– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, Fred, " I do wonder why I exist at times." – A question I ask myself off and on. I have no answer but since I believe in God, maybe that’s where this puzzle we call life all comes full circle… smiles, Elise "Each man’s life touches so many other lives, and when he isn’t around he leaves an awful hole, doesn’t he?"~*~ ~ Clarence ~ George Bailey’s Guardian Angel from the film, "It’s a Wonderful Life" I do wonder why I exist at times. I do know that I have been directly responsible for saving 2 peoples lives. I guess this is one of my purposes. My life has not turned out like I wanted it but I still hang on. There are times where I wish I could just sublimate – just vaporize into a non-existant state. Not having to go through a suicide but just to disappear. I know this is not possible so I just go on. — The charter is available at:http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm — The charter is available at:http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm – Show quoted text –

One of the more interesting things is how my faith in God has increased and how my faith in the Christian religion has waned.  I used to be forced to go to Sunday school when I had bad ADHD.   Being forced to sit still in Sunday school and then being fed with things that I didn’t beleive in was excutiating.  As I grew older, I believed less and less.  There is a supreme being or divine spirit that holds everything together.  Both the genetic code for the impulses in the human brain and the expanding universe are both totally beyond my scope of comprehension but the fact that both exist are proof that some supreme being has the power to create and direct both.  I just look at Christmas as a time of giving and Thanksgiving for family, food, and shelter and any other blessing that you have.  Not the Roman pagan holiday that this day stems from. — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Each man’s life touches so many other lives, and when he isn’t around he leaves an awful hole, doesn’t he?"~*~   ~ Clarence ~ George Bailey’s Guardian Angel from the film, "It’s a Wonderful Life" I do wonder why I exist at times.  I do know that I have been directly responsible for saving 2 peoples lives.  I guess this is one of my purposes.  My life has not turned out like I wanted it but I still hang on.  There are times where I wish I could just sublimate – just vaporize into a non-existant state.  Not having to go through a suicide but just to disappear.  I know this is not possible so I just go on.

You are not alone. Sometimes I feel the same. Saving 2 lifes was one of your purposes, but I know what you mean. Sometimes you wonder in general, what the purpose of your life is. Just my own thoughts and observations, but it seems to me that people who have had very fulfilling busy lives, good health, satisfying relationships and got most things they want in life – not material things in particular seem to be the happiest. I always wish I had had better relationships, which gives your life so much more fulfillment and purpose. People who have not felt they had the best life because of circumstances or luck or bad choices they made, can have a lot of regrets. I read a good article about regrets recently and those were some of the thoughts the article conveyed. Everybody has some regrets, but some people seem to be able to move on past them better than others. But we all have our own genetic makeup, coping abilities, individual natures, personalities, life experiences, and have to live within our own limitations which is not always easy and not always what we want to do. Just my own "off the top of my head" philosophical thoughts. Not exactly your topic, but a spinoff. Mary — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm

Response:

Hi, Fred, " I do wonder why I exist at times." – A question I ask myself off and on. I have no answer but since I believe in God, maybe that’s where this puzzle we call life all comes full circle… smiles, Elise

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Each man’s life touches so many other lives, and when he isn’t around he leaves an awful hole, doesn’t he?"~*~  ~ Clarence ~ George Bailey’s Guardian Angel from the film, "It’s a Wonderful Life" I do wonder why I exist at times.  I do know that I have been directly responsible for saving 2 peoples lives.  I guess this is one of my purposes.  My life has not turned out like I wanted it but I still hang on.  There are times where I wish I could just sublimate – just vaporize into a non-existant state.  Not having to go through a suicide but just to disappear.  I know this is not possible so I just go on. — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm

– The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm

Response:

"Each man’s life touches so many other lives, and when he isn’t around he leaves an awful hole, doesn’t he?"~*~   ~ Clarence ~ George Bailey’s Guardian Angel from the film, "It’s a Wonderful Life" I do wonder why I exist at times.  I do know that I have been directly responsible for saving 2 peoples lives.  I guess this is one of my purposes.  My life has not turned out like I wanted it but I still hang on.  There are times where I wish I could just sublimate – just vaporize into a non-existant state.  Not having to go through a suicide but just to disappear.  I know this is not possible so I just go on. — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm

Response:

I do wonder why I exist at times.  I do know that I have been directly responsible for saving 2 peoples lives.  I guess this is one of my purposes.  My life has not turned out like I wanted it but I still hang on.  There are times where I wish I could just sublimate – just vaporize into a non-existant state.  Not having to go through a suicide but just to disappear.  I know this is not possible so I just go on.

I feel the same way, Fred.  There is nothing else to do, but go on, so we go on.  I’d love to vaporize, too. kili — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm

Response:

Doug — Supah!!! Great job! Stick with your method! It’s working GREAT for you! Yours, Caleb

Response:

I’m still on my trip to visit family in the U.S. (Boston), and still on my diet. This week was a good week – down 1.6 kg = 3.5 lb. Last week I didn’t lost anything, but all the other weeks I’ve been here this month I’ve had good weight losses each week. My diet method: Low-cal plus exercise – 1700 calories/day limit plus 1000 weekly bonus calories (avoids frustration of strict daily limit); can carryover leftover calories to next day (add to bonus); can subtract logged exercise calories from daily calorie intake (an incentive to exercise); bonus is reset each Friday to 1000 + anything leftover from 1700×7 calories from the week before. Numbers from this week: Days on diet: 84 Weight (kg): 126.5 – 111.8 (14.7 kg lost!) Weight (lb): 278.3 – 246.0 (32.3 lb lost!) Lb/Week average loss: 2.70 BMI: 41.8 – 36.9 Percent body mass lost: 11.6% Percent done to goal of 79 kg: 31% Almost 1/3rd done with the weight loss phase of my diet! doug

Response:

Nope — not a biologist, although that sounds like one heck of a fascinating field. Caleb is a pretty unusual name (hard to pronounce, people sometimes think it’s a female name, etc.) and that’s one reason we didn’t give it to our son (and he’s happy we didnt’, I can tell you!). Yours, Caleb

Response:

Great job! Stick with your method! It’s working GREAT for you! Yours, Caleb

Well now that’s creepy.  I used to know a Caleb B.  And it strikes me teleport is a once-existing outfit up in the pacific northwest, where I’m from, altho I get ‘no address associated with nodename’ for it now. Man.  That’s eerie.  You’re not a biologist too, are you? -Tay

Response:

Nope — not a biologist, although that sounds like one heck of a fascinating field. Caleb is a pretty unusual name (hard to pronounce, people sometimes think it’s a female name, etc.) and that’s one reason we didn’t give it to our son (and he’s happy we didnt’, I can tell you!).

Well I imagine you know it is a name from the Judeo-Christian religion. Caleb was a Judahite who spied out Canaan and encouraged the Israelites to take possession of the land. — Matthew Slow and steady wins the race.

Response:

great news, I hope your father is continuing to improve, Lee

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m still on my trip to visit family in the U.S. (Boston), and still on my diet. This week was a good week – down 1.6 kg = 3.5 lb. Last week I didn’t lost anything, but all the other weeks I’ve been here this month I’ve had good weight losses each week. My diet method: Low-cal plus exercise – 1700 calories/day limit plus 1000 weekly bonus calories (avoids frustration of strict daily limit); can carryover leftover calories to next day (add to bonus); can subtract logged exercise calories from daily calorie intake (an incentive to exercise); bonus is reset each Friday to 1000 + anything leftover from 1700×7 calories from the week before. Numbers from this week: Days on diet: 84 Weight (kg): 126.5 – 111.8 (14.7 kg lost!) Weight (lb): 278.3 – 246.0 (32.3 lb lost!) Lb/Week average loss: 2.70 BMI: 41.8 – 36.9 Percent body mass lost: 11.6% Percent done to goal of 79 kg: 31% Almost 1/3rd done with the weight loss phase of my diet! doug

Response:

Here another Forger Faris Jawad!!! The headers don’t lie….

But Tarzan, you should know that there was a newsgroup Faris Jawad who came before the Faris Jawad you mistakenly call the original. Ask Cheetah, he’ll tell you.

Response:

THE AGENDA OF ISLAM – A WAR BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS

If that’s what the asslifters want, they’ll get it, only it won’t be a war, it’ll be the Mother of all Ethnic Cleansings —

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Political Framework of Islam By IOL  Team The political system of Islam is based on the three principles of Tawheed (Oneness of Allah), risalah (prophethood) and khilafah (humans’ moral responsibility). Tawheed means that Allah (God) alone is the One and Only Creator, Sustainer and Master of the universe. He alone has the right to command or forbid. Worship and obedience are due to Him alone. Hence, it is not for us to set the ethical and moral codes or invent our frames of reference, though every nation, group or individual is entitled to contextualize Allah’s commandments and guidance that were revealed in succeeding religious messages within their own time and space; hence religious devotion is a dynamic and not a static condition. This principle of the Oneness of Allah does not contradict the concept of the legal and political sovereignty of the political community; hence the different models of Islamic democratic governance through Islamic history. The risalah is the message of the prophets. Islam is the last revealed religion and the Qur’an is the last testament. Muslims believe in the previous messengers and their messages and their original and authentic Holy Books. The Qur’an lays down the broad principles on which human life should be based universally, as it is the last revealed message from Allah, and Muhammad, the Prophet of Allah, established a model system of Islamic life in accordance with these principles. The combination of these two elements – Tawheed and risalah – is called the  Shari ‘ah (Law). Khilafah means representation. Humans – both men and women – according to Islam, are the representatives of Allah on earth, His vicegerents. To illustrate what the previous notions mean, let us take the example of an estate of yours which someone else has been appointed to administer. There are four conditions in this relation: First, the real ownership of the estate remains vested in you and not in the administrator; second, he administers your property directly in accordance with your instructions; third, he exercises his authority within the limits prescribed by you; and fourth, in the administration of the trust he executes your will and fulfills your intentions and not his own. Any representative who does not fulfill these four conditions will be abusing his authority and breaking the covenant which was implied in the concept of delegation. This is exactly what Islam means when it affirms that man is the representative (khalifah) of Allah on earth. Hence, these four conditions are also involved in the concept of khalifah. The state that is established in accordance with this political theory will, in fact, be a caliphate under the sovereignty of Allah. It should rule with the power of the people in accordance with the principles of justice and welfare. Such a society carries the responsibility of the khilafah as a whole, and each one of its individuals shares in it. Hence the form of Islamic government might be called theo-democracy, a combination fully different from the Western historical experience of the relation between church and state. http://islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/topic08.shtml

Islamic law and order

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – THE AGENDA OF ISLAM – A WAR BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS by Dr. Maurice Bucaille There is no Fundamental Islam "Fundamentalism" is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted. All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic. The Language of Islam You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that doing this is like a cricket reporter describing a cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you’ve got to use the language of Islam. Driving Principles of Islam Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God. But it’s not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem. But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible. The Bible Let me explain the difference. The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways. In Judaism, it leads to national salvation – not just a nation that wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That’s the idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible. The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation, which, from time to time, meet each other. But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this fact of salvation. Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don’t just walk around and obliterate the image of God. Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honoring the image of God and the hope of salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals. The Essence of Islam Now let’s move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world. Let’s look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation – namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sins, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions." The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam. When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years – 640 – the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day. Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems. Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat, which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the Evangelion or Gospel – namely the New Testament. The Bible versus the Koran Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran? Mohammed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now]. Nevertheless, the laws are very clear – Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them. Islamic Rule and Jihad What happens if Jews and Christians don’t want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don’t want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That’s jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don’t have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East – their war is against the Jews and Christians. A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia where no Christians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet. Two Houses The Koran sees the world as divided into two – one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it. The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) – that’s the place where Islam rules – and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb – the house of war. Not the "house of non-Muslims," but the "house of war." It is this house of war which has to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule. This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it’s so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions. Islamic Law Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict. In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law. However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these schools of laws. The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it’s war. There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war. These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we’re talking

… read more »

Response:

THE AGENDA OF ISLAM – A WAR BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS by Dr. Maurice Bucaille There is no Fundamental Islam The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule. This is the NORM. Why? Because Allah says it’s so in the Koran.  It’s not a war that stops. This war is there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end.

In other words;  "KILL THE INFIDEL."  Great religion you have there. Believe as I do;  There is no option.

Response:

Here another Forger Faris Jawad!!! The headers don’t lie…. Islam will replace collapsing Amerikan empire Path: news.east.grouptelecom.net!newsfeed.east.grouptelecom.net!news.alt.net!news .glorb.com!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam.arabic,soc.culture. usa,aus.religion.islam Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 369 NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.159.212.24 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" GMT) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=4.159.212.24;    posting-account=jZciEwwAAAAnGXx0ncanhugPixPUqq39 Xref: news.east.grouptelecom.net alt.religion.islam:319463 uk.religion.islam:92454 soc.culture.usa:520227 aus.religion.islam:42519

Response:

THE AGENDA OF ISLAM – A WAR BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS by Dr. Maurice Bucaille There is no Fundamental Islam "Fundamentalism" is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted. All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic. The Language of Islam You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that doing this is like a cricket reporter describing a cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you’ve got to use the language of Islam. Driving Principles of Islam Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God. But it’s not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem. But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible. The Bible Let me explain the difference. The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways. In Judaism, it leads to national salvation – not just a nation that wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That’s the idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible. The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation, which, from time to time, meet each other. But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this fact of salvation. Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don’t just walk around and obliterate the image of God. Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honoring the image of God and the hope of salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals. The Essence of Islam Now let’s move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world. Let’s look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation – namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sins, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions." The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam. When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years – 640 – the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day. Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems. Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat, which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the Evangelion or Gospel – namely the New Testament. The Bible versus the Koran Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran? Mohammed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now]. Nevertheless, the laws are very clear – Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them. Islamic Rule and Jihad What happens if Jews and Christians don’t want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don’t want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That’s jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don’t have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East – their war is against the Jews and Christians. A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia where no Christians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet. Two Houses The Koran sees the world as divided into two – one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it. The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) – that’s the place where Islam rules – and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb – the house of war. Not the "house of non-Muslims," but the "house of war." It is this house of war which has to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule. This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it’s so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions. Islamic Law Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict. In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law. However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these schools of laws. The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it’s war. There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war. These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we’re talking about fighting against the Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the Hanbali school of law that is being followed. Islam and Territory This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually … read more »

Response:

Kris Baker wrote And lo, Andrew Heenan didst speak in alt.www.webmaster,alt.www.marketing,alt.marketing.online.ebay: They are only ‘legit’ if they have subscribed … opted in to receive them. And if they’ve opted in, they will be unlikely to have you blocked. I used to think so, but actually working in "the biz" I’ve learned it’s not always the case.  We occasionally send out an email newsletter to our customers which no one specifically opted-in for. That’s from YOUR side; it’s spam from MY side.

That’s why we have deranged loonies, for balance. — Charles Sweeney http://CharlesSweeney.com

Response:

And lo, Kris Baker didst speak in muchos newsgroups: And lo, Andrew Heenan didst speak in some places: They are only ‘legit’ if they have subscribed … opted in to receive   them. And if they’ve opted in, they will be unlikely to have you blocked. I used to think so, but actually working in "the biz" I’ve learned it’s   not always the case.  We occasionally send out an email newsletter to   our customers which no one specifically opted-in for. That’s from YOUR side; it’s spam from MY side.

If one of my emailings ever reaches your inbox, cupcake, please go ahead   and report me.  We have a list of customers, all of whom have invested   significant amounts[1] of money in our equipment.  No one has begrudged us   a simple newsletter, for updates and new product news, yet. Grey [1] Top-of-the-line ATI graphics card?  Hah, that’s kid-stuff. — The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the   pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous. – http://www.greywyvern.com/ringmaker – Orca Ringmaker: Host a web ring    from your website!

Response:

Do you have any idea why motions to take action against spam take so long  and mutate so much while being voted on in various countries?   It’s not  because they don’t *want* to take action.  Rather it’s because it’s *not*  as cut-and-dry as you’d like to believe.

The problem is getting a single definition of "spam." Oh, in *most* cases you’re correct.  But cold-calls, and *targetted*   cold-emails, still bring a lot of small businesses livelyhood which they  couldn’t get otherwise.

That’s true too. I myself have sent a number of people unsolicited emails to potential   customers, offering to redevelop their website.  Most of them politely   decline.  According to your logic, that was me spamming.

Mmmm – were they one-to-one emails? The most commonly accepted definition I’ve seen is "unsolicited" + "bulk". One-to-one unsolicited emails aren’t spam, by that definition. — Coming to you from Southern California’s High Desert, where the temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638) "Life’s like an hourglass glued to the table"   –Anna Nalick, "Breathe"

Response:

And lo, JC Dill didst speak in some alts: Anytime you send marketing emails to an address that was not confirmed by the subscriber as desiring said emails, you ARE spamming.

Do you have any idea why motions to take action against spam take so long   and mutate so much while being voted on in various countries?  It’s not   because they don’t *want* to take action.  Rather it’s because it’s *not*   as cut-and-dry as you’d like to believe. Oh, in *most* cases you’re correct.  But cold-calls, and *targetted*   cold-emails, still bring a lot of small businesses livelyhood which they   couldn’t get otherwise. I myself have sent a number of people unsolicited emails to potential   customers, offering to redevelop their website.  Most of them politely   decline.  According to your logic, that was me spamming. You’d actually be right in more cases if you added "bulk" to your list of   criteria. Grey — The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the   pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous. – http://www.greywyvern.com/ringmaker – Orca Ringmaker: Host a web ring    from your website!

Response:

And lo, Charles Sweeney didst speak in a bunch of newsgroups: Kris Baker wrote Crikey, the competition is intense in here for the most-dense-poster   award.

Viper and Karim both seem to be away, so it truly *is* a wide open field. Grey

Response:

He’s an old time regular here (alt.www.webmaster). If Ship says they are legitimate recipients, then they will be just that. Thanks for the support, Matt! Sometimes people can be *stupidly* cynical and fail to answer questions on the merits of the question and nobody gets anywhere!

Why are you posting this to alt.marketing.online.ebay?  This isn’t about eBay.  It’s off topic for this newsgroup. If you want to ask questions about mail server rate limiting and spam, I suggest you find groups that discuss those topics, instead of posting on a group that discusses eBay.  One group where this is on-topic is a mailing list called spam-l.  NOTE:  Unless your list is confirmed opt-in, you will not be given ANY assistance on spam-l. Confirmed opt-in means that your subscribers must confirm via email that they have elected to receive mail from your list, before you "add" them to the list or send them any "marketing" emails.  Anytime you send marketing emails to an address that was not confirmed by the subscriber as desiring said emails, you ARE spamming. jc

Response:

Kris Baker wrote – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi We keep getting caught by the spam filters on the larger mailservers when we market to our own legit customers! If your customers want to be on your mailing lists, remind them when they sign up for the list that they should whitelist you in their spam filter. These aren’t sign-ups; he *purchased* this names.

Crikey, the competition is intense in here for the most-dense-poster award. — Charles Sweeney http://CharlesSweeney.com

Response:

And lo, Andrew Heenan didst speak in alt.www.webmaster,alt.www.marketing,alt.marketing.online.ebay: They are only ‘legit’ if they have subscribed … opted in to receive them. And if they’ve opted in, they will be unlikely to have you blocked. I used to think so, but actually working in "the biz" I’ve learned it’s not always the case.  We occasionally send out an email newsletter to our customers which no one specifically opted-in for.

That’s from YOUR side; it’s spam from MY side.

Response:

ship wrote We have about 30,000 legitimate users on our database.

Yum yum! — Charles Sweeney http://CharlesSweeney.com

Response:

bp wrote Hi We keep getting caught by the spam filters on the larger mailservers when we market to our own legit customers! If your customers want to be on your mailing lists, remind them when they sign up for the list that they should whitelist you in their spam filter.

Or remind them not to use filters that block legitimate mail. — Charles Sweeney http://CharlesSweeney.com

Response:

And lo, Andrew Heenan didst speak in   alt.www.webmaster,alt.www.marketing,alt.marketing.online.ebay: They are only ‘legit’ if they have subscribed … opted in to receive   them. And if they’ve opted in, they will be unlikely to have you blocked.

I used to think so, but actually working in "the biz" I’ve learned it’s   not always the case.  We occasionally send out an email newsletter to our   customers which no one specifically opted-in for. However, all of our customers on the email list have previously purchased   some of our not-fscking-cheap electronics, and what we email them is news   of newly released products and upgrades they can take advantage of.  There   are close to 80 people on my main list, and I’ve sent out a number of   "waves", one even with a 400kB PDF attachment![1] No complaints yet.  However, I am *quite* sure our domain is on many of   their whitelists. Grey [1] I *did* notify our host before doing this — The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the   pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous. – http://www.greywyvern.com/ringmaker – Orca Ringmaker: Host a web ring    from your website!

Response:

Hi We keep getting caught by the spam filters on the larger mailservers when we market to our own legit customers! If your customers want to be on your mailing lists, remind them when they sign up for the list that they should whitelist you in their spam filter.

