Doc's bishopric Sunday School (Noun or adjective? One word or two?)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.22 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-01-2015, 11:12 AM
RE: Doc's Francophilic Sunday School (Nous sommes Charlie)
TOC: *raises hand for question* Doc, if Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 forbid men from doing it in the cornhole, does that mean that woman are compelled to take it in the booty?

Doc: *looking perplexed* I fail to see the question here.

TOC: Well, my minister was talking about bedroom morality and he said that it is unnatural for a chick to go to 5th base. If that is the case, wouldn't that mean that is not the way a man is supposed to lie with a woman and therefore how can it be a sin if 1 guy "drops" the soap? And if that is NOT true, doesn't it mean that she should allow him to drive the hershey highway if he so desires? I mean, she MUST submit to her man, right?

Doc: uhh....

TOC: And how does that apply to chicks? A woman can't poke another due to the plumbing differences so if one wants to munch some carpet, how can that be a sin?

Doc: I'll get back to you, I need to do some research on The Hun...........

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
14-01-2015, 12:28 PM
RE: Doc's Francophilic Sunday School (Nous sommes Charlie)
(14-01-2015 11:12 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  TOC: *raises hand for question* Doc, if Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 forbid men from doing it in the cornhole, does that mean that woman are compelled to take it in the booty?

Doc: *looking perplexed* I fail to see the question here.

TOC: Well, my minister was talking about bedroom morality and he said that it is unnatural for a chick to go to 5th base. If that is the case, wouldn't that mean that is not the way a man is supposed to lie with a woman and therefore how can it be a sin if 1 guy "drops" the soap? And if that is NOT true, doesn't it mean that she should allow him to drive the hershey highway if he so desires? I mean, she MUST submit to her man, right?

Doc: uhh....

TOC: And how does that apply to chicks? A woman can't poke another due to the plumbing differences so if one wants to munch some carpet, how can that be a sin?

Doc: I'll get back to you, I need to do some research on The Hun...........

Doc (perplexed): I know this is English, but I can't make head or tail of it. How can I intercourse with you if I don't understand you? We must couple together to iron out our differences. There are probably 69 different ways we can do that. Let's not have any hanky-panky.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
14-01-2015, 04:35 PM
RE: Doc's Francophilic Sunday School (Nous sommes Charlie)
(14-01-2015 12:28 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 11:12 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  TOC: *raises hand for question* Doc, if Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 forbid men from doing it in the cornhole, does that mean that woman are compelled to take it in the booty?

Doc: *looking perplexed* I fail to see the question here.

TOC: Well, my minister was talking about bedroom morality and he said that it is unnatural for a chick to go to 5th base. If that is the case, wouldn't that mean that is not the way a man is supposed to lie with a woman and therefore how can it be a sin if 1 guy "drops" the soap? And if that is NOT true, doesn't it mean that she should allow him to drive the hershey highway if he so desires? I mean, she MUST submit to her man, right?

Doc: uhh....

TOC: And how does that apply to chicks? A woman can't poke another due to the plumbing differences so if one wants to munch some carpet, how can that be a sin?

Doc: I'll get back to you, I need to do some research on The Hun...........

Doc (perplexed): I know this is English, but I can't make head or tail of it. How can I intercourse with you if I don't understand you? We must couple together to iron out our differences. There are probably 69 different ways we can do that. Let's not have any hanky-panky.

You two need to come together and get to the naked truth. Rolleyes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
14-01-2015, 05:44 PM
RE: Doc's Francophilic Sunday School (Nous sommes Charlie)
(14-01-2015 12:28 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 11:12 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  TOC: *raises hand for question* Doc, if Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 forbid men from doing it in the cornhole, does that mean that woman are compelled to take it in the booty?

Doc: *looking perplexed* I fail to see the question here.

TOC: Well, my minister was talking about bedroom morality and he said that it is unnatural for a chick to go to 5th base. If that is the case, wouldn't that mean that is not the way a man is supposed to lie with a woman and therefore how can it be a sin if 1 guy "drops" the soap? And if that is NOT true, doesn't it mean that she should allow him to drive the hershey highway if he so desires? I mean, she MUST submit to her man, right?

