Reply With QuoteAnd I was bloody right about Hutton, I dont mean to go on, of course.
What of our pure, Nordic bloodlines, hmmm? They're b*ggered. That's what.
No offence, like.
And I was bloody right about Hutton, I dont mean to go on, of course.
Everyone gets bored and confused, so they pack it in. Sensible imo.
And it's Judicial Review, ffs! That's always a way of kicking the can up the road until nobody gives a sh*t anymore.
crucifixion was a Roman punishment, that he is naive to believe a made-up book like the bible (which the Romans heavily edited), and that the Romans persecuted the Jews at the time, drove them from their land which they renamed Palestine, and saw to it via their extended, Vatican-run empire that they were persecuted for another two thousand years. Bloody Romans.
My eyes are open, dude!
And anyway, it was Caiaphas and his Sanhedrin who brought charges against and prosecuted JC. The Romans (as the governing power) simply (and, in the case of Pontius Pilate reluctantly) followed the ruling of the partially autonomous civil/religious authorities. You can't pin this one on Rome with your anti-Papist agenda.
Besides, the people who wrote the Bible, the great missionary Paul and the first Pope were Jews themselves.
You can take the boy out of the Church
but you can't take the priest out of the boy.
I could contend that they took out bits where the Jews gang-raped the BVM, j. That doesn't mean it's true.
Even if a high priest did feel the urge to eliminate a threat (which is probably fairly normal behaviour for senior religious nutjobs imo) it is the equating of an entire history of people with the alleged crimes of an individual (or group of individuals) which renders the whole thing blatantly racist.
As you well know.
Oh and as for the bible - why believe any of it? Spare ribs? Pillars of Salt?
Posting Permissions
