have prompted the faithful to challenge church officials. They are accusing many bishops of just covering up the problem, as they did in the sex abuse scandal. They are determined not to allow anyone to see behind the curtain into their parallel world of bulging bank accounts and hidden assets, which, in some cases, have buttressed their power for centuries. The only aspect of church finances that is public is the diocesan budget, which derives its funding from the church tax -- but the church's true assets remain in the shadows.

Growing Questions About Church Funding

Now all of this wealth is becoming a political issue, however. The unemployed, recipients of housing assistance, families, communities, businesses, the military -- in the coming years, the federal government plans to deprive them all of billions of euros. But the church, of all things, is being spared, and hardly anyone questions the generous support it receives from the government.

Financially speaking, Germany's dioceses are in excellent shape. "The Catholic Church claims that it's poor, but the truth is that it hides its wealth," says Carsten Frerk, a Berlin political scientist who, after years of research, is publishing "Violettbuch Kirchenfinanzen" (The Violet Book of Church Finances) this fall. Frerk estimates the cash assets of the church's legal entities at about €50 billion. The Catholics, who are not releasing their own figures, accuse Frerk of being a prejudiced, atheistic critic of the church.

The assets, accumulated over the centuries, are invested in many areas, including real estate, church-owned banks, academies, breweries, vineyards, media companies and hospitals. The church also derives income from stock holdings, foundations and bequests. As a rule, all of this money flows into the accounts of the so-called bishop's see. Only a bishop and his closest associates are familiar with this shadow budget, which tax authorities are not required to review. The public budgets of dioceses consist of far less than their total finances.

This complicated web is handled with such secrecy that not even the financial department heads of all dioceses openly discuss their finances with one another. Seemingly baroque structures make these finances even more difficult to fathom. Depending on the diocese, the administrators of the church's funds can be members of a church tax council, a diocesan tax panel, a financial board or an administrative board. Sometimes assets are also spun off into foundations.

Of Germany's 27 Catholic dioceses, 25 refused to provide information in response to a SPIEGEL survey, noting that this information "is not made public." Only two dioceses, Magdeburg and the Archdiocese of Berlin, which was on the verge of bankruptcy a few years ago, were somewhat more accommodating, probably because they have so few assets to hide in the first place.

Secret Assets

The vicar general of a well-heeled diocese, on the other hand, said: "Yes, the assets in the bishop's see are secret. But perhaps it would be better if you wrote: confidential." When asked to explain this secretiveness, a spokeswoman of the Diocese of Limburg responded: "That's just the way it is." Finally, a representative of the German Bishops' Conference said: "I don't want to talk to you about this."

Elected lay representatives at the base are hardly more successful. They face a wall of silence, even when they are responsible for financial supervision in their diocese. One of them is Herbert Steffen, whose congregation appointed him to the diocesan council in Trier. Steffen, 75, is not exactly a fierce critic. A former furniture manufacturer, he comes from an arch-Catholic family of entrepreneurs in the Moselle River region. His concern was as straightforward as it was conservative: He wanted to make sure that his diocese was in solid financial shape.

The businessman was irritated by his experiences in the diocesan council. "I was surprised by the small size of the budget. It was something I thought we ought to look at," he says. At a council meeting, he asked a confidant of the bishop whether this was the entire budget. "There is also the budget of the bishop's see. But it isn't intended for the public," the official replied. When Steffen asked, "are you telling me that we can't see it, either?" the official said: "No!"

Trier, Germany's oldest diocese, is a good example of the Catholic divide between rich and poor. Bishop Stephan Ackermann, who also oversees sex abuse cases for the German Bishops' Conference, can be quite generous in financial matters, particularly when they involve prestigious projects adjacent to his bishop's palace. For example, the diocese currently has €1 million earmarked for a planned renovation of the square behind Trier Cathedral. Local church authorities want to make sure that the area looks its best, just in case the pope decides to lead an annual pilgrimage to the "holy robe" in 2012, joining the faithful in worshipping a robe that supposedly contains scraps from the robe Jesus wore.

On the other hand, subsidies for youth organizations and community centers are to be radically cut or eliminated altogether. Under the diocese's proposed cost-cutting program, a number of facilities would be shut down, including Catholic adult education offices, the Catholic Academy of Trier and Catholic student societies in Trier and the nearby cities of Saarbrücken and Koblenz.

Those who would be affected by the cuts are outraged. "Our goal is to make the church more accessible," says Guido Gross, a pastor who ministers to university students, "but now they want to get rid of the entire field of activity." Lukas Rölli of the Confederation of Catholic Student Societies adds: "I will renounce my faith if the bishop signs this." For Rölli, the Catholic Church creates the impression that it "is trying to withdraw from society more and more, and back into the vestry."

In Cologne, one of the world's wealthiest dioceses, there is also a wide gap between appearance and reality. Grassroots Catholics there have had to struggle to stay afloat financially. Churches have been closed while a shrinking number of priests have had to minister to bigger and bigger congregations in line with strict requirements outlined in austerity programs. Meanwhile, the Archdiocese of Cologne has a large budget of €863 million, and the assets of the archbishop's see are estimated at several billion euros. According to church critic Frerk's calculations, the diocese's holdings in a group of companies known as the Aachener Gesellschaften, which consist of about 26,000 residential and commercial units, were worth more than €1 billion in 2003.

But the archbishop's financial officer makes little mention of all this good news. If he did, would the faithful be quite as willing to support all the cutbacks and cheerfully donate their money to pay for a new stained-glass window in the cathedral by the artist Gerhard Richter? For the archdiocese, it is always preferable to have others foot the bills, even when it comes to paying the archconservative Cardinal Joachim Meisner. Based on a centuries-old agreement, the government pays the diocese the cardinal's monthly stipend of about €11,300, which hasn't stopped Meisner from repeatedly attacked his sponsors for their godlessness and various "failings."

Taxpayers' Money for German Churches

Meisner and many of his fellow ministers aren't the only ones to receive public stipends. Year after year, both the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church in Germany receive generous payments from the federal, state and local governments. Not as well known as the church tax (about €10 billion a year) are the annual subsidies to the church, both direct and indirect, which in 2000 amounted to an estimated €17 billion.

The government pays substantial sums of money for the maintenance and constant renovation of cathedrals and other church buildings. It pays the salaries of religion teachers and foots the bill for the altar wine used in church services for the military. Some benefits, such as the annual firewood deliveries a few southern German towns make to their bishop, are based on 200-year-old entitlements that politicians have never reviewed.

Despite the constitutional separation of church and state in Germany, substantial subsidies are paid for church conferences, church libraries, pastors who minister to police officers, inmates of prisons and psychiatric institutions, and the military. The government even helps to pay for the employment of conscientious objectors, and for the maintenance of offering boxes and wayside crosses.

The church likes to point out how much it does for the poor and the weak, and to promote social cohesion, and it has a valid argument. Nevertheless, the government foots the bill for many of these activities. The German government pays the bulk of the German Caritas Association's estimated annual budget of €45 billion, while the Catholic Church pays only a fraction.

In guidelines published on March 15, the diocesan financial board in the Bavarian city of Regensburg, which manages the assets of the bishop's see, even specifies the conditions that must be met before it will contribute financially to the renovation of church-run kindergartens and shelters -- namely that it will only contribute if the local government "has contractually agreed to pay" two-thirds of total production costs" and is willing to guarantee payment of at least 80 percent of a potential operating cost deficit for "at least 25 years."

Apparently the diocese is only interested in church-run kindergartens if the government assumes most of the cost. Does that mean the diocese would quickly abandon its compassionate care for the children of God if public funding were to dry up? In other dioceses in Germany, Catholic hospitals, schools and retirement homes are even fully government-funded.

Church Pays no Taxes and is Unsupervised

In return, the church is not even required to pay taxes: no property tax, no corporate tax and no capital gains tax. Everything it does as a public corporation in Germany is considered charitable, benevolent and tax-exempt. Unlike other public corporations like universities, the church is not subject to any state supervision.

According to church law, "the Catholic Church has the innate right, independently of secular power, to acquire, own, manage and sell assets for the attainment of its own purposes." Defending this "innate right" and the billions backing it is one of the central functions of bishops.

Complicated financial structures and secret coffers only become somewhat more visible to the public when perfidious administrators abuse them.

This is a particularly glaring issue in the Diocese of Limburg at the moment. A few weeks ago, the head of a church financial administration, who had embezzled about €5 million, was sentenced to more than six years in prison. The man, who was also the managing director of the Catholic congregation in Limburg, had unimpeded access to church funds.

"The embezzlement was surprisingly easy," the judge remarked. The problem was only discovered when the diocese recently began to introduce a new commercial accounting system. Until then, the Limburg bishops and their confidants could apparently dispose of their funds as they saw fit. The current Bishop of Limburg, Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst, had to admit that mistakes were made during financial audits.

A Palace Fit for a Prince

The diocese could easily afford such a careless approach to its finances, because the bishop's see appears to have plenty of cash. It is currently planning to build a new residence for the bishop, partly with funds from the bishop's see. Residents of the small city refer to the hill above Limburg, where the bishop will live behind the tall stone walls of a former aristocratic estate, as the "Acropolis."

"Our bishop wants to be a prince again," the locals say mockingly. By contrast, his predecessor, Bishop Franz Kamphaus, chose to live modestly in a two-room apartment in the seminary instead of the old bishop's residence, which he turned over to a family of Ethiopian refugees for several years.

What architects have designed for Tebartz-van Elst on the "Acropolis" is far more than a generous apartment with an on-site chapel. As part of the project, adjacent buildings will also require extensive renovation and conversion. New quarters will be needed for an order of nuns that will be moving in to ensure that His Excellency is well taken care of. And as part of a new security system for the cathedral museum, relocating one of the museum's emergency exits will cost €1.5 million alone. As an added benefit, it will be harder to disturb the bishop in his refuge in future.

Meanwhile, the bishop has ordered his flock to live by the motto "Save and Renew." Limburg is one of the dioceses cutting back on parishes, masses and priests. In the surrounding villages, the faithful are hard at work collecting donations for the most urgent maintenance work on their churches. "The saving is happening at the base, while the renewing takes place elsewhere," says Henny Toepfer of the local chapter of the reform movement "We Are Church." She has trouble understanding why millions of euros are available for a new residence, but not to pay for buses to bring elderly Catholics from the villages to church services.

The Lure of Financial Markets

For some time now, the old-fashioned vices of pomposity and wastefulness have been joined by a thoroughly modern temptation for the financial administrators of the bishops' sees: the promise of turning a profit in global capital markets.

Take, for example, Magdeburg. Hoping to solve its financial problems, the poverty-stricken diocese, which also has relatively few members, established a stock corporation called Gero AG. To increase earnings from interest and compound interest, Bishop Leo Nowak's confidants invested in real estate deals, ship partnerships, biogas plants and even controversial research into genetically modified plants. A priest in the administration of the diocese even blessed a greenhouse intended for use with genetically modified plants, in hopes that the church's pious investment would flourish.

Today the bishop faces a financial mess. His diocese claims to have lost more than €40 million, while the press estimates the losses at about €100 million. Now the new executive board of Gero AG plans to restructure the ailing network of companies and holdings. The corporation has already sued its former managing director for damages.

Why do the princes of the church refuse to be held accountable to their congregations? And why are they so careful to keep the government, which supports them so generously, out of their financial affairs?

A former spokesman of a diocese has spent a lot of time thinking about these questions. He attributes the current problems to the pre-modern world of diocesan ordinariates and residences, which revolved around royal courts. "The bishops and prelates, with their colorful titles, feel superior to the Western world and shield themselves against it," he says. "The confessional stands in the church, not the offices of the tax authorities."

Nitro Express
06-16-2010, 02:27 PM
You only have to look at the Mormon church which was $3 million in debt in the early 1900's due to borrowing to complete some buildings it couldn't afford. Then the church leadership decided to make cash tithing payment mandatory. The church paid off it's debt and had so much surplus money they build railroads, water works, power companies, various agricultural ventures. Today the business side of the Mormon church is bigger than the religious side. The members are basically used as cheap labor and missionaries are called to do office work or run church businesses without pay. It's one of the greatest scams in US history.

Regarding the Catholic church, it's financial side and geo political side is where the real power resides. The Vatican actually is one of the biggest sources of banking power in the world, the church makes a nice facade.

Hardrock69
06-17-2010, 09:27 AM
The Emperor Constantine recognized that spiritual power was stronger and more long-lasting than force of arms. You cannot kill an idea or belief after all.
Little did he know that 1700 years after his reign, the Church Of Satan....err...I mean, The Catholic Church is alive and well and has more money than God.

ace diamond
06-22-2010, 02:33 PM
The Emperor Constantine recognized that spiritual power was stronger and more long-lasting than force of arms. You cannot kill an idea or belief after all.
Little did he know that 1700 years after his reign, the Church Of Satan....err...I mean, The Catholic Church is alive and well and has more money than God.

the catholic church and the church of satan have nothing to do with one another.
get you shit straight, bucko, before you open your trap.

PETE'S BROTHER
06-22-2010, 02:38 PM
the catholic church and the church of satan have nothing to do with one another.
get you shit straight, bucko, before you open your trap.

you sir, are not smart. your church of satan would not exist without the bible and the church.

PETE'S BROTHER
06-22-2010, 02:42 PM
spooky....http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html







There are many speculations regarding why Anton LaVey chose these enigmatic words to conclude The Satanic Bible. However, Dr. LaVey wanted their significance to remain a mystery and we respect his wishes.

He did record the song by that name on his album “Satan Takes a Holiday,” which was released by Amarillo Records and which has been re-released by Reptilian Records on their Adversary label. Some say this jaunty tune was one LaVey used to end his sets when playing organ in bars and nightclubs, but who can be certain that this is a clue?







Click on the direct link above, or visit the Sources page and click on the link for the Emporium for ordering information, if you’d like to purchase this CD.

PETE'S BROTHER
06-22-2010, 02:48 PM
Satanism
Main article: Satanism
Satanic groups have various opinions about Satan, ranging from the conviction that he exists and ought to be worshipped (theistic Satanism), to Anton Szandor LaVey's symbolic interpretation, which emphasizes individual will and pleasure-seeking.
Much "Satanic" lore does not originate from actual Satanists, but from Christians. Best-known would be the medieval folklore and theology surrounding demons and witches. A more recent example is the so-called Satanic ritual abuse scare of the 1980s — beginning with the memoir Michelle Remembers — which depicts Satanism as a vast (and unsubstantiated) conspiracy of elites with a predilection for child abuse and human sacrifice. This genre regularly describes Satan as actually appearing in person in order to receive worship.

PETE'S BROTHER
06-22-2010, 02:48 PM
your friends are stupid too, acehole.

Jagermeister
06-22-2010, 03:02 PM
Satanism
Main article: Satanism
Satanic groups have various opinions about Satan, ranging from the conviction that he exists and ought to be worshipped (theistic Satanism), to Anton Szandor LaVey's symbolic interpretation, which emphasizes individual will and pleasure-seeking.
Much "Satanic" lore does not originate from actual Satanists, but from Christians. Best-known would be the medieval folklore and theology surrounding demons and witches. A more recent example is the so-called Satanic ritual abuse scare of the 1980s — beginning with the memoir Michelle Remembers — which depicts Satanism as a vast (and unsubstantiated) conspiracy of elites with a predilection for child abuse and human sacrifice. This genre regularly describes Satan as actually appearing in person in order to receive worship.


My parents thought I was into Satan because I listened to Kiss and Led Zep all the time. Little did they know that that probably would have been safer than all the drugs and alcohol I consumed.

Oh well.

Nitro Express
06-22-2010, 03:24 PM
I got in big trouble for calling a Luciferian a Satanist. This was a girl in college from a well to do family. She was obsessed with doing certain rituals on certain days to the point of it being like obsessive compulsive disorder. She was a great fuck but her weirdness was tripping me out. I finally asked if she was a Satanist and she got really pissed and said no, we are Luciferian not that Satanist goth trash.

I guess here whole family was into it and from what I can tell, it's inversed Christianity where Jesus is the bad guy and Lucifer is the good guy. Jesus apparently is the controlling jelouse God who burdons us down with controlling rules where Lucifer wants us to be free, do what we want. They are very materialistic and believe in survival of the fittest and the weak get what they deserve. It's some dimented do as thy wilt shit. I dumped the bitch because her religion gave her a huge ego problem to say the least.

Nitro Express
06-22-2010, 03:39 PM
My sister and I ran loose in the papal palace in 1978. We had came out of the sistine chapel and on the way to St. Peter's you go through part of the papal palace. There were no Swiss guards and we were to meet the rest of our family at the obalisk in St. Peter's Square in an hour. Time to burn no security so we went exploring. I remember a bunch of nuns and a priest coming down the corridor and we went around a big column so they wouldn't see us. What I learned about the Vatican is out front they have all the biblical stuff but tucked away out of sight there is a lot of sun worship pagan stuff from the old Roman days and lot's of Egyptian stuff. The papal palace had lot's of suns and Egyptian stuff in it. Where the commoners go, you have the biblical art. I saw the double standard when I was a little kid.

I love to explore. I did the same at the Mormon Salt Lake Temple. If you go there for certain cerimonies you can only go to certain rooms. Basically all you see is the creation room, the world room, the terrestial room and the Celestial room. The people who work in the temple are old retired people. I was in the Celestial room and the old dude guarding the stairway went to take a leak and I booked it up the stairs. I ended up on the old Administrative floor where the church leaders used to have their offices. Now it's meeting rooms. I went up one of the cool spiral staircases in one of the towers that goes up to this very cool huge meeting hall. I never got busted. Unlike the vatican there wasn't any things that made you go hmmmmmmm. The Vatican was far more creepy and mysterious. The Salt Lake Temple is just a grand Victorian styled building that more resembled a nice turn of the century hotel than a religious building. The wierdest thing is wearing a bakers hat, a white robe and that fucking wierd green apron. The Mormon temple robes make great togas for toga parties though. I had a nice one with all the cool pleats. LOL!

Nitro Express
06-22-2010, 03:47 PM
To be honest. I'll give the Vatican some credit. They have invaluable pieces of art all over that place and at least in the late 70's, it was suprisingly open. The Mormons on the other hand are very paranoid. When I was a kid I used to ride my skateboard around the church administrative buildings and nobody cared. As long as you weren't skate boarding on the temple grounds they seemed cool with it. Now you sit on the edge of the fountain and a security person will come out and tell you to get lost. I never got that kind of treatment at a Catholic church ever and I've been to plenty around the world. Sure it's a corrupt organization lying to it's membership and they have a huge pedafile problem but at least they make you feel welcome. LOL!

Hardrock69
06-23-2010, 09:36 AM
Regardless of how evil one can say the Catholic Church is, yes, they have been around for a LONG time, and I someday would love to visit and see it. I probably would spend more time exploring the Roman ruins, the Appian Way, etc., but damn...the Sistine Chapel is quite possibly the greatest work of art on Earth.

So far the closest I have ever come to the Roman Empire was walking around London and Cambridge in the UK, and as you are driving on the M11 from Cambridge to London, there is a Roman road that intersects the motorway. It is pure, crushed white limestone, and it comes from the horizon, ends a couple of hundred feet from the motorway, then picks back up on the other side.

ace diamond
06-24-2010, 06:44 PM
you sir, are not smart. your church of satan would not exist without the bible and the church.

That is a 2 way street, pal.
Neither would exist without the other.
it's called:
"BALANCE"
'nuff said.

ace diamond
06-24-2010, 06:46 PM
My parents thought I was into Satan because I listened to Kiss and Led Zep all the time. Little did they know that that probably would have been safer than all the drugs and alcohol I consumed.

Oh well.
same here..........
:lmao:
satanism, booze and plenty of drugs,along with a ton of KI$$, Led Zeppelin,
CVH, Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, OZZY, Dio, Megadeth, Slayer, VENOM, etc....
i have enjoyed every minute of it.
no regrets.

PETE'S BROTHER
06-24-2010, 06:49 PM
That is a 2 way street, pal.
Neither would exist without the other.
it's called:
"BALANCE"
'nuff said.

well, that album certainly was "hellish" from what i've been told.


and your statement is incorrect.:tongue0011:

ace diamond
06-24-2010, 06:53 PM
your friends are stupid too, acehole.

and yours are a bunch of fags who fuck other guys butts.

ace diamond
06-24-2010, 07:00 PM
well, that album certainly was "hellish" from what i've been told.
WHAT VAN HAGAR OR VAN GA Y ALBUM ISN'T?



and your statement is incorrect.:tongue0011:
actually, no, it is not.

look at it like driving a herd of cattle.
you have someone in the front leading the herd, and someone in the back driving it.
then you have the others out on the flanks to prevent any stragglers from getting away.
if the leader or the driver or the folks on the flanks are absent from the equation, the whole thing falls apart.
well, the god and satan, angels and demons, heaven and hell conflict works pretty much the same way.

they need each other.
otherwise neither one of them has a job.
the whole purpose of the co-existance of god and satan is to balance each other out
and keep each other in check.

essentialls, it's a system of checks and balances.
much like our system of gov't here in america was originally intended.

PETE'S BROTHER
06-24-2010, 07:06 PM
i understand your yin-yang concept. however, "god" created "satan" and had he not, you would have no stupid religion to follow.

PETE'S BROTHER
06-24-2010, 07:07 PM
i understand your yin-yang concept. however, "god" created "satan" and had he not, you would have no stupid religion to follow.

i should clarify, since all religions are stupid, you would have no stupid "satan" religion.

ace diamond
06-24-2010, 07:15 PM
i understand your yin-yang concept. however, "god" created "satan" and had he not, you would have no stupid religion to follow.

and had some ancient sheep and goat herder not made up the concept of god and religion in order to brain wash and control the masses
in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

god was created in the mind of a stone age man.
it all went downhill from there.

chefcraig
06-24-2010, 07:17 PM
That is a 2 way street, pal.
Neither would exist without the other.
it's called:
"BALANCE"
'nuff said.

I thought Lavey formed the Church of Satan sometime in the mid-sixties, then wrote the Satanic Bible a couple years later. If the New Testament was written in a period after Jesus death, then how come it took so long to correct this so-called "BALANCE"? http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-confused-smileys-718.gif (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/Free-Hello-Kitty-Smileys/)

PETE'S BROTHER
06-24-2010, 07:20 PM
and had some ancient sheep and goat herder not made up the concept of god and religion in order to brain wash and control the masses
in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

god was created in the mind of a stoneD age man.
it all went downhill from there.

i believe it was a camel humper/herder

ace diamond
06-24-2010, 07:30 PM
i believe it was a camel humper/herder

6 of 1, 1/2 a dozen of the other.
does it really matter bickering over the semantics of it?
it's all relative anyway.
:D

ace diamond
06-24-2010, 07:31 PM
I thought Lavey formed the Church of Satan sometime in the mid-sixties, then wrote the Satanic Bible a couple years later. If the New Testament was written in a period after Jesus death, then how come it took so long to correct this so-called "BALANCE"? http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-confused-smileys-718.gif (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/Free-Hello-Kitty-Smileys/)

the new testament was written in the 4th century c.e.
400 years after his execution and burial.

PETE'S BROTHER
06-24-2010, 07:35 PM
6 of 1, 1/2 a dozen of the other.
does it really matter bickering over the semantics of it?
it's all relative anyway.
:D

yeah, i suppose, camels, sheep and goats could all be your relatives.:baaa:

Seshmeister
06-24-2010, 07:35 PM
the new testament was written in the 4th century c.e.
400 years after his execution and burial.



No it wasn't.

Your knowledge of theology is up there with your musical ability.

Please go and read a book or something for once in your life. You'll be dead soon enough and it's a terrible thing to go through life without learning anything.

chefcraig
06-24-2010, 07:40 PM
the new testament was written in the 4th century c.e.
400 years after his execution and burial.

Ummm...no. But even so, how come it took until 1968 for the Church of Satan to finally get it's act together in order to achieve this "balance" you were speaking of? Furthermore, are you saying that all Satanists until that time were wandering around "un-balanced"?

PETE'S BROTHER
06-24-2010, 07:43 PM
Ummm...no. are you saying that all Satanists until that time were wandering around "un-balanced"?

and ever since.

ace diamond
06-24-2010, 08:09 PM
yeah, i suppose, camels, sheep and goats could all be your relatives.:baaa:

nope, sorry.
not likely.
i'm a monkey.
*sings*
"everybody's got the monkey"............:monkey:

Hardrock69
06-24-2010, 10:17 PM
Look.

It is Ace Bunghole, Gar's younger and less intelligent understudy. Are you wearing your Hail Satan masque right now? Have you sacrificed something to Satan yet today? If not you are being deficient in paying tribute to your god. :hee:

ace diamond
06-25-2010, 06:14 PM
Look.

It is Ace Bunghole, Gar's younger and less intelligent understudy. Are you wearing your Hail Satan masque right now? Have you sacrificed something to Satan yet today? If not you are being deficient in paying tribute to your god. :hee:

satanism is about worshipping yourself and doing whatever you damn well please.
it has nothing to do with actually worshipping satan.
again, do your homework before you open your trap.

ace diamond
06-25-2010, 06:21 PM
Ummm...no. But even so, how come it took until 1968 for the Church of Satan to finally get it's act together in order to achieve this "balance" you were speaking of? Furthermore, are you saying that all Satanists until that time were wandering around "un-balanced"?

1. this thread is about the catholics.
2. the catholic version of the bible was written and edited and compiled and put together in the 4th century.
3.such a balance has existed long before humans came up with the concept of "good vs. evil", which in turn led to ancient men creating gods and demons and various religions and rituals.
theology is in fact a human creation.
there is no tangible, hard evidence to suggest or prove otherwise.
so ultimately, it's all bullshit.
anton levey knew it was all a fucking load of shit, and if you actually read the satanic bible, you will see the dar4k humour of the whole thing and realise it's nothing more than a bunch of fucking piss-taking.

pure and simple.

...and yes, i do posses the satanic bible and i have read the whole damned thing many times.

besides, hardrock69 provided the article that proves it is all a big load of shit.
he posted it 3 years ago.
let me see if i can find it for you to refresh your memory.

Diamondjimi
06-25-2010, 06:28 PM
http://iambilly.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/satan_jersey.jpg

PETE'S BROTHER
06-25-2010, 06:37 PM
it has nothing to do with actually worshipping satan.
.

just wearing stupid masks in his likeness out to public mourning events.:fufu:

ace diamond
06-25-2010, 06:38 PM
1. this thread is about the catholics.
2. the catholic version of the bible was written and edited and compiled and put together in the 4th century.
3.such a balance has existed long before humans came up with the concept of "good vs. evil", which in turn led to ancient men creating gods and demons and various religions and rituals.
theology is in fact a human creation.
there is no tangible, hard evidence to suggest or prove otherwise.
so ultimately, it's all bullshit.
anton levey knew it was all a fucking load of shit, and if you actually read the satanic bible, you will see the dar4k humour of the whole thing and realise it's nothing more than a bunch of fucking piss-taking.

pure and simple.

...and yes, i do posses the satanic bible and i have read the whole damned thing many times.

besides, hardrock69 provided the article that proves it is all a big load of shit.
he posted it 3 years ago.
let me see if i can find it for you to refresh your memory.


http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/NewTestament.html



The Forged Origins of The New Testament
In the fourth century, the Roman Emperor Constantine united all religious factions under one composite deity, and ordered the compilation of new and old writings into a uniform collection that became the New Testament.

Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 14, Number 4 (June - July 2007)
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editor@nexusmagazine.com
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com

by Tony Bushby © March 2007
Correspondence:
c/- NEXUS Magazine
PO Box 30, Mapleton, Qld 4560, Australia
Fax: +61 (0)7 5493 1900

What the Church doesn't want you to know
It has often been emphasised that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical realities. The Church agrees, saying:
"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)

The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6). This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ. In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7). That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history. There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time.

It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or Custennin) (272-337) who authorised the compilation of the writings now called the New Testament. After the death of his father in 306, Constantine became King of Britain, Gaul and Spain, and then, after a series of victorious battles, Emperor of the Roman Empire. Christian historians give little or no hint of the turmoil of the times and suspend Constantine in the air, free of all human events happening around him. In truth, one of Constantine's main problems was the uncontrollable disorder amongst presbyters and their belief in numerous gods.
The majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress the truth about the development of their religion and conceal Constantine's efforts to curb the disreputable character of the presbyters who are now called "Church Fathers" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1). They were "maddened", he said (Life of Constantine, attributed to Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171; The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, cited as N&PNF, attributed to St Ambrose, Rev. Prof. Roberts, DD, and Principal James Donaldson, LLD, editors, 1891, vol. iv, p. 467). The "peculiar type of oratory" expounded by them was a challenge to a settled religious order (The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, Oskar Seyffert, Gramercy, New York, 1995, pp. 544-5). Ancient records reveal the true nature of the presbyters, and the low regard in which they were held has been subtly suppressed by modern Church historians. In reality, they were:
"...the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses ... they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets ... they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables ... and still the less do they understand ... and they write nonsense on vellum ... and still be doing, never done."
(Contra Celsum ["Against Celsus"], Origen of Alexandria, c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim)

Clusters of presbyters had developed "many gods and many lords" (1 Cor. 8:5) and numerous religious sects existed, each with differing doctrines (Gal. 1:6). Presbyterial groups clashed over attributes of their various gods and "altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience (Optatus of Milevis, 1:15, 19, early fourth century). From Constantine's point of view, there were several factions that needed satisfying, and he set out to develop an all-embracing religion during a period of irreverent confusion. In an age of crass ignorance, with nine-tenths of the peoples of Europe illiterate, stabilising religious splinter groups was only one of Constantine's problems. The smooth generalisation, which so many historians are content to repeat, that Constantine "embraced the Christian religion" and subsequently granted "official toleration", is "contrary to historical fact" and should be erased from our literature forever (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. iii, p. 299, passim). Simply put, there was no Christian religion at Constantine's time, and the Church acknowledges that the tale of his "conversion" and "baptism" are "entirely legendary" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).
Constantine "never acquired a solid theological knowledge" and "depended heavily on his advisers in religious questions" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. xii, p. 576, passim). According to Eusebeius (260-339), Constantine noted that among the presbyterian factions "strife had grown so serious, vigorous action was necessary to establish a more religious state", but he could not bring about a settlement between rival god factions (Life of Constantine, op. cit., pp. 26-8). His advisers warned him that the presbyters' religions were "destitute of foundation" and needed official stabilisation (ibid.).
Constantine saw in this confused system of fragmented dogmas the opportunity to create a new and combined State religion, neutral in concept, and to protect it by law. When he conquered the East in 324 he sent his Spanish religious adviser, Osius of Córdoba, to Alexandria with letters to several bishops exhorting them to make peace among themselves. The mission failed and Constantine, probably at the suggestion of Osius, then issued a decree commanding all presbyters and their subordinates "be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public, and travel to the city of Nicaea" in the Roman province of Bithynia in Asia Minor. They were instructed to bring with them the testimonies they orated to the rabble, "bound in leather" for protection during the long journey, and surrender them to Constantine upon arrival in Nicaea (The Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1917, "Council of Nicaea" entry). Their writings totalled "in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviours, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them" (Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518).

The First Council of Nicaea and the "missing records"
Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate. About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598). In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said, "Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing" (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).
This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as "a set of gibbering idiots" (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, "On Councils" entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that "the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronised the vilest abominations" (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the theological creation of Jesus Christ.
The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are "strangely absent from the canons" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly what happened to them. However, according to records that endured, Eusebius "occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor's behalf" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620). There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. "Seventy Eastern bishops" represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical History, ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage travelled from Africa, Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia.

It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 "bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). By this time, a huge assortment of "wild texts" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, "Gospel and Gospels") circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses: Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo, Fragapatti, Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus, Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis, Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph, Saturn, Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes (God's Book of Eskra, anon., ch. xlviii, paragraph 36).
Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods-Apollo and Zeus-but the great bulk of common people idolised either Julius Caesar or Mithras (the Romanised version of the Persian deity Mithra). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death (15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as "the Divine Julius". The word "Saviour" was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being "one who sows the seed", i.e., he was a phallic god. Julius Caesar was hailed as "God made manifest and universal Saviour of human life", and his successor Augustus was called the "ancestral God and Saviour of the whole human race" (Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952). Emperor Nero (54-68), whose original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (37-68), was immortalised on his coins as the "Saviour of mankind" (ibid.). The Divine Julius as Roman Saviour and "Father of the Empire" was considered "God" among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was the deity in some Western presbyters' texts, but was not recognised in Eastern or Oriental writings.

Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion. "As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter... For one year and five months the balloting lasted..." (God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).
At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects: Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325). Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Saviour-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god. A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite. That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion; and because there was no letter "J" in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into "Jesus Christ".

How the Gospels were created
Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organise the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were:
"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39). Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars. Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story. Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce "fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art" (ibid.). "These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36). They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.
With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the "word of the Roman Saviour God" (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonising in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council "burnt" and declared that "any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders" (beheaded) (ibid.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.
Some council records also survived, and they provide alarming ramifications for the Church.Some old documents say that the First Council of Nicaea ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle to establish a god was so fierce that it extended "for four years and seven months" from its beginning in June 325 (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title "Great and Holy Synod", assigned to the assembly by the Church in the 18th century. Earlier Churchmen, however, expressed a different opinion.

The Second Council of Nicaea in 786-87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as "a synod of fools and madmen" and sought to annul "decisions passed by men with troubled brains" (History of the Christian Church, H. H. Milman, DD, 1871). If one chooses to read the records of the Second Nicaean Council and notes references to "affrighted bishops" and the "soldiery" needed to "quell proceedings", the "fools and madmen" declaration is surely an example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called pagan beliefs into a new religious system brought many converts. Later Church writers made him "the great champion of Christianity" which he gave "legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire" (Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, New York, 1994, p. 86). Historical records reveal this to be incorrect, for it was "self-interest" that led him to create Christianity (A Smaller Classical Dictionary, J. M. Dent, London, 1910, p. 161). Yet it wasn't called "Christianity" until the 15th century (How The Great Pan Died, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux [Vatican archivist], Mille Meditations, USA, MCMLXVIII, pp. 45-7).
Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine's New Testimonies were expanded upon, "interpolations" were added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122). For example, in 397 John "golden-mouthed" Chrysostom restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and made them part of the New Testimonies (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). The Latinised name for Apollonius is Paulus (A Latin-English Dictionary, J. T. White and J. E. Riddle, Ginn & Heath, Boston, 1880), and the Church today calls those writings the Epistles of Paul. Apollonius's personal attendant, Damis, an Assyrian scribe, is Demis in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:10).

The Church hierarchy knows the truth about the origin of its Epistles, for Cardinal Bembo (d. 1547), secretary to Pope Leo X (d. 1521), advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto, to disregard them, saying "put away these trifles, for such absurdities do not become a man of dignity; they were introduced on the scene later by a sly voice from heaven" (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, A. L. Collins, London, 1842 reprint).
The Church admits that the Epistles of Paul are forgeries, saying, "Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645). Likewise, St Jerome (d. 420) declared that the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book of the New Testament, was also "falsely written" ("The Letters of Jerome", Library of the Fathers, Oxford Movement, 1833-45, vol. v, p. 445).

The shock discovery of an ancient Bible
The New Testament subsequently evolved into a fulsome piece of priesthood propaganda, and the Church claimed it recorded the intervention of a divine Jesus Christ into Earthly affairs. However, a spectacular discovery in a remote Egyptian monastery revealed to the world the extent of later falsifications of the Christian texts, themselves only an "assemblage of legendary tales" (Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759). On 4 February 1859, 346 leaves of an ancient codex were discovered in the furnace room at St Catherine's monastery at Mt Sinai, and its contents sent shockwaves through the Christian world. Along with other old codices, it was scheduled to be burned in the kilns to provide winter warmth for the inhabitants of the monastery. Written in Greek on donkey skins, it carried both the Old and New Testaments, and later in time archaeologists dated its composition to around the year 380. It was discovered by Dr Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874), a brilliant and pious German biblical scholar, and he called it the Sinaiticus, the Sinai Bible. Tischendorf was a professor of theology who devoted his entire life to the study of New Testament origins, and his desire to read all the ancient Christian texts led him on the long, camel-mounted journey to St Catherine's Monastery.
During his lifetime, Tischendorf had access to other ancient Bibles unavailable to the public, such as the Alexandrian (or Alexandrinus) Bible, believed to be the second oldest Bible in the world. It was so named because in 1627 it was taken from Alexandria to Britain and gifted to King Charles I (1600-49). Today it is displayed alongside the world's oldest known Bible, the Sinaiticus, in the British Library in London. During his research, Tischendorf had access to the Vaticanus, the Vatican Bible, believed to be the third oldest in the world and dated to the mid-sixth century (The Various Versions of the Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1874, available in the British Library). It was locked away in the Vatican's inner library. Tischendorf asked if he could extract handwritten notes, but his request was declined. However, when his guard took refreshment breaks, Tischendorf wrote comparative narratives on the palm of his hand and sometimes on his fingernails ("Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?", Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, lecture, 1869, available in the British Library).

Today, there are several other Bibles written in various languages during the fifth and sixth centuries, examples being the Syriacus, the Cantabrigiensis (Bezae), the Sarravianus and the Marchalianus.
A shudder of apprehension echoed through Christendom in the last quarter of the 19th century when English-language versions of the Sinai Bible were published. Recorded within these pages is information that disputes Christianity's claim of historicity. Christians were provided with irrefutable evidence of wilful falsifications in all modern New Testaments. So different was the Sinai Bible's New Testament from versions then being published that the Church angrily tried to annul the dramatic new evidence that challenged its very existence. In a series of articles published in the London Quarterly Review in 1883, John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, used every rhetorical device at his disposal to attack the Sinaiticus' earlier and opposing story of Jesus Christ, saying that "...without a particle of hesitation, the Sinaiticus is scandalously corrupt ... exhibiting the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with; they have become, by whatever process, the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders and intentional perversions of the truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of God". Dean Burgon's concerns mirror opposing aspects of Gospel stories then current, having by now evolved to a new stage through centuries of tampering with the fabric of an already unhistorical document.

The revelations of ultraviolet light testing
In 1933, the British Museum in London purchased the Sinai Bible from the Soviet government for £100,000, of which £65,000 was gifted by public subscription. Prior to the acquisition, this Bible was displayed in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg, Russia, and "few scholars had set eyes on it" (The Daily Telegraph and Morning Post, 11 January 1938, p. 3). When it went on display in 1933 as "the oldest Bible in the world" (ibid.), it became the centre of a pilgrimage unequalled in the history of the British Museum.
Before I summarise its conflictions, it should be noted that this old codex is by no means a reliable guide to New Testament study as it contains superabundant errors and serious re-editing. These anomalies were exposed as a result of the months of ultraviolet-light tests carried out at the British Museum in the mid-1930s. The findings revealed replacements of numerous passages by at least nine different editors. Photographs taken during testing revealed that ink pigments had been retained deep in the pores of the skin. The original words were readable under ultraviolet light. Anybody wishing to read the results of the tests should refer to the book written by the researchers who did the analysis: the Keepers of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938).

Forgery in the Gospels
When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified. These amendments can be recognised by a simple comparative exercise that anybody can and should do. Serious study of Christian origins must emanate from the Sinai Bible's version of the New Testament, not modern editions.
Of importance is the fact that the Sinaiticus carries three Gospels since rejected: the Shepherd of Hermas (written by two resurrected ghosts, Charinus and Lenthius), the Missive of Barnabas and the Odes of Solomon. Space excludes elaboration on these bizarre writings and also discussion on dilemmas associated with translation variations.
Modern Bibles are five removes in translation from early editions, and disputes rage between translators over variant interpretations of more than 5,000 ancient words. However, it is what is not written in that old Bible that embarrasses the Church, and this article discusses only a few of those omissions. One glaring example is subtly revealed in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899, vol. iii, p. 3344), where the Church divulges its knowledge about exclusions in old Bibles, saying: "The remark has long ago and often been made that, like Paul, even the earliest Gospels knew nothing of the miraculous birth of our Saviour". That is because there never was a virgin birth.
It is apparent that when Eusebius assembled scribes to write the New Testimonies, he first produced a single document that provided an exemplar or master version. Today it is called the Gospel of Mark, and the Church admits that it was "the first Gospel written" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 657), even though it appears second in the New Testament today. The scribes of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were dependent upon the Mark writing as the source and framework for the compilation of their works. The Gospel of John is independent of those writings, and the late-15th-century theory that it was written later to support the earlier writings is the truth (The Crucifixion of Truth, Tony Bushby, Joshua Books, 2004, pp. 33-40).

Thus, the Gospel of Mark in the Sinai Bible carries the "first" story of Jesus Christ in history, one completely different to what is in modern Bibles. It starts with Jesus "at about the age of thirty" (Mark 1:9), and doesn't know of Mary, a virgin birth or mass murders of baby boys by Herod. Words describing Jesus Christ as "the son of God" do not appear in the opening narrative as they do in today's editions (Mark 1:1), and the modern-day family tree tracing a "messianic bloodline" back to King David is non-existent in all ancient Bibles, as are the now-called "messianic prophecies" (51 in total). The Sinai Bible carries a conflicting version of events surrounding the "raising of Lazarus", and reveals an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ and his ascension into Heaven. No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).
Despite a multitude of long-drawn-out self-justifications by Church apologists, there is no unanimity of Christian opinion regarding the non-existence of "resurrection" appearances in ancient Gospel accounts of the story. Not only are those narratives missing in the Sinai Bible, but they are absent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark, code-named "K" by analysts. They are also lacking in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, in sixth-century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version and ninth-century Anglo-Saxon Bibles. However, some 12th-century Gospels have the now-known resurrection verses written within asterisksÑmarks used by scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document.

The Church claims that "the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available. A resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non ("without which, nothing") of Christianity (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), confirmed by words attributed to Paul: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain" (1 Cor. 5:17). The resurrection verses in today's Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying "the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation" (Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading "The Evidence of its Spuriousness"; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading "Canons"). Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity.
The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues. The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus' resurrection to his disciples. The Church admits: "The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).

"The Great Insertion" and "The Great Omission"
Modern-day versions of the Gospel of Luke have a staggering 10,000 more words than the same Gospel in the Sinai Bible. Six of those words say of Jesus "and was carried up into heaven", but this narrative does not appear in any of the oldest Gospels of Luke available today ("Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels", F. C. Conybeare, The Hibbert Journal, London, vol. 1, no. 1, Oct 1902, pp. 96-113). Ancient versions do not verify modern-day accounts of an ascension of Jesus Christ, and this falsification clearly indicates an intention to deceive.
Today, the Gospel of Luke is the longest of the canonical Gospels because it now includes "The Great Insertion", an extraordinary 15th-century addition totalling around 8,500 words (Luke 9:51-18:14). The insertion of these forgeries into that Gospel bewilders modern Christian analysts, and of them the Church said: "The character of these passages makes it dangerous to draw inferences" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. ii, p. 407).
Just as remarkable, the oldest Gospels of Luke omit all verses from 6:45 to 8:26, known in priesthood circles as "The Great Omission", a total of 1,547 words. In today's versions, that hole has been "plugged up" with passages plagiarised from other Gospels. Dr Tischendorf found that three paragraphs in newer versions of the Gospel of Luke's version of the Last Supper appeared in the 15th century, but the Church still passes its Gospels off as the unadulterated "word of God" ("Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?", op. cit.)

The "Expurgatory Index"
As was the case with the New Testament, so also were damaging writings of early "Church Fathers" modified in centuries of copying, and many of their records were intentionally rewritten or suppressed.
Adopting the decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-63), the Church subsequently extended the process of erasure and ordered the preparation of a special list of specific information to be expunged from early Christian writings (Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Rev. Charles Elliott, DD, G. Lane & P. P. Sandford, New York, 1842, p. 89; also, The Vatican Censors, Professor Peter Elmsley, Oxford, p. 327, pub. date n/a).
In 1562, the Vatican established a special censoring office called Index Expurgatorius. Its purpose was to prohibit publication of "erroneous passages of the early Church Fathers" that carried statements opposing modern-day doctrine.
When Vatican archivists came across "genuine copies of the Fathers, they corrected them according to the Expurgatory Index" (Index Expurgatorius Vaticanus, R. Gibbings, ed., Dublin, 1837; The Literary Policy of the Church of Rome, Joseph Mendham, J. Duncan, London, 1830, 2nd ed., 1840; The Vatican Censors, op. cit., p. 328). This Church record provides researchers with "grave doubts about the value of all patristic writings released to the public" (The Propaganda Press of Rome, Sir James W. L. Claxton, Whitehaven Books, London, 1942, p. 182).
Important for our story is the fact that the Encyclopaedia Biblica reveals that around 1,200 years of Christian history are unknown: "Unfortunately, only few of the records [of the Church] prior to the year 1198 have been released". It was not by chance that, in that same year (1198), Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) suppressed all records of earlier Church history by establishing the Secret Archives (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xv, p. 287). Some seven-and-a-half centuries later, and after spending some years in those Archives, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux wrote How The Great Pan Died. In a chapter titled "The Whole of Church History is Nothing but a Retroactive Fabrication", he said this (in part):
"The Church ante-dated all her late works, some newly made, some revised and some counterfeited, which contained the final expression of her history ... her technique was to make it appear that much later works written by Church writers were composed a long time earlier, so that they might become evidence of the first, second or third centuries."
(How The Great Pan Died, op. cit., p. 46)

Supporting Professor Bordeaux's findings is the fact that, in 1587, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) established an official Vatican publishing division and said in his own words, "Church history will be now be established ... we shall seek to print our own account"Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759). Vatican records also reveal that Sixtus V spent 18 months of his life as pope personally writing a new Bible and then introduced into Catholicism a "New Learning" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, p. 442, vol. xv, p. 376). The evidence that the Church wrote its own history is found in Diderot's Encyclopédie, and it reveals the reason why Pope Clement XIII (1758-69) ordered all volumes to be destroyed immediately after publication in 1759.

Gospel authors exposed as imposters
There is something else involved in this scenario and it is recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia. An appreciation of the clerical mindset arises when the Church itself admits that it does not know who wrote its Gospels and Epistles, confessing that all 27 New Testament writings began life anonymously:
"It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves ... they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

The Church maintains that "the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship", adding that "the headings ... were affixed to them" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. i, p. 117, vol. vi, pp. 655, 656). Therefore they are not Gospels written "according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John", as publicly stated. The full force of this confession reveals that there are no genuine apostolic Gospels, and that the Church's shadowy writings today embody the very ground and pillar of Christian foundations and faith. The consequences are fatal to the pretence of Divine origin of the entire New Testament and expose Christian texts as having no special authority. For centuries, fabricated Gospels bore Church certification of authenticity now confessed to be false, and this provides evidence that Christian writings are wholly fallacious.
After years of dedicated New Testament research, Dr Tischendorf expressed dismay at the differences between the oldest and newest Gospels, and had trouble understanding...
"...how scribes could allow themselves to bring in here and there changes which were not simply verbal ones, but such as materially affected the very meaning and, what is worse still, did not shrink from cutting out a passage or inserting one."
(Alterations to the Sinai Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1863, available in the British Library, London)

After years of validating the fabricated nature of the New Testament, a disillusioned Dr Tischendorf confessed that modern-day editions have "been altered in many places" and are "not to be accepted as true" (When Were Our Gospels Written?, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1865, British Library, London).

Just what is Christianity?
The important question then to ask is this: if the New Testament is not historical, what is it?
Dr Tischendorf provided part of the answer when he said in his 15,000 pages of critical notes on the Sinai Bible that "it seems that the personage of Jesus Christ was made narrator for many religions". This explains how narratives from the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, appear verbatim in the Gospels today (e.g., Matt. 1:25, 2:11, 8:1-4, 9:1-8, 9:18-26), and why passages from the Phenomena of the Greek statesman Aratus of Sicyon (271-213 BC) are in the New Testament.
Extracts from the Hymn to Zeus, written by Greek philosopher Cleanthes (c. 331-232 BC), are also found in the Gospels, as are 207 words from the Thais of Menander (c. 343-291), one of the "seven wise men" of Greece. Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek poet Epimenides (7th or 6th century BC) are applied to the lips of Jesus Christ, and seven passages from the curious Ode of Jupiter (c. 150 BC; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament.
Tischendorf's conclusion also supports Professor Bordeaux's Vatican findings that reveal the allegory of Jesus Christ derived from the fable of Mithra, the divine son of God (Ahura Mazda) and messiah of the first kings of the Persian Empire around 400 BC. His birth in a grotto was attended by magi who followed a star from the East. They brought "gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh" (as in Matt. 2:11) and the newborn baby was adored by shepherds. He came into the world wearing the Mithraic cap, which popes imitated in various designs until well into the 15th century.
Mithra, one of a trinity, stood on a rock, the emblem of the foundation of his religion, and was anointed with honey. After a last supper with Helios and 11 other companions, Mithra was crucified on a cross, bound in linen, placed in a rock tomb and rose on the third day or around 25 March (the full moon at the spring equinox, a time now called Easter after the Babylonian goddess Ishtar). The fiery destruction of the universe was a major doctrine of Mithraism-a time in which Mithra promised to return in person to Earth and save deserving souls. Devotees of Mithra partook in a sacred communion banquet of bread and wine, a ceremony that paralleled the Christian Eucharist and preceded it by more than four centuries.
Christianity is an adaptation of Mithraism welded with the Druidic principles of the Culdees, some Egyptian elements (the pre-Christian Book of Revelation was originally called The Mysteries of Osiris and Isis), Greek philosophy and various aspects of Hinduism.

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ
It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life. This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence: the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable" (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters..., op. cit.).

iv'e got one more hr69 post to copy and paste to finish making my point.

PETE'S BROTHER
06-25-2010, 06:42 PM
iv'e got one more hr69 post to copy and paste to finish making my point.

sweet

ace diamond
06-25-2010, 06:43 PM
originally posted by Hardrock69:

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-17009-Freethought-Examiner~y2010m4d13-Source-of-Bible-Covenant-with-God-discovered

Source of Bible Covenant with God discovered?
April 13, 4:20 PMFreethought ExaminerD.M. Murdock

Archaeologists working in Turkey have unearthed an Assyrian tablet dating to around 670 BCE that "could have served as a model for the biblical description of God's covenant with the Israelites." What this fascinating discovery suggests, of course, is that the Bible tale of a divine pact does not represent "history" or a "factual" event, but is instead a fictional rewrite, borrowing or plagiarism of this older Assyrian treaty.

Over the centuries, many Bible critics, minimalists and mythicists have asserted that much of the Old Testament constitutes not factual history but a rehash of ancient myths and traditions dating to before the founding of the Jewish kingdom. This new find apparently adds more evidence to that theory, and it is quite refreshing that both the scholars and the media are spelling out clearly this possible "borrowing," without prejudice in favor of bibliolatry or upholding unprovable matters of faith.

Ancient treaty resembles part of the Bible

Canadian archeologists in Turkey have unearthed an ancient treaty that could have served as a model for the biblical description of God's covenant with the Israelites.

The tablet, dating to about 670 BC, is a treaty between the powerful Assyrian king and his weaker vassal states, written in a highly formulaic language very similar in form and style to the story of Abraham's covenant with God in the Hebrew Bible, says University of Toronto archeologist Timothy Harrison.

Although biblical scholarship differs, it is widely accepted that the Hebrew Bible was being assembled around the same time as this treaty, the seventh century BC.

"Those documents...seem to reflect very closely the formulaic structure of these treaty documents," he told about 50 guests at the Ottawa residence of the Turkish ambassador, Rafet Akgunay.

He was not necessarily saying the Hebrews copied the Assyrian text, substituting their own story about how God liberated them from slavery in Egypt on the condition that they worship only Him and follow His commandments.

But it will be interesting for scholars to have this parallel document.

"The language in the [Assyrian] texts is [very similar] and now we have a treaty document just a few miles up the road from Jerusalem."...

Science Daily provides more details about the tablet:

"The tablet is quite spectacular. It records a treaty -- or covenant -- between Esarhaddon, King of the Assyrian Empire and a secondary ruler who acknowledged Assyrian power. The treaty was confirmed in 672 BCE at elaborate ceremonies held in the Assyrian royal city of Nimrud (ancient Kalhu). In the text, the ruler vows to recognize the authority of Esarhaddon's successor, his son Ashurbanipal," said Timothy Harrison, professor of near eastern archaeology in the Department of Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations and director of U of T's Tayinat Archaeological Project (TAP)....

The researchers hope to glean information about Assyria's imperial relations with the west during a critical period, the early 7th century BCE. It marked the rise of the Phrygians and other rival powers in highland Anatolia -- now modern-day Turkey -- along the northwestern frontier of the Assyrian empire, and coincided with the divided monarchy of Biblical Israel...

Notable is the fact "it is widely accepted that the Hebrew Bible was being assembled around the same time as this treaty," i.e., during the 7th century BCE. The case for this "late" dating of the Old Testament's compilation - with a significant part of it also written later, after the Jews' "Babylonian Exile" (597-538 BCE) - has been made by Israeli archaeologists, including and especially Israel Finkelstein in The Bible Unearthed.

Although the article states that the archaeologist Timothy Harrison "was not necessarily saying the Hebrews copied the Assyrian text, substituting their own story about how God liberated them from slavery in Egypt," it is nonetheless raising that very issue in a manner which breaks with the centuries-old tradition of bending all finds in the "Holy Land" and other places of biblical interest to fit the Bible, in attempts to prove the "Good Book" as "history." It is obvious that this sort of bibliolatry appeasement from the more scientific segment of society is losing ground precisely because of such discoveries - and the implication of this one is a doozy.

No historical covenant with God?

It needs to be emphasized that this intriguing development concerns not just any biblical event but the very covenant between God and the Israelites - here indicated as not something supernatural that actually occurred but, rather, as mere human propaganda based on older texts from other cultures. This discovery, therefore, would essentially negate the basic premise of the Old Testament: To wit, that the Hebrews, Israelites and Jews are the "chosen people" of the Lord of the universe.

Needless to say, for those of us who have been stating as much for many years - and getting pilloried for our efforts - this archaeological find is very exciting, as it adds to the growing body of hard, scientific evidence that the Bible is not "God's Word" but a manmade cultural artifact designed for propagandistic purposes.

Furthermore, as the Old Testament is thus apparently in significant part a rehash and rewriting of the traditions and myths of other cultures, so does the New Testament story of Jesus Christ represent a remake of the mythical motifs of pre-Christian cultures, combined with OT scriptures serving as "blueprints" for the gospel tale's creation.

D.M. Murdock is the author of controversial books and articles on comparative religion and mythology that can be found at TruthBeKnown.com, Stellar House Publishing and Freethought Nation. For more articles from the Freethought Examiner, be sure to subscribe!

ace diamond
06-25-2010, 06:51 PM
just wearing stupid masks in his likeness out to public mourning events.:fufu:

so tell me what is your excuse for bearing such a stunningly striking resemblance to the north end of a south bound mule?
:lmao:

besides, that issue is not in this thread.
stop trying to change the subject.
besidesw, if you must grasp at straws, at least do so with some dignity.

ace diamond
06-25-2010, 06:59 PM
oh, and for good measure, let us not forget the fable of noah's ark and the global flood that is a blatant rip-off from the epic of gilgamesh.

so, based on everything that i have posted much courtesy of hr69 and his fine research, i say that all churches and religions should therefore be stripped of tax exemption status and be required to pay the same taxes as any other business does.
can you imagine the tax revenue amount?
it would make a significant dent in the national debt.

PETE'S BROTHER
06-25-2010, 07:00 PM
so tell me what is your excuse for bearing such a stunningly striking resemblance to the north end of a south bound mule?
:lmao:

besides, that issue is not in this thread.
stop trying to change the subject.
besidesw, if you must grasp at straws, at least do so with some dignity.

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....




yeah, nevermind.

ace diamond
06-25-2010, 07:04 PM
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....




yeah, nevermind.

whatever, dude.
that was the lamest response of all time.
i'll admit that i do still enjoy watching beavis and butt-head,
however, that is not relevant to this discussion.

PETE'S BROTHER
06-25-2010, 07:07 PM
Originally Posted by ace diamond
so tell me what is your excuse for bearing such a stunningly striking resemblance to the north end of a south bound mule?


my response was lamer/more lame than this?

ace diamond
06-25-2010, 07:13 PM
Originally Posted by ace diamond:
so tell me what is your excuse for bearing such a stunningly striking resemblance to the north end of a south bound mule?
YUP, I SAID IT.


my response was lamer/more lame than this?
Yes it is.
I at least put some thought into my insults.
your lame ass responses took zero brain cell to come up with.
you lose.
sorry about your luck.

now, that being said and that minor issue being settled, how about staying on topic, shall we?
thank you so very much for your cooperation.
have a nice day.

:pwned:

PETE'S BROTHER
06-25-2010, 07:22 PM
besidesw, if you must grasp at straws, at least do so with some dignity.

was the smiley face flipping you off undignified?

PETE'S BROTHER
06-25-2010, 07:23 PM
YUP, I SAID IT.


Yes it is.
I at least put some thought into my insults.
your lame ass responses took zero brain cell to come up with.
you lose.
sorry about your luck.

now, that being said and that minor issue being settled, how about staying on topic, shall we?
thank you so very much for your cooperation.
have a nice day.

:pwned:

are you playing your guitar right now?

Hardrock69
06-25-2010, 10:54 PM
:lmao:


At least Gar is on top of his game, pretending to know everything about everything, and failing to impress anyone.

This clueless goober can't even convince anyone he knows anything about anything. Which is actually kind of hilarious, in a sick sort of way. :hee:

I heard something today about The Kinks bassist died?

That's too bad. Of course I always thought it would be hilarious to watch Ray vs. Dave in a fight to the finish onstage in 12 rounds or less, lol.

Anyone ever seen any video footage of them getting into a scuffle in the midst of a Kinks performance?