Doc: uhh....

TOC: And how does that apply to chicks? A woman can't poke another due to the plumbing differences so if one wants to munch some carpet, how can that be a sin?

Doc: I'll get back to you, I need to do some research on The Hun...........

Doc (perplexed): I know this is English, but I can't make head or tail of it. How can I intercourse with you if I don't understand you? We must couple together to iron out our differences. There are probably 69 different ways we can do that. Let's not have any hanky-panky.

TOC: thanks for the raw truth. That minister was obviously impacted but some huge bias. I'll let Rev Haggard know of your deeply penetrating and fabulous reply.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
26-01-2015, 08:43 AM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2015 11:26 AM by docskeptic.)
RE: Doc's obstetric Sunday School (delivering the Gospel since 2013)
Doc: OK, boys and girls, let's turn our attention to the book of Habbakuk.

TOC: Oh, we're done with Daniel, then?

Doc: Yes, we've have had quite enough dissection of that book, thank you very much.

TOC: Well, if we're going to be talking about Habbakuk, we should start in the book of Daniel.

Doc (startled): What?

TOC: Yes, we read about him in Daniel 14.

Doc: But Daniel only has 12 chapters.

TOC: Not in the Catholic Bible. It has 14 chapters there and in the last chapter, we hear of Daniel being thrown into the lion's den for the second time for discomfiting the priests of Bel and for destroying a dragon. While Daniel was in the lion's den, an angel grabbed the prophet Habbakuk by the hair while he was delivering some soup to some farm-workers and carried him to Babylon, where he delivered the soup to Daniel, thereby saving his life.

Doc: By the hair? From Israel to Babylon? And back?

TOC: Yes

Doc: Sounds painful. Why didn't God just materialize a bowl of soup for Daniel?

TOC: More flamboyant this way, don't you think?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like docskeptic's post
26-01-2015, 08:48 AM
RE: Doc's obstetric Sunday School (delivering the Gospel since 2013)
Alright doc, obvious question, why's it in the Catholic bible and not the good ol' KJV? It *can't* be because it was ruled "too preposterous", so what gives?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2015, 08:51 AM
RE: Doc's obstetric Sunday School (delivering the Gospel since 2013)
From back of room:

FC: Sounds legit. What kind of soup?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2015, 10:19 AM
RE: Doc's obstetric Sunday School (delivering the Gospel since 2013)
(26-01-2015 08:51 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  From back of room:

FC: Sounds legit. What kind of soup?

Well, by the time they got to Babylon, the soup was ice cold. That's how gazpacho was invented.
Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
26-01-2015, 12:29 PM
RE: Doc's obstetric Sunday School (delivering the Gospel since 2013)
TOC: But the KJV is the original text.

Doc *eyebrow raised*: You are aware that the KJV was still a translation, right?

TOC: Whatever. If English is good enough for god, it's good enough for me.

Doc: Facepalm

TOC: Anyway, about Daniel and Habakkuk. Why didn't Habakkuk write down this story and therefore provide a more detailed account of this miraculous flight? Otherwise, we only hear this story from versions that have the Story of Bel and the Dragon.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2015, 09:45 AM
RE: Doc's obstetric Sunday School (delivering the Gospel since 2013)
(26-01-2015 08:48 AM)morondog Wrote:  Alright doc, obvious question, why's it in the Catholic bible and not the good ol' KJV? It *can't* be because it was ruled "too preposterous", so what gives?

OK, there's a long answer and a short answer. I'm too lazy to type up the long one, so here goes. Short answer: Catholics are more gullible than Protestants.

While Protestants "only" have to believe that there is a God and that Jesus is his son, Catholics also have to believe that a man in a pointy hat, a shepherd's crook and kidney stones is also God's representative on earth and that "that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam)

Not surprisingly, if you believe in this obvious folderol, believing that Daniel was fed by an angel delivering soup while holding the delivery boy by the hair is mere child's play.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: