Arrested SCC Principal Mugshot

[Guest Guest]

Says the Vatican altered New Testament that was edited to fit their business plan. But you knew this already.

 

Ummmmm....they wrote the New Testament.

[Guest Guest]

Lost what, dickhead? Come up with some proof instead of fairy tales.

 

Catholicism didn't exist for over 300 years after Jesus and for over 200 years after the Bible was complete and compiled.

 

 

28 Popes say you are a damn liar.

[Guest Guest]

Ummmmm....they wrote the New Testament.

No, they edited the original writings. Ever hear of the lost gospels?

[Guest Guest]

28 Popes say you are a damn liar.

28 employees of the Catholic Church are protecting their ass.

[Guest Guest]

Read the whole article. That's not a complete definition. And, there are about 1000 exemptions and exceptions to it. Also, a photograph is not hearsay. Second of all, and perhaps more to the point, hearsay *is* evidence.

Why Hearsay is Not Admissible Under the Rules of Evidence

 

One is used to thinking of hearsay as simply repeating something someone else has said. In that way, hearsay is similar to ordinary gossip. This is generally viewed in a negative light for a number of good reasons, not the least of which is that second-hand information is often unreliable.

 

 

Read more at Suite101: The Rule Against Hearsay Evidence: Out-of-Court Statements are Usually Not Admissible in Court http://www.suite101.com/content/the-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-a116993#ixzz1894vO3Jp

 

Where was that photograph taken? Do you have proof it was a mugshot and not a photograph from somewhere else?

 

Justify your condemnation of this lady any way you want. You are the one that has to live with yourself and answer to your maker.

[Guest Guest]

No, they edited the original writings.

 

They wrote the original Gospels.

 

Ever hear of the lost gospels?

 

They are false. Even the protestants back up the Catholic Church as they should anyway.

[Guest Guest]

28 employees of the Catholic Church are protecting their ass.

 

Stupidity.

[Guest Guest]

Why Hearsay is Not Admissible Under the Rules of Evidence

 

One is used to thinking of hearsay as simply repeating something someone else has said. In that way, hearsay is similar to ordinary gossip. This is generally viewed in a negative light for a number of good reasons, not the least of which is that second-hand information is often unreliable.

 

 

Read more at Suite101: The Rule Against Hearsay Evidence: Out-of-Court Statements are Usually Not Admissible in Court http://www.suite101.com/content/the-rule-against-hearsay-evidence-a116993#ixzz1894vO3Jp

 

Where was that photograph taken? Do you have proof it was a mugshot and not a photograph from somewhere else?

 

Justify your condemnation of this lady any way you want. You are the one that has to live with yourself and answer to your maker.

 

 

Whatever. You don't know what you're talking about. I was just disputing your use of the term.

 

But no matter. Condemning someone who commits a crime, does everything they can to cover it up, and then never takes responsibility? And this person is supposed to be a role model for our children? Yeah, I think I can live with that.

[Guest Guest]

Stupidity.

Fact. Learn what a fact is.

[Guest Guest]

Whatever. You don't know what you're talking about. I was just disputing your use of the term.

 

But no matter. Condemning someone who commits a crime, does everything they can to cover it up, and then never takes responsibility? And this person is supposed to be a role model for our children? Yeah, I think I can live with that.

Yeah. I don't know what I'm talking about. Make as many excuses as you want for your sinful agenda.

[Guest Guest]

Fact. Learn what a fact is.

 

The fact is that 28 popes existed BEFORE 300 AD. Thems the facts.

[Guest Guest]

Yeah. I don't know what I'm talking about. Make as many excuses as you want for your sinful agenda.

 

What is my sinful agenda, that you seem to have pegged down so well?

[Guest Guest]

What is my sinful agenda, that you seem to have pegged down so well?

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

[Guest Guest]

The fact is that 28 popes existed BEFORE 300 AD. Thems the facts.

Yeah - "facts" provided by the catholic church. :lol:

[Guest Guest]

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

 

So criticizing someone I believe has committed a wrong is sinful? Then aren't you committing the same wrong you're accusing me of by criticizing me? And do you also mean that no one who commits a wrong should ever be judged on it, held accountable and reprimanded on it, since no one is sin-free?

[Guest Guest]

So criticizing someone I believe has committed a wrong is sinful? Then aren't you committing the same wrong you're accusing me of by criticizing me? And do you also mean that no one who commits a wrong should ever be judged on it, held accountable and reprimanded on it, since no one is sin-free?

You said it.

[Guest Guest]

Yeah - "facts" provided by the catholic church. :lol:

 

Look up the list of popes for yourself. Catholicism not existing before 300 AD is a huge joke! The outline of the Mass Catholics celebrate today was settled by 150 AD!

 

Protestants have no history in ancient Christianity.

[Guest Guest]

Look up the list of popes for yourself. Catholicism not existing before 300 AD is a huge joke! The outline of the Mass Catholics celebrate today was settled by 150 AD!

 

Protestants have no history in ancient Christianity.

Who complied the list? Go change your diaper Poopy Pants. Your holy crap is stinking up the place.

[Guest Guest]

Who complied the list? Go change your diaper Poopy Pants. Your holy crap is stinking up the place.

 

History did.

[Guest Guest]

History did.

History written by the catholic church to suite it's business plan.

[Guest Guest]

You said it.

 

Well, I disagree. I do not think it is wrong/sinful to do it, especially since my belief is based on numerous pieces of information that, when considered in their totality, pretty clearly point to the conclusion I'm suggesting. Also, you should actually answer the questions I posed to you in a substantive manner, rather than resorting to internet gimmicks.

[Guest Guest]

History written by the catholic church to suite it's business plan.

 

Actually, the list of popes is a fact.

[Guest Guest]

Actually, the list of popes is a fact.

 

According to?

[Guest Guest]

Well, I disagree. I do not think it is wrong/sinful to do it, especially since my belief is based on numerous pieces of information that, when considered in their totality, pretty clearly point to the conclusion I'm suggesting. Also, you should actually answer the questions I posed to you in a substantive manner, rather than resorting to internet gimmicks.

Your belief, based on information, not facts, in your opinion, gives you the right to publicly condemn someone.

 

I have answered the question if you can read between the lines. You are anonymously condemning a public person, including referencing her name. If you can't see the problem with that then maybe you are beyond hope. Have a blessed Christmas.

[Guest Guest]

Your belief, based on information, not facts, in your opinion, gives you the right to publicly condemn someone.

 

I have answered the question if you can read between the lines. You are anonymously condemning a public person, including referencing her name. If you can't see the problem with that then maybe you are beyond hope. Have a blessed Christmas.

 

What is the difference between information and facts, in your opinion?

 

In your opinion, is publicly condemning someone always bad?

 

If not, and if this whole situation was applied to (a hypothetical) someone else, what additional piece of information/fact would you require for it to be acceptable?

 

If it is always bad, then why is it okay for you to condemn me? Or for that matter, someone like Hitler? Obviously I'm not, by any means, comparing her to Hitler. I'm just wondering why if publicly condemning someone is always bad, why should it matter how evil we might privately think the subject of condemnation is?

 

I'm not beyond hope. If what you say is true, you should be able to explain and defend it persuasively.