These aren’t sign-ups; he *purchased* this names. Kris

Response:

ship wrote – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – He’s an old time regular here (alt.www.webmaster). If Ship says they are legitimate recipients, then they will be just that. Thanks for the support, Matt! Sometimes people can be *stupidly* cynical and fail to answer questions on the merits of the question and nobody gets anywhere! Okay here’s the deal. We have about 30,000 legitimate users on our database.  It cost us a *lot* of money to acquire them through legitimate marketing channels (much of it printed media, fwiw), so we are extremely careful about how and when we contact them. We dice and slice the database and send messages that are often pretty much hand-crafted to users – (depending upon what they have expressed an interest in before.) Our emails are pretty much like hand crafted letters that we write to our customers. We try to avoid some of the more obvious trigger words much as "free" and "unsubscribe" [Anyone know of a good up-to-date, comprehensive list, incidentally. Or better yet an online tool one can use to test copy for filtered words...?] HOWEVER what we have previously found is that if we send out emails TOO FAST, then the big domain mailservers (e.g. AOL, Hotmail, yahoo etc) may assume that we are spamming them. So we not trickle the emails out… but I am suspicous that we are still sending them out too fast. As an aside we recently seem to have have discovered that including *any* images seems to lower the response rates. And again our suspicion is that our mail is being filtered our as spam somewhere along the line! As you can see below the *specific* problem today was that our own internal emails have been intercepted by "http://spamcop.net/". And yes I have been trying to contact our ISP to find out more. HOWEVER I didnt ask about our specific problems of today, I asked if there were any "industry norms" of how fast to send out emails etc, that we would be well advised to stick to so as to avoid similar problems in future. Obviously I *could* contact www.spamcop.net too, but I wanted to know what you guys thought that the current state of play is. So… no we are NOT sending out unsolicited emails – and YES our users have explicitly requested to get the information from us on a regular basis. So finally… how fast *should* we be sending out our emails?! with thanks Ship P.S. Are any of you guys also using  btconnect.com  (like us) ? They are ABSOLUTELY AWEFUL in our experience. Many emails not arriving for hours and hours, sometimes days. But they have tied us into a 12 month contract from which they wont let us escape without a punishing financial penalty! I wouldnt recommend them to my worst enemy! Okay, yes I would but only my WORST enemy… P.P.S. here are the bounces of this morning for what they are worth. And dont look too closely because I have stripped out any identifying information! —–Original Message—– Sent: 22 June 2005 13:16 http://spamcop.net/ (from mill.xxx-edited-out-xxx.co.uk) (BST) from host811-130-161-20.in-addrr.btopenworld.com [811.130.161.20]    —– The following addresses had permanent delivery errors —– Message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; c2bt1homr03.btconnect.com X-Message-Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 553 5.3.0 Rejected – SPAM from 194.73.173.211 – see http://spamcop.net/ Action: failed Status: 5.1.3 Remote-MTA: DNS; mill.xxx-edited-out-xxx.co.uk Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 553 5.3.0 Rejected – SPAM from 194.73.73.211 – see http://spamcop.net/

A real-life example of how the futile "fight" against spam, achieves nothing other than fucking up innocent users. — Charles Sweeney http://CharlesSweeney.com

Response:

Hi We keep getting caught by the spam filters on the larger mailservers when we market to our own legit customers!

If your customers want to be on your mailing lists, remind them when they sign up for the list that they should whitelist you in their spam filter.

Response:

@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: We keep getting caught by the spam filters on the larger mailservers when we market to our own legit customers!

Sorry. Ive run ISP servers including mailservers. I dont think this is a problem of innocence. We always had alternatives available such as elists or off-hour queues. If you are overloading their server then do one of your own. Any old computer in the closet will work. Gandalf  Parker

Response:

He’s an old time regular here (alt.www.webmaster). If Ship says they are legitimate recipients, then they will be just that.

Thanks for the support, Matt! Sometimes people can be *stupidly* cynical and fail to answer questions on the merits of the question and nobody gets anywhere! Okay here’s the deal. We have about 30,000 legitimate users on our database.  It cost us a *lot* of money to acquire them through legitimate marketing channels (much of it printed media, fwiw), so we are extremely careful about how and when we contact them. We dice and slice the database and send messages that are often pretty much hand-crafted to users – (depending upon what they have expressed an interest in before.) Our emails are pretty much like hand crafted letters that we write to our customers. We try to avoid some of the more obvious trigger words much as "free" and "unsubscribe" [Anyone know of a good up-to-date, comprehensive list, incidentally. Or better yet an online tool one can use to test copy for filtered words...?] HOWEVER what we have previously found is that if we send out emails TOO FAST, then the big domain mailservers (e.g. AOL, Hotmail, yahoo etc) may assume that we are spamming them. So we not trickle the emails out… but I am suspicous that we are still sending them out too fast. As an aside we recently seem to have have discovered that including *any* images seems to lower the response rates. And again our suspicion is that our mail is being filtered our as spam somewhere along the line! As you can see below the *specific* problem today was that our own internal emails have been intercepted by "http://spamcop.net/". And yes I have been trying to contact our ISP to find out more. HOWEVER I didnt ask about our specific problems of today, I asked if there were any "industry norms" of how fast to send out emails etc, that we would be well advised to stick to so as to avoid similar problems in future. Obviously I *could* contact www.spamcop.net too, but I wanted to know what you guys thought that the current state of play is. So… no we are NOT sending out unsolicited emails – and YES our users have explicitly requested to get the information from us on a regular basis. So finally… how fast *should* we be sending out our emails?! with thanks Ship P.S. Are any of you guys also using  btconnect.com  (like us) ? They are ABSOLUTELY AWEFUL in our experience. Many emails not arriving for hours and hours, sometimes days. But they have tied us into a 12 month contract from which they wont let us escape without a punishing financial penalty! I wouldnt recommend them to my worst enemy! Okay, yes I would but only my WORST enemy… P.P.S. here are the bounces of this morning for what they are worth. And dont look too closely because I have stripped out any identifying information! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ——Original Message—– Sent: 22 June 2005 13:16 http://spamcop.net/ (from mill.xxx-edited-out-xxx.co.uk) (BST) from host811-130-161-20.in-addrr.btopenworld.com [811.130.161.20]    —– The following addresses had permanent delivery errors —– Message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; c2bt1homr03.btconnect.com X-Message-Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 553 5.3.0 Rejected – SPAM from 194.73.173.211 – see http://spamcop.net/ Action: failed Status: 5.1.3 Remote-MTA: DNS; mill.xxx-edited-out-xxx.co.uk Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 553 5.3.0 Rejected – SPAM from 194.73.73.211 – see http://spamcop.net/

Response:

You are a fucking arse.  Ship is a regular in AWW, and good bloke. — Charles Sweeney http://CharlesSweeney.com

I’ve no idea whether Ship is a good bloke or otherwise, but until I hear anything different, I’ll believe his post and wont jump to any conclusions. I’d echo William: we need to know more… It sounds like it is the outgoing servers that are the problem – I dont see how many different recipient servers could form a view on his email rate. In which case, a call to his hosting company is in order. If the problem lies with the destination or intermediate servers, then this problem is likely to be something else, in which case we need to know about what he is sending and how… Chris

Response:

muttered You are a fucking arse.  Ship is a regular in AWW, and good bloke. — Charles Sweeney http://CharlesSweeney.com I’ve no idea whether Ship is a good bloke or otherwise, but until I hear anything different, I’ll believe his post and wont jump to any conclusions.

He’s an old time regular here (alt.www.webmaster). If Ship says they are legitimate recipients, then they will be just that. Which leads me to guess the "spam filters" are intermediate (perhaps at AOL or Road Runner for example) and the intended recipients are not receiving the email. Matt — Affordable budget advertising available. Banner ads, skyscrapers, rectangles and half-pages. Please email to discuss your requirements.

Response:

something like: We keep getting caught by the spam filters on the larger mailservers when we market to our own legit customers! I think it may be because we are sending out emails too fast. – Does anyone know what are the industry norms? – How many emails per hour is one allowed to send from one IP number before a mail-server decides to attack all your mail?!

I’m not aware of any industry norms; it depends on the server configuration.  However, I’m sure the larger, older mailing lists send out comparable volumes, so I doubt the volume is the issue.  You’d need to be more specific about the problem to get more specific answers–are your messages going into spam folders and never being read?  Are they being bounced back with an error message (and if so, what message)?  Does the welcome message to subscribers include a reminder that they will need to whitelist your mailing list to ensure it is not caught by bulk mail filters? -Bertha — As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents.        – George Orwell, the Road to Wigan Pier

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hi We keep getting caught by the spam filters on the larger mailservers when we market to our own legit customers! I think it may be because we are sending out emails too fast. – Does anyone know what are the industry norms? – How many emails per hour is one allowed to send from one IP number before a mail-server decides to attack all your mail?! with thanks Ship Shiperton Henethe

Post your request over at news.admin.net-abuse.email.  The group is populated with hundreds of sys admins and abuse-desk managers, and I’m just *ever* so sure they’ll be happy to give you advice.  Lots of it, probably. — Ty Who is mostly just a slightly skewed Donna Reed A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. –Edward Abbey

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi We keep getting caught by the spam filters on the larger mailservers when we market to our own legit customers! I think it may be because we are sending out emails too fast. – Does anyone know what are the industry norms? – How many emails per hour is one allowed to send from one IP number before a mail-server decides to attack all your mail?! with thanks Ship Shiperton Henethe

Response:

Andrew Heenan wrote – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "ship" wrote … We keep getting caught by the spam filters on the larger mailservers when we market to our own legit customers! I think it may be because we are sending out emails too fast. – Does anyone know what are the industry norms? – How many emails per hour is one allowed to send from one IP number before a mail-server decides to attack all your mail?! They are only ‘legit’ if they have subscribed … opted in to receive them. And if they’ve opted in, they will be unlikely to have you blocked. If you are sending ‘by the hour’ It’s almost certainly spam. If you send spam, many will trigger not just filters, but spam reports; manual or robot. Once there’s been enough reports, then all future mail will be filtered straight to spam folders. So even those who opted in will be denied a spammer’s newletter, because of the complaints. Spam filters are getting better by the week – and there’s so many, using so many different technologies, that the best answer is the simplest. Don’t spam.

You are a fucking arse.  Ship is a regular in AWW, and good bloke. — Charles Sweeney http://CharlesSweeney.com

Response:

Hi We keep getting caught by the spam filters on the larger mailservers when we market to our own legit customers! I think it may be because we are sending out emails too fast. – Does anyone know what are the industry norms? – How many emails per hour is one allowed to send from one IP number before a mail-server decides to attack all your mail?! with thanks Ship Shiperton Henethe

Response:

Writing in    From the safety of the http://groups.google.com cafeteria Hi

How do you do? We keep getting caught by the spam filters on the larger mailservers when we market to our own legit customers!

Please specify – is this your own/hosts/ISPs mail server or the target   mail server that is causing the issue? I think it may be because we are sending out emails too fast. – Does anyone know what are the industry norms? – How many emails per hour is one allowed to send from one IP number before a mail-server decides to attack all your mail?!

Not sure there is a ‘norm’ – each mail server is (or should be) configured   according to the whims^w specification of the owner. I use one that is configured for a max of 100 simultaneous connections    from any one account and another that is configured for double that.  I’ve   heard of mail servers that pre-allocate a set number of outgoing mails per   day. In reality I suspect you should have this conversation with the SysAdmin   responsible for your mail server. — William Tasso

Response:

"ship" wrote … We keep getting caught by the spam filters on the larger mailservers when we market to our own legit customers! I think it may be because we are sending out emails too fast. – Does anyone know what are the industry norms? – How many emails per hour is one allowed to send from one IP number before a mail-server decides to attack all your mail?!

They are only ‘legit’ if they have subscribed … opted in to receive them. And if they’ve opted in, they will be unlikely to have you blocked. If you are sending ‘by the hour’ It’s almost certainly spam. If you send spam, many will trigger not just filters, but spam reports; manual or robot. Once there’s been enough reports, then all future mail will be filtered straight to spam folders. So even those who opted in will be denied a spammer’s newletter, because of the complaints. Spam filters are getting better by the week – and there’s so many, using so many different technologies, that the best answer is the simplest. Don’t spam. — Andrew http://www.weirdity/ebay/

Response:

The real cause of America’s fratricidal conflict, many religious leaders asserted, was the failure of the founders to enshrine God in the Constitution.

Theocrats should be given a choice: A. Leave the country immediately B. Face trial for treason America is not, and never has been a theocracy and anyone trying to turn it into one is a traitor to our country.

Response:

 The real cause of America’s fratricidal conflict, many religious leaders  asserted, was the failure of the founders to enshrine God in the  Constitution. The war was nothing more-or less-than the fulfillment of the  Reverend John Mason’s 1793 prediction that the godless document would one  day impel the Divinity to "crush us to atoms in the wreck." The only way to stop the destruction was to amend the Constitution’s preamble and finally acknowledge not only God but Jesus Christ as the source of all just  governmental power. In 1863, the  "nondenominational," albeit entirely  Protestant, National Reform Association was founded for the specific  purpose of lobbying Congress to put God into the Constitution. Today’s  Christian conservatives frequently use the slogan "Let’s put God back into  the Constitution," thereby implying that "secular humanists" have managed  to overturn what was originally intended to be a marriage of church and  state.  Nineteenth-century clerics knew better and were honest about their desire to reverse what they regarded as the founders’ erroneous decision to that can work too separate church and state. At an 1864 convention in Pittsburgh, the National Reform delegates were in a dither about how to word the proposed amendment before presenting it to President Lincoln and the Congress, so as anot to offend any orthodox Protestant denomination. They were not worried about offending Jews, Catholics, or dissident Protestant sects like Hicksite Quakers, who were appalled by the idea of tampering with the Constitution in order to blur the distinction between church and state. After rejecting acknowledgment of "Almighty God" and "His revealed will" as too imprecise, the ministers finally agreed on a rewording of the preamble that would replace "We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…" with "Recognizing Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, and acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government. . ." SOURCE:Freethinkers A history of American Secularism Susan Jacoby , Metropolitan Book, Holt and Company, NY (2004)  pp 104-105 I found this to be absolutely fascinating.  Thanks for posting it. They were a bit less abashed about such things in those days, weren’t they?

To kind of get a complete context I recommend the following: [His comments after looking over the following: Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian,alt.education,alt.politics.religion,alt.politics.bus h,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.atheism [me] To kind of get a complete context I recommend the following:

Amazing stuff.  Reads much like today — the accusation of atheists wanting to take God out of the schools, the controversies over government-supported chaplains, the claims that calling this a Christian nation does not discriminate against Jews and other minority religions — I was stunned at how much of this 150-year old news sounds like just another ho-hum week on `alt.education’. Thanks. — cary  ] To kind of get a complete context I recommend the following: AMERICAN THEOCRATS. PAST AND PRESENT SECTION I                         BY THE REV. D. M’ALLISTER. [David McAllister (1835-1907) D.D., LL.D., was one of the founding editors of The Christian Statesman and served at one time as general secretary of the National Reform Association. He was vice president of Geneva College, and the pastor of the Pittsburgh Reformed Presbyterian Church. http://www.natreformassn.org/mcallisterToC.html ] Principles of a Christian Political Science, Part 1 http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/02/chpolsci.html Principles of a Christian Political Science, Part 2 http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/03/chpolsci2.html Scriptural Basis of the National Reform Association http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/03/scripbas.html The Secular Assault on Christian Civil Government http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/03/secassau.html Defense of the State’s Duty to Confess Its Allegiance to Christ http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/99/confess.html The Christian Character of the Colonial Governments http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/99/charactr.html True Idea of the State http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/01/trueidea.html Testimonies to the religious defect of the Constitution of the United States: PART 1 http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg… PART II http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg… PART III http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg… PART IV http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg… PART V http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg…                                 J.H. THRONWELL The religiously correct version of American history has never given proper credit to the central importance of the Enlightenment concept of natural rights-or to the anticlerical abolitionists who advanced that concept before the public-in building the case against slavery. Throughout the three decades preceding the Civil War, the anticlerical ethos of the radical abolitionists was used against them by religious opponents of emancipation, who frequently trotted out the specter of the French Revolution and even described abolitionism itself as an atheist plot. In 1850, the slavery-exalting Presbyterian J. H. Thornwell, who was about to be named president of the College of  South Carolina, declared that  "the parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders-they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, jacobins on the one side, and the friendsof order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground-Christianity and atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity the stake. "6 6. Cash, W.J. The Mind of the south. New York: Knopf, (1941) p. 80 The battle over religious orthodoxy at the College of South Carolina, founded as an Enlightenment stronghold, bears out Cash’s observations about the shifting theology of the South in the first half of the nineteenth century. From 1820 to 1832, the institution’s president was Thomas Cooper, one of the most distinguished American scientists and a critic, as a result of contemporary discoveries in geology, of any literal interpretation of the biblical creation story. Cooper was expelled from the faculty for heresy, and men of Thornwell’s views took charge. While most abolitionists were neither atheists nor Jacobins, the defenders of slavery were right to make the connection between the revolutionary freethought of Paine and the radical wing of the antislavery movement. Religious conservatives today are the ones who are mistaken in their insistence that the antislavery movement had nothing to do with Enlightenment values-values that would, in turn, be adopted and adapted by abolitionist women who wished no less for themselves than they wished for slaves. Freethinkers A History of American Secularism. Susan Jacob Metropolitan Book, Holt and Company Ny, (2004) Pp. 70-71                                 SAMUEL CHASE Samuel Chase who was appointed a Justice on the United States Supreme Court by George Washington.  In the  case of Runkel v. Winemiller, 1799, Justice Chase gave the court’s opinion: "Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the  people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty." Runkel v. Winemiller,4 Harris & McHenry, 276, 288 (Su. Ct. Md. 1799)   SECTION II, PART I CHRISTIAN STATESMAN TRACTS No. 6, ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS TO THE RELIGIOUS AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. BY THE REV. D. M’ALLFSTER. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/2ed67ba52c3d89f7 SECTION II, PART II http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/673328f3e98a3c08 SECTION II, PART III http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/420fc4f3a8821774 SECTION II, PART IV http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/b508d61a89973b85     * Rebuttal to Jefferson’s Bill for Religious Freedom http://members.tripod.com/~candst/statuterebut.htm Post-Civil War attempts to incorporate religious language into the Constitution     * First major attempts to amend the Constitution 1863 – 1880 http://candst.tripod.com/postciv.htm    * The NRA (National Reform Association) and the Christian Amendment http://candst.tripod.com/nra.htm           o The Proposed Christian Amendment http://candst.tripod.com/chrsamnd.htm     * In God We Trust http://candst.tripod.com/motto.htm         Nine Demands of Liberalism".         http://members.tripod.com/~candst/demands.htm         Religious Freedom Amendment".         http://members.tripod.com/~candst/rfa.htm         President Grant’s Speech".         http://members.tripod.com/~candst/granspch.htm         President Grant’s Seventh Annual Message".         http://members.tripod.com/~candst/granmess.htm         The Blaine School Amendment"         http://members.tripod.com/~candst/blaine.htm         The Practical Separation

… read more »

Response:

all people love cupcakes, "Griz" The Jesus Seminar uses colored beads to determine what it true in the Bible, based only on each persons opinion and not scholarly research.  That is a fact. Pastor Dave Raymond

That is not a fact at all.  As usual, you have it wrong.  Where did you come to believe that, "The Jesus Seminar uses colored beads to determine what it true in the Bible"? <snip —-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups —= East/West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—

Response:

yodeled: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – all people love cupcakes, "Griz" The Jesus Seminar uses colored beads to determine what it true in the Bible, based only on each persons opinion and not scholarly research.  That is a fact. Pastor Dave Raymond That is not a fact at all.  As usual, you have it wrong.  Where did you come to believe that, "The Jesus Seminar uses colored beads to determine what it true in the Bible"?

I know it from research through books and the web.  You can look here and see for yourself.  This took all of two seconds with a Google search just now. http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Seminar/jesus_seminar.html http://www.westarinstitute.org/Polebridge/Title/5Gospels/5gospels.html — Pastor Dave Raymond "I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation." – Psalm 119:99                / o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::                 "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:" – Ephesians 6:17

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – all people love cupcakes, "Griz" The Jesus Seminar uses colored beads to determine what it true in the Bible, based only on each persons opinion and not scholarly research.  That is a fact. Pastor Dave Raymond Yes. But despite this bizarre voting system that in me simply invites head scratching, their conclusions and teachings are ending up all over the place, being taken as based on serious scholiastic study. This is why I wanted people to be aware of them.  Their M.O. seems to be to attack and discredit God’s written word — then to discredit and attack God’s Living Word, as a prelude to substituting a god of themselves yet still wanting to call themselves followers of Christ. They’re telling the liberal media and the people what they want to hear.  Strange, I was watching a show on "The Passion" and they had a panel there and the Catholic Nun said she was upset by the fact that the movie portrays Jesus as the only way to God and that it insults everyone.

    This is why so many people do not believe Catholicism is a form of the Christian religion. They pick and choose what they want to believe and it changes from place to place….. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Pastor Dave Raymond "I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation." – Psalm 119:99                / o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::                 "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:" – Ephesians 6:17

Response:

They’re telling the liberal media and the people what they want to hear.  Strange, I was watching a show on "The Passion" and they had a panel there and the Catholic Nun said she was upset by the fact that the movie portrays Jesus as the only way to God and that it insults everyone.    This is why so many people do not believe Catholicism is a form of the Christian religion. They pick and choose what they want to believe and it changes from place to place…..

Actually, Catholicism is the Church that Christ founded. As far as pick and choose, it’s the protest_ant that does this.  And this is very apparent on this ng. duke ***** Matthew 22 14"For many are invited, but few are chosen." *****

Response:

yodeled: They’re telling the liberal media and the people what they want to hear.  Strange, I was watching a show on "The Passion" and they had a panel there and the Catholic Nun said she was upset by the fact that the movie portrays Jesus as the only way to God and that it insults everyone.    This is why so many people do not believe Catholicism is a form of the Christian religion. They pick and choose what they want to believe and it changes from place to place….. Actually, Catholicism is the Church that Christ founded.

Prove it.  You seem to think that repeatedly claiming it equals proof.  It doesn’t. — Pastor Dave Raymond "I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation." – Psalm 119:99                / o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::                 "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:" – Ephesians 6:17

Response:

Harvey, Could you please top post so as to avoid the lenghty screens…? Again, I only have a backspace key to delete characters one by one oon this connection an can not delete old text…. My bday went well, was a fun day of giggles, smiles and laughter and awe for seing asl-ers imagination at work for the Grand Occasion:), and their thoughtfulness, too, yours among:) I was trying to think of a way to express what I mean better, last night and came up wiht this start of a thought. While christianity sets God as the creator of all that is, i.e. as the Prime Cause, it is from there a way of life based on directives. To write soemthign sayign that ETs woudl have created earth or man, for instance, woudl then be like presenting a Prime Cause, *but not a way of life*. I do not know if you think of writing about the way of life that would come with believing ETs are the creators. Therfore to me the beliefs are not just different for their "prime cause", but for their "way of life". One can sure present different Prime Causes. Science is after all already doing that. Yet a scientist can believe in God just as much as a christian can see science for what it is. Accepting the other’s view does not require giving up their own beliefs, nor a need to attack them. Just like aples fell to the ground weay before the law of gravity was defined by science, science can help define the origin of things and galaxies, without infirming that those too were created. Christinas then go on believing that a Prime cause to that other thing that caused the creation of that other still remains. And science did also discover Lucy, a female skeleton of millions of years (sic), infirming their own belief about when mankind started on earth and pushing it back by millins of years where they had thought it hundreds of thousands of years only before. More, they found that Lucy’s ADN is the one all human beigns come from without exception. There, who knows if what science calls Lucy is not what christianity refered to as Eve? Soem scientists will argue no way, some christians will argue no way, yet one does not infirm the other so much as it "joins" them in that example. Einstein himself believed in God if he was the greatest physicist of his time, and many believe, still the greatest one yet. Hos own knoelsdge of science did not make it so his belief in God vanished, if it maybe made it change and transform through time, like his science beliefs did make cristians’ understanding of the creation of the world transofrm too. Wihout one irradicating the other, cause they are of a different nature and scope and perspective. Anyway. I still am tryign to get acccross to you what I mean but find that you are closed minded on this, on hearing me say that you do not have to talk about christianity when talking about ETs and space ships. One sure can. But *as an editor*, for what I saw so far of your goal with your book, which, granted, is not much as my questiosn are left unanswered and interpreted as per YOUR frusration with christianity rather than your reading the words without tagging concepts and intentiosn and all on it, as an editor, I think so far that yould be better off presentign your ideas about the topic of the unexplained, rather than show flawed reasonings in some religion or belief system that is not your topic,  and then use the same exact flawed reasonings you pointed to yourself to *sustain* your own view of your own belief. It simply would be seen as ""preaching"" in that it would say "do as I say, not as I do. Use these reasonings only about MY belief, cause using the same about yours is wrong". I dunno how else to try and say it, so from here on, I will just say "Glad you still are writing", when you are. I’ll just add this before. Some of the books on the unexplained I liked reading as they allowed me to dream and imagine nd all that. Most of them though I was sorry I bought for how tendencious and nonsensical the reasonigns in them were, and how manipulative and double standard their presentation of things was. As well, not ONE christian sees or interret the Bible or New Testament the saem way, not ONE, where then attacking this sort of statistical belief as you are glues to not oen of them by the same token, and looks prejudicially ignorant. To want to show the flaws in a belief based on soem teachings written in some book, oen woudl have to not only read that book, but learn of the various interpretations and religions among christianity. Some allow divorce and it does not shock their christian belief and some do no for instance. And even those practicing a christian religion will either do it gong to church or not, believing in theuir church or in the Word itself, etc, etc, on top of often disagreing wholeheasrtdly wiht "their" chrich believign in divorce or not, etc, etc. In short, to criticize the christian belief, one woudl ahve to know who Chroist is, what Chrost said, ie. read the New Testament, then read the old to see why SOME christian religiosn believe this more than that interpretation of the words in the NT, then grasp the variety of beliefs and what the GLUE is between them all that makes them christian, beyond the dogma only, as not one parishioner of any christian religion interpret the words the same way. Too many already are trying to impose their interpretation down the neighbor;s throat. To deplore that while shoving yours in their thtroat in place would be nonsensical in my view and counterproductive, on top of making your own arguments weaker. Therefore as an editor and after seing the reasnings you use both to try and show flaws in other people;s beliefs, and seing you use the exact same reasonings, just taggign different objects on the samereasonings, to defend yours, I just am sayign you better stick to your topic and only expose the ideas of your topic, make your purpose clear to yourself. Yould not want to end upw riting one more book about christianity I think…?;-) Then why darn do it…???:) As Chloe, I;d just say this. Seems it might be some sort of fear that makes you think it "necessity" to attack christian beliefs in your book. What is that fear? What is it about? Why? What re you afraid coudl happen aroudn your book regarding christians? Is it a fear of rejection? What..? Perhaps havign a good look at that woudl be helpeful, to be sure oen writs about ideas as he aims at and not at emotions of fear…? And perhaps making the two topics two different books woudl better reach your goal and keeep you on topic about your ET/Unexplained interest/ideas/passion. Over and out on that topic. Chloe Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In article <cidbt7$s2…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA > says… >>Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >>> In article <ci7tnf$j7…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >>> says… >>>>Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >>>>> In article <ci23a9$bk…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >>>>> says… >>> snipped >>>>> I am not going to be able to answer your questions here — >>>>> have to give you a raincheck on this. >>>>> I know it’s going to be extremely difficult to get anyone else to >>>>> believe in what I believe, especially if they believe in something solid >>>>> already. >>>>But why even try and write your book to try and present it as a ""belief"" >>>>yo have or not? >>>>I,.e. why not just state the facts, explaind and unexplained, where just >>>>how numerous those are could spoeak volumes for itself? >>>>Why attack ofhter beliefs? Why even want to try and make them BELIEVE as >>>>in credo, religion and all?  Readers do not have to be belief followerrs. >>>>I can find rtasin a person;ls belief very interesting, making sense, it >>>>can make me think of other stuff, etc, ewtc (or of course someodf >>>>the books on the topic don’t end up catching my interest at all, depends >>>>on what approach the author has, where excatly if I smell that he is >>>>biased and trying to sell me a belief, I feel manipulation and donlt liek >>>>that), –I can find soemthign interesting even if it is not a thing of >>>>belief for me. >>>>Sure, I believe tabnles exist and chairts too, for instance. But I do not >>>>have an entire system of beleifs about tables and chairs that to me leads >>>>to spiritual inspiration, say. Another yet could and coudl actually find >>>>to write about it and be captivating, and get his own love of the topic >>>>accross, leavign me free to bvelieve what i will and not tryign to make >>>>pressures to poop on a given belief cause it is not his/her. That religions >>>>already do plenty of. Sects too (hard to tell them apart on that and other >>>>things sometimes). >>>>So why even want to try and convince others of a BELIEF? Why not just elt >>>>them decide and conclude their own thing with their own mind and all, just >>>>presentign the gatherign of things thought of as ET proof on earth, say? >>>>Why make it a belief at all? I mena fine if it is for you. I dontl try and >>>>get anyone to become a chritian cause I believe in freedom of choice, B >>>>the sme token I donlt believe any belief anyone says they have by which >>>>they woudl want others to believe like them and want to convince them of >>>>so and yadee yada, is a belief respectign freedom of choice nor respectign >>>>differences. I woudl rather seer it as proning intolerance about > differences. >>>> >  > eg. There is this christian in the alt.bible newsgroup who says > >>>>Many of those I saw a short time on that ng and others and did not find >>>>christian at all. >>>>Lets see what this oen had to say. >>>> >>>>>This is a basic and brief outline. >>>>>>>>>God created Adam and Eve. Yes two literal people from who all

… read more »

Response:

In article <cidbt7$s2…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >> In article <ci7tnf$j7…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >> says… >>>Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >>>> In article <ci23a9$bk…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >>>> says… >> snipped >>>> I am not going to be able to answer your questions here — >>>> have to give you a raincheck on this. >>>> I know it’s going to be extremely difficult to get anyone else to >>>> believe in what I believe, especially if they believe in something solid >>>> already. >>>But why even try and write your book to try and present it as a ""belief"" >>>yo have or not? >>>I,.e. why not just state the facts, explaind and unexplained, where just >>>how numerous those are could spoeak volumes for itself? >>>Why attack ofhter beliefs? Why even want to try and make them BELIEVE as >>>in credo, religion and all?  Readers do not have to be belief followerrs. >>>I can find rtasin a person;ls belief very interesting, making sense, it >>>can make me think of other stuff, etc, ewtc (or of course someodf >>>the books on the topic don’t end up catching my interest at all, depends >>>on what approach the author has, where excatly if I smell that he is >>>biased and trying to sell me a belief, I feel manipulation and donlt liek >>>that), –I can find soemthign interesting even if it is not a thing of >>>belief for me. >>>Sure, I believe tabnles exist and chairts too, for instance. But I do not >>>have an entire system of beleifs about tables and chairs that to me leads >>>to spiritual inspiration, say. Another yet could and coudl actually find >>>to write about it and be captivating, and get his own love of the topic >>>accross, leavign me free to bvelieve what i will and not tryign to make >>>pressures to poop on a given belief cause it is not his/her. That religions >>>already do plenty of. Sects too (hard to tell them apart on that and other >>>things sometimes). >>>So why even want to try and convince others of a BELIEF? Why not just elt >>>them decide and conclude their own thing with their own mind and all, just >>>presentign the gatherign of things thought of as ET proof on earth, say? >>>Why make it a belief at all? I mena fine if it is for you. I dontl try and >>>get anyone to become a chritian cause I believe in freedom of choice, B >>>the sme token I donlt believe any belief anyone says they have by which >>>they woudl want others to believe like them and want to convince them of >>>so and yadee yada, is a belief respectign freedom of choice nor respectign >>>differences. I woudl rather seer it as proning intolerance about differences. >>> >  > eg. There is this christian in the alt.bible newsgroup who says > >>>Many of those I saw a short time on that ng and others and did not find >>>christian at all. >>>Lets see what this oen had to say. >>> >>>>>This is a basic and brief outline. >>>>>>>>God created Adam and Eve. Yes two literal people from who all others >>>>>>>>came from. >>>All others on earth, says Genesis. Old Testament. Not christianity that >>>one is part of per se. Aain, Christianity is about what Chrost said. If it >>>ainlt about Christ,s techings, then they shoudl call it Biblality or >>>something;-). >>>>>>>>They sinned and sin entered into them causing them to die in their >>>>>>>>spirits immediatly. >>>Not in the Bible, that interpretation of their spirits dying immediately >>>notr is it Christian to think that ’sin entered someone". One sins, sin >>>does not ""enter them passively"". >>>Why concentrat on sins? Christinaity is not about sins not the devil yet >>>so many will have sin and devil in every sentence they say about it all;-) >>>Its ironic to say one loves God and to talk about the dfevil all the time:) >>>Or about sin:). >>>>> Their physical death followed later. >>>Interpreation and I gotta scartch my head to fnd where that one read this. >>>They were made mortal the OLD TESTAMENT said, for having touched of the >>>tree of knowledge of right and wrong. But they lived hundreds of years, >>>and sayign that their spirits died right away is news to me;-) >>>I am not God though and dunno the Bible by heart, but I sure find this a >>>new concept. Wonder what religion/dogma it stems from. >>> The dominion >>>>>>>>of the world that had been given to them passed to Satan. >>>Sigh…. >>>Sin, the devil, Satan…. >>>>>>>>Sin passed from Adam and Eve to all of their descendants, including >>>>>>>>you and me. >>>Sin again…. >>>>>>>>God restored all of this through Jesus Christ. (Jesus was God came to >>>>>>>>earth as a human). He lived in a human body subject to sin. He had a >>>>>>>>spirit from God and lived by His spirit and did not sin. He paid the >>>>>>>>price of death for each one of us so that we could by faith >>>>>>>>appropriate His sinlessness and be reconciled to God. >>>From "he paid" to the rest, that is how most interpret it, yes. However if >>>poeple take into account what apostle started that, they will see that >>>it was an influnce of the belief in the Old Testament anouncing a >>>messiah, and in a religion of those days that said that the messiah >>>woudl sacrofice himself for the good/soul of others. The old notion of >>>sacrifice. They still did sacrifices all the tiem in Jesus’s days. >>>Yet if he respected that custom, he preched about learnbign to cut it out. >>>To learn to have compassion and not scarifice, adding "If only we coudl >>>understand that". >>>>>>>>Death could not hold Him down. He was resurrected and went to be with >>>>>>>>God. He is coming back to put an end to sin, Satan and all evil. >>>Erm. Above ths last paragraph, earlier in his post, did that poster nt say it >>>had already been done? Sounds like JW to me. Accent on sin, on the devil, >>>on the restored world and so on still to come. >>> The >>>>>>>>earth will be restored…. We will all give an account of our lives >>>>>>>>and be judged by Him. There will be no secrets hidden. >>>"As you judge, so shall you be judged". >>>It then is not just God judging in that sentence;-) >>>The secrets hidden, well, that must be taken from "nothign is unknown to >>>God" and "Nothign is in the darkness save what will coem to light" >>>paraphrasing as I read it mostly in French if I did the incursions in the >>>english veriions quite a few times too. But it does not say that it will >>>be revealed to everyoen else. That woudl be humiliation and not love. >>>"If your neighbor in the night knocks on your door to ask a bread for >>>unecxpected visitors, will you not give him some? Even more so if it was >>>your child asking for bread. Then how coudl God give his children less". >>>If a parent can give his child forgiveness then how much more God, tehn. >>>>>>>>The Bible has stood the test of time. Thousands of years. Lives >>>>>>>>changed. Jesus called it the Word of God. >>>Lives changed all right, In the name of the letter milliosn were killed >>>through the centuries, s;ayed in the supposed name of enlighment and God;s >>>word. Yet CHRIST gave the commandments, not as in the Old testament (an >>>eye for an eye and so on), but 5 or 6 of them depending on the apostle >>>that speaks and lists them. Among any list that Christ si said to have >>>given is "Do not kill". >>>Livs were derstroyed by those who thought they coudl kill in the name of >>>love cause they were "christians" and coudl do it in the name of God’s >>>word. Yet the word is DO NOT KILL. It was so  way back, and remained so. >>>Yes, it was carried through two milleniae. But it was not heard too much. >>>How many died today killed in the world? Wars, and murders and all that? >>>The spirit of the word is not seen much at all. The letter, oh, the >> letter…. >>>That is too often seen and used to justify even lkilling anbd calling it >>>"passing the test of time". Lacks humility somewhat, that. >>> >  > And this is what he also says > >>>>>I will repeat myself: When you want to find out about God. Seek Him. >>>>>Not from someone who is going to give you their idea of what they >>>>>think He is. >>>Sounds liek a preacher to dsay this after giving his idea and >> interpretation:) >>>They may be right, or they may not.  It is better to seek >>>>>Him direct. Seek Him sincerely. He is contactable. That is what >>>>>Christianity is all about. It’s not about religion. It is about a >>>>>relationship with God. >>>That is right. Sounds right to me. >>>> You can’t reason with him at all — I don’t propose anything new, >>>> I say – use common sense and simple logic, which he rejects straightaway. >>>Not a chirstian attitude that. Such close-mindedness. >>>See, that happens whn people think THEUIR belief is THE Truth rather than >>>see it is THEIR turth or THEIR belief. >>>Why woudl you want to try and do likie him, i.e. try and pu8sh your belief >>>in other poeple;s throat? Why not expose your belief and what you rest it >>>on and simply present it as it is? YOUR beliegf. Or just present the >>>various things that sustain the possibility of ETs having been here >>>before, whatever, and donlt add the "you must/they must believ me!" or "I >>>must convince christians!" or whatever other kind of faith/believers. >>>Unpleasant to be shoved a belioef down one;s throat, innit? >>>Why try and compete in that? >>>> I say ‘the bible is not a camera’ – it does not record what is written. >>>> How can it? Unless you believe everyone involved with writing, editing >>>> and translating the bible, was guided by the ‘holy spirit’ ALL the time. >>>The thing is to see the words and

… read more »

Response:

Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In article <ci7tnf$j7…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA > says… >>Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >>> In article <ci23a9$bk…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >>> says… > snipped >>> I am not going to be able to answer your questions here — >>> have to give you a raincheck on this. >>> I know it’s going to be extremely difficult to get anyone else to >>> believe in what I believe, especially if they believe in something solid >>> already. >>But why even try and write your book to try and present it as a ""belief"" >>yo have or not? >>I,.e. why not just state the facts, explaind and unexplained, where just >>how numerous those are could spoeak volumes for itself? >>Why attack ofhter beliefs? Why even want to try and make them BELIEVE as >>in credo, religion and all?  Readers do not have to be belief followerrs. >>I can find rtasin a person;ls belief very interesting, making sense, it >>can make me think of other stuff, etc, ewtc (or of course someodf >>the books on the topic don’t end up catching my interest at all, depends >>on what approach the author has, where excatly if I smell that he is >>biased and trying to sell me a belief, I feel manipulation and donlt liek >>that), –I can find soemthign interesting even if it is not a thing of >>belief for me. >>Sure, I believe tabnles exist and chairts too, for instance. But I do not >>have an entire system of beleifs about tables and chairs that to me leads >>to spiritual inspiration, say. Another yet could and coudl actually find >>to write about it and be captivating, and get his own love of the topic >>accross, leavign me free to bvelieve what i will and not tryign to make >>pressures to poop on a given belief cause it is not his/her. That religions >>already do plenty of. Sects too (hard to tell them apart on that and other >>things sometimes). >>So why even want to try and convince others of a BELIEF? Why not just elt >>them decide and conclude their own thing with their own mind and all, just >>presentign the gatherign of things thought of as ET proof on earth, say? >>Why make it a belief at all? I mena fine if it is for you. I dontl try and >>get anyone to become a chritian cause I believe in freedom of choice, B >>the sme token I donlt believe any belief anyone says they have by which >>they woudl want others to believe like them and want to convince them of >>so and yadee yada, is a belief respectign freedom of choice nor respectign >>differences. I woudl rather seer it as proning intolerance about differences. >> >  > eg. There is this christian in the alt.bible newsgroup who says > >>Many of those I saw a short time on that ng and others and did not find >>christian at all. >>Lets see what this oen had to say. >> >>>>>This is a basic and brief outline. >>>>>>>God created Adam and Eve. Yes two literal people from who all others >>>>>>>came from. >>All others on earth, says Genesis. Old Testament. Not christianity that >>one is part of per se. Aain, Christianity is about what Chrost said. If it >>ainlt about Christ,s techings, then they shoudl call it Biblality or >>something;-). >>>>>>>They sinned and sin entered into them causing them to die in their >>>>>>>spirits immediatly. >>Not in the Bible, that interpretation of their spirits dying immediately >>notr is it Christian to think that ’sin entered someone". One sins, sin >>does not ""enter them passively"". >>Why concentrat on sins? Christinaity is not about sins not the devil yet >>so many will have sin and devil in every sentence they say about it all;-) >>Its ironic to say one loves God and to talk about the dfevil all the time:) >>Or about sin:). >>>> Their physical death followed later. >>Interpreation and I gotta scartch my head to fnd where that one read this. >>They were made mortal the OLD TESTAMENT said, for having touched of the >>tree of knowledge of right and wrong. But they lived hundreds of years, >>and sayign that their spirits died right away is news to me;-) >>I am not God though and dunno the Bible by heart, but I sure find this a >>new concept. Wonder what religion/dogma it stems from. >> The dominion >>>>>>>of the world that had been given to them passed to Satan. >>Sigh…. >>Sin, the devil, Satan…. >>>>>>>Sin passed from Adam and Eve to all of their descendants, including >>>>>>>you and me. >>Sin again…. >>>>>>>God restored all of this through Jesus Christ. (Jesus was God came to >>>>>>>earth as a human). He lived in a human body subject to sin. He had a >>>>>>>spirit from God and lived by His spirit and did not sin. He paid the >>>>>>>price of death for each one of us so that we could by faith >>>>>>>appropriate His sinlessness and be reconciled to God. >>From "he paid" to the rest, that is how most interpret it, yes. However if >>poeple take into account what apostle started that, they will see that >>it was an influnce of the belief in the Old Testament anouncing a >>messiah, and in a religion of those days that said that the messiah >>woudl sacrofice himself for the good/soul of others. The old notion of >>sacrifice. They still did sacrifices all the tiem in Jesus’s days. >>Yet if he respected that custom, he preched about learnbign to cut it out. >>To learn to have compassion and not scarifice, adding "If only we coudl >>understand that". >>>>>>>Death could not hold Him down. He was resurrected and went to be with >>>>>>>God. He is coming back to put an end to sin, Satan and all evil. >>Erm. Above ths last paragraph, earlier in his post, did that poster nt say it >>had already been done? Sounds like JW to me. Accent on sin, on the devil, >>on the restored world and so on still to come. >> The >>>>>>>earth will be restored…. We will all give an account of our lives >>>>>>>and be judged by Him. There will be no secrets hidden. >>"As you judge, so shall you be judged". >>It then is not just God judging in that sentence;-) >>The secrets hidden, well, that must be taken from "nothign is unknown to >>God" and "Nothign is in the darkness save what will coem to light" >>paraphrasing as I read it mostly in French if I did the incursions in the >>english veriions quite a few times too. But it does not say that it will >>be revealed to everyoen else. That woudl be humiliation and not love. >>"If your neighbor in the night knocks on your door to ask a bread for >>unecxpected visitors, will you not give him some? Even more so if it was >>your child asking for bread. Then how coudl God give his children less". >>If a parent can give his child forgiveness then how much more God, tehn. >>>>>>>The Bible has stood the test of time. Thousands of years. Lives >>>>>>>changed. Jesus called it the Word of God. >>Lives changed all right, In the name of the letter milliosn were killed >>through the centuries, s;ayed in the supposed name of enlighment and God;s >>word. Yet CHRIST gave the commandments, not as in the Old testament (an >>eye for an eye and so on), but 5 or 6 of them depending on the apostle >>that speaks and lists them. Among any list that Christ si said to have >>given is "Do not kill". >>Livs were derstroyed by those who thought they coudl kill in the name of >>love cause they were "christians" and coudl do it in the name of God’s >>word. Yet the word is DO NOT KILL. It was so  way back, and remained so. >>Yes, it was carried through two milleniae. But it was not heard too much. >>How many died today killed in the world? Wars, and murders and all that? >>The spirit of the word is not seen much at all. The letter, oh, the > letter…. >>That is too often seen and used to justify even lkilling anbd calling it >>"passing the test of time". Lacks humility somewhat, that. >> >  > And this is what he also says > >>>>I will repeat myself: When you want to find out about God. Seek Him. >>>>Not from someone who is going to give you their idea of what they >>>>think He is. >>Sounds liek a preacher to dsay this after giving his idea and > interpretation:) >>They may be right, or they may not.  It is better to seek >>>>Him direct. Seek Him sincerely. He is contactable. That is what >>>>Christianity is all about. It’s not about religion. It is about a >>>>relationship with God. >>That is right. Sounds right to me. >>> You can’t reason with him at all — I don’t propose anything new, >>> I say – use common sense and simple logic, which he rejects straightaway. >>Not a chirstian attitude that. Such close-mindedness. >>See, that happens whn people think THEUIR belief is THE Truth rather than >>see it is THEIR turth or THEIR belief. >>Why woudl you want to try and do likie him, i.e. try and pu8sh your belief >>in other poeple;s throat? Why not expose your belief and what you rest it >>on and simply present it as it is? YOUR beliegf. Or just present the >>various things that sustain the possibility of ETs having been here >>before, whatever, and donlt add the "you must/they must believ me!" or "I >>must convince christians!" or whatever other kind of faith/believers. >>Unpleasant to be shoved a belioef down one;s throat, innit? >>Why try and compete in that? >>> I say ‘the bible is not a camera’ – it does not record what is written. >>> How can it? Unless you believe everyone involved with writing, editing >>> and translating the bible, was guided by the ‘holy spirit’ ALL the time. >>The thing is to see the words and letters, sure, but to get the spirit of it. >>That not many get to… >>> That is the only way it can be 100% accurate and infallible – and it simply >>> isn’t… >>To claim it is would be silly. It is incomplete, for one thing. >>But see, to atack beliefs with that reasonign is not help;poing yours, as

… read more »

Response:

In article <ci7tnf$j7…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says… >Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >> In article <ci23a9$bk…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >> says…

snipped – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> I am not going to be able to answer your questions here — >> have to give you a raincheck on this. >> I know it’s going to be extremely difficult to get anyone else to >> believe in what I believe, especially if they believe in something solid >> already. >But why even try and write your book to try and present it as a ""belief"" >yo have or not? >I,.e. why not just state the facts, explaind and unexplained, where just >how numerous those are could spoeak volumes for itself? >Why attack ofhter beliefs? Why even want to try and make them BELIEVE as >in credo, religion and all?  Readers do not have to be belief followerrs. >I can find rtasin a person;ls belief very interesting, making sense, it >can make me think of other stuff, etc, ewtc (or of course someodf >the books on the topic don’t end up catching my interest at all, depends >on what approach the author has, where excatly if I smell that he is >biased and trying to sell me a belief, I feel manipulation and donlt liek >that), –I can find soemthign interesting even if it is not a thing of >belief for me. >Sure, I believe tabnles exist and chairts too, for instance. But I do not >have an entire system of beleifs about tables and chairs that to me leads >to spiritual inspiration, say. Another yet could and coudl actually find >to write about it and be captivating, and get his own love of the topic >accross, leavign me free to bvelieve what i will and not tryign to make >pressures to poop on a given belief cause it is not his/her. That religions >already do plenty of. Sects too (hard to tell them apart on that and other >things sometimes). >So why even want to try and convince others of a BELIEF? Why not just elt >them decide and conclude their own thing with their own mind and all, just >presentign the gatherign of things thought of as ET proof on earth, say? >Why make it a belief at all? I mena fine if it is for you. I dontl try and >get anyone to become a chritian cause I believe in freedom of choice, B >the sme token I donlt believe any belief anyone says they have by which >they woudl want others to believe like them and want to convince them of >so and yadee yada, is a belief respectign freedom of choice nor respectign >differences. I woudl rather seer it as proning intolerance about differences. > >  > eg. There is this christian in the alt.bible newsgroup who says > >Many of those I saw a short time on that ng and others and did not find >christian at all. >Lets see what this oen had to say. > >>>>>This is a basic and brief outline. >>>>>>God created Adam and Eve. Yes two literal people from who all others >>>>>>came from. >All others on earth, says Genesis. Old Testament. Not christianity that >one is part of per se. Aain, Christianity is about what Chrost said. If it >ainlt about Christ,s techings, then they shoudl call it Biblality or >something;-). >>>>>>They sinned and sin entered into them causing them to die in their >>>>>>spirits immediatly. >Not in the Bible, that interpretation of their spirits dying immediately >notr is it Christian to think that ’sin entered someone". One sins, sin >does not ""enter them passively"". >Why concentrat on sins? Christinaity is not about sins not the devil yet >so many will have sin and devil in every sentence they say about it all;-) >Its ironic to say one loves God and to talk about the dfevil all the time:) >Or about sin:). >>> Their physical death followed later. >Interpreation and I gotta scartch my head to fnd where that one read this. >They were made mortal the OLD TESTAMENT said, for having touched of the >tree of knowledge of right and wrong. But they lived hundreds of years, >and sayign that their spirits died right away is news to me;-) >I am not God though and dunno the Bible by heart, but I sure find this a >new concept. Wonder what religion/dogma it stems from. > The dominion >>>>>>of the world that had been given to them passed to Satan. >Sigh…. >Sin, the devil, Satan…. >>>>>>Sin passed from Adam and Eve to all of their descendants, including >>>>>>you and me. >Sin again…. >>>>>>God restored all of this through Jesus Christ. (Jesus was God came to >>>>>>earth as a human). He lived in a human body subject to sin. He had a >>>>>>spirit from God and lived by His spirit and did not sin. He paid the >>>>>>price of death for each one of us so that we could by faith >>>>>>appropriate His sinlessness and be reconciled to God. >From "he paid" to the rest, that is how most interpret it, yes. However if >poeple take into account what apostle started that, they will see that >it was an influnce of the belief in the Old Testament anouncing a >messiah, and in a religion of those days that said that the messiah >woudl sacrofice himself for the good/soul of others. The old notion of >sacrifice. They still did sacrifices all the tiem in Jesus’s days. >Yet if he respected that custom, he preched about learnbign to cut it out. >To learn to have compassion and not scarifice, adding "If only we coudl >understand that". >>>>>>Death could not hold Him down. He was resurrected and went to be with >>>>>>God. He is coming back to put an end to sin, Satan and all evil. >Erm. Above ths last paragraph, earlier in his post, did that poster nt say it >had already been done? Sounds like JW to me. Accent on sin, on the devil, >on the restored world and so on still to come. > The >>>>>>earth will be restored…. We will all give an account of our lives >>>>>>and be judged by Him. There will be no secrets hidden. >"As you judge, so shall you be judged". >It then is not just God judging in that sentence;-) >The secrets hidden, well, that must be taken from "nothign is unknown to >God" and "Nothign is in the darkness save what will coem to light" >paraphrasing as I read it mostly in French if I did the incursions in the >english veriions quite a few times too. But it does not say that it will >be revealed to everyoen else. That woudl be humiliation and not love. >"If your neighbor in the night knocks on your door to ask a bread for >unecxpected visitors, will you not give him some? Even more so if it was >your child asking for bread. Then how coudl God give his children less". >If a parent can give his child forgiveness then how much more God, tehn. >>>>>>The Bible has stood the test of time. Thousands of years. Lives >>>>>>changed. Jesus called it the Word of God. >Lives changed all right, In the name of the letter milliosn were killed >through the centuries, s;ayed in the supposed name of enlighment and God;s >word. Yet CHRIST gave the commandments, not as in the Old testament (an >eye for an eye and so on), but 5 or 6 of them depending on the apostle >that speaks and lists them. Among any list that Christ si said to have >given is "Do not kill". >Livs were derstroyed by those who thought they coudl kill in the name of >love cause they were "christians" and coudl do it in the name of God’s >word. Yet the word is DO NOT KILL. It was so  way back, and remained so. >Yes, it was carried through two milleniae. But it was not heard too much. >How many died today killed in the world? Wars, and murders and all that? >The spirit of the word is not seen much at all. The letter, oh, the letter…. >That is too often seen and used to justify even lkilling anbd calling it >"passing the test of time". Lacks humility somewhat, that. > >  > And this is what he also says > >>>I will repeat myself: When you want to find out about God. Seek Him. >>>Not from someone who is going to give you their idea of what they >>>think He is. >Sounds liek a preacher to dsay this after giving his idea and interpretation:) >They may be right, or they may not.  It is better to seek >>>Him direct. Seek Him sincerely. He is contactable. That is what >>>Christianity is all about. It’s not about religion. It is about a >>>relationship with God. >That is right. Sounds right to me. >> You can’t reason with him at all — I don’t propose anything new, >> I say – use common sense and simple logic, which he rejects straightaway. >Not a chirstian attitude that. Such close-mindedness. >See, that happens whn people think THEUIR belief is THE Truth rather than >see it is THEIR turth or THEIR belief. >Why woudl you want to try and do likie him, i.e. try and pu8sh your belief >in other poeple;s throat? Why not expose your belief and what you rest it >on and simply present it as it is? YOUR beliegf. Or just present the >various things that sustain the possibility of ETs having been here >before, whatever, and donlt add the "you must/they must believ me!" or "I >must convince christians!" or whatever other kind of faith/believers. >Unpleasant to be shoved a belioef down one;s throat, innit? >Why try and compete in that? >> I say ‘the bible is not a camera’ – it does not record what is written. >> How can it? Unless you believe everyone involved with writing, editing >> and translating the bible, was guided by the ‘holy spirit’ ALL the time. >The thing is to see the words and letters, sure, but to get the spirit of it. >That not many get to… >> That is the only way it can be 100% accurate and infallible – and it simply >> isn’t… >To claim it is would be silly. It is incomplete, for one thing. >But see, to atack beliefs with that reasonign is not help;poing yours, as >yours is also not something written by people that are above mistakes. We >all are human for one thing. > >  > I’m not writing anything new in my book, >not at all. > I will merely wish to popularise what I put forward in it. >> What anyone can do – apply common sense and ordinary every day

… read more »

Response:

Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In article <ci23a9$bk…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA > says… >>> Telling people what truth is, is kinda like the man saying the emperor has >>> no clothes. And tellng the truth, or seeking it — is I think explaining >>> what ‘reality’ is or is about. >>> To explain the gulf between say christian and science views – is like > saying, >>> there is an event, and a christian sees it in terms of the bible and what >>> they are taught about christianity, and a scientist sees it in light of >>> current theories, and what science says… >>> They see the one event, but explain it vastly differently. >>> People saying what truth is, or seeing it, merely sees the event, and tell >>> it like it is. >>Since exactly, no one alive has witnessed moments of the life of Christ, >>the figure around which christinaity was established, it follows that no >>one alive saw the event. Not those who believe it happened, not those who >>do not believe it where then by your own definition, telling christians >>they have not seen it and can not say the truth would be one: telling the >>emperor he has no clothes, to take your own image; 2. NOT b the truth >>either because your own defnition of truth is telling an event liek it >>happened, where you have not seen the event either and then can not say it >>as it happened. >>Furhter, if one holds this definition of triuth, their declaring untrue >>some event they nor the christians ever witnessed and opposing it as >>"true" by affitrmign that truth is Extra Terrestrials landing here and >>doing this and that, could not be true, as per your own definition, unless >>one woudl have seen ETs and say what they saw like it was, wihtout >>interpreting the facts into a system of Beliefs then. >>In that, by your own definition of truth above, you coudl not be seeking >>the truth, as your belief is based on relatings from others that wrote >>books on it and interpreted the intention and gave a function of messenger >>to ETs, just like those who read the New Testament read the interpretation >>of those who claim they saw and witnessed what they wrote about. Save that >>in your case, it would be the interpretation fo the interpretation of >>those who wrote the books you read on ETs, which comes back to the same >>thing as what christians do: their understanding and interpretation of the >>books written by those who saw moments of Christ life and recorded them and >>interpreted them as they understood them. >>That makes it so that by your own concept of truth or nothion of truth >>seeking above, your work would not be seeking the truth any more or less >>than the christians you seem so fascinated about. I.e. do you have your >>own truth to even say or is your truth meanign to demystify christinaity >>without havign a big global Truth per se? >>Perhaps you shoudl then concentrate your efforts on speaking the truth of >>whatevent you have witnessed about ETs landing and so on, rather than get >>distratced and lose focus and go on a wothchunt about christians for their >>not havign seen Christ and therfore not knowign the truth, where as long >>as you have not seen ETs landing yourself, *by that same way of thinking >>you use about christianity, you’d not know the truth about ET’s >>anymore than cristians about Christ either. >>I coudl see how one woudl maybe see christinanity woudl need demystigied >>in that, but now how their using the exact same thinking procerss as they >>use to demystify christianity woudl not itself be a myth, and in that, how >>it coudl be "THE" Truth. >>If you say it is an explanation of reality, then call it that, why not? >>Truth is, many explanatiosn of reality have been super farfetched and off >>target. Zeus and Jupiter did not make thunder. The earth is not flat. >>There is not an end of the world where poeple fall off. he sun does not >>revolve around us, etc, etc, etc. >>> People die every day. Does the christian really think the spirit then just >>> lies around until judgement day, and is then judged by god? >>> What kind of sense is that? It’s non-sense – or nonsense. >>Three things here. First, *chrust*ianity contains the word Christ and means >>the belief in his teaching,s where he was not there in the days of the Old >>Testament, only for some while during what makes the New Testament. The >>apostles Acts is part of the New Testament and yet occured after CXhrist >>died. Christinaity then, is not the ntire Bible in that. >>Second, that means that when Christ arrived, there was ca context and >>systmes of beliefs he faced, systems of beliefs that people had already, >>from religions that alrerady were in place, and robbed people of any life >>quality at all, not t mention of spirituality itself. His words were then >>in that generation and in that context of facing established beliefs and >>using at times images from the old beliefs and the book they were then >>based on: the old testament. "Before Eli was, I was" is a fast example of >>it. Eli was in the old testament and was then aprt of an old belief by >>which it said that Eli woudl have to come back before teh messiah, i.e. >>christ to christians then, would come back. His words were in teh context >>of answerign a person exactly tellign him that he coudl not be the >>messiah, cause Eli had not come back. He also yet was reported to ahve >>said :"Eli *was* back and you did to him as you chose*". They then >>itnerpreted that Eli had to be reincarnated as Johgn the Baptist, sicne >>some religions of the time, namely the one that Matthew the apostle was in >>and already shaped and influebced by and interpretign Christ’s words >>with, then, believed in reincarnation. >>And third: do you really believe that a spaceship will come to pick you >>and take you to Saturn?;-) Silly question it is and you probably think I >>am lending you beliefs and intentiosn you do not have. Well, the same, >>lendign christians intentiosn that suit your theories about ETs is, to use >>your words, just as nonsensical and makes non-sense. >>We masybe can inagine why we’d not see sos waiting, cause souls are saidf >>to be invisible, say, ort whatever else. But  to think that billions of >>people were taken by spaceships when they died and no oen saw it happen >>ever, now that woudl be harder to gobble. >>Stupid reasoning, I know, yet it is not more brilliant Harvey when used by >>you….Sorry to say. >>One can not say he will tell Truth of All Things and use doubl standards >>about any system of belief that is not his, showing its flaws, and then >>use the exact same systenm he described as flawed to describe his own >>system of belief and call it the truth right after he called it a flase >>thing or an untruth. >>Got to be consequent, the resonsings be inherently consequent but also >>""parallely so"" with regards to other systems of beliefs. One can not >>declare phony one reasoning and then use the same and declare it not just >>true, but *THE* Truth, capital T. >>If one wants to decrivbe their understanding of one explanation fo >>relaity, then why not call it as it is, and not make it a religious belief >>in the unexplained? >>Tell us about the events you witnessed about ETs landing and so on, and >>let us chose if we want to belive in that cause it makes sense or offers a >>better system of Spiritual Beliefs. >>Do you see what I mean? >>Perhaps you shoudl focus on your topic, which is explaning a theory about >>hwo earth came to be or how it wa populated or whatever it is to you, and >>not get lost in digressiosn and attacks about this or that spiritual >>beleif. Cause again, and englobing truth woudl not deny reality, and >>religions, that we adhere to one of them or not, ARE part of daily life >>and REALITY on earth. Excluding them as unrealities, if to you so means >>truth or untruth, woudl infirm your own belief as englobing and thus as >>*THE* one truth englibing all truths, cause it woudl reject all >>systems of beliefs. >>Spirituality is NOT an ""event"", if it yet happenes. I.e. we do not go "I >>just saw pirituality at the corner cafe!!". Christianity is a happening >>and an event in that. It had a begining and an unfolding and affected >>hitory and in that christinaity IS a reality all right. That the belief is >>right or wrong, it still is part of Earth’s reality. Denyign its reality >>coudl then not be called The Turth. >> Just liek denying the reality of the Muslim religion or of Zen for that >>mnatter coudl not lead to THE one truth about reality on earth, and >>even less about Reality. >>So in short, to use the same simplistic reasinings and ridicule as you >>generously appply to all other beliefs than yours, where a person of truth >>woudl want to apply the same measure to their own belief too, then, it >>shoudl be returned to you that this: >>SDo you really believe that little men from space will coem and get you >>when you die and reincarnate you into a body and create a life scenario >>they will oversee the creation of so as to make you pay for the wrogn you >>did and live ion the shoes of the oens you did wrogn to? >>I am not sayign that si what ytou believe in, donlt read me wrong, I am >>simply tryign to show you that you use two weights and two measures and >>that in that your own belief is biased and interpretation, and not a >>description of an event you;ld have witnessed any more than christians, >>and that if simplifying to nonsense is fien to do with beliefs, then the >>same shoudl be done by you about your own **if you want to talk about >>truth*. Truth does not have two wights and two measures nor two standards >>by which to be measure. Even less *THE* Truth, capital T. >> >  > Then there is >>the question of what happens at birth? Where do these >>> souls come from? If christians believe that the human body is animated >>> by a spirit within. Call it

… read more »

Response:

In article <ci23a9$bk…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Telling people what truth is, is kinda like the man saying the emperor has >> no clothes. And tellng the truth, or seeking it — is I think explaining >> what ‘reality’ is or is about. >> To explain the gulf between say christian and science views – is like saying, >> there is an event, and a christian sees it in terms of the bible and what >> they are taught about christianity, and a scientist sees it in light of >> current theories, and what science says… >> They see the one event, but explain it vastly differently. >> People saying what truth is, or seeing it, merely sees the event, and tell >> it like it is. >Since exactly, no one alive has witnessed moments of the life of Christ, >the figure around which christinaity was established, it follows that no >one alive saw the event. Not those who believe it happened, not those who >do not believe it where then by your own definition, telling christians >they have not seen it and can not say the truth would be one: telling the >emperor he has no clothes, to take your own image; 2. NOT b the truth >either because your own defnition of truth is telling an event liek it >happened, where you have not seen the event either and then can not say it >as it happened. >Furhter, if one holds this definition of triuth, their declaring untrue >some event they nor the christians ever witnessed and opposing it as >"true" by affitrmign that truth is Extra Terrestrials landing here and >doing this and that, could not be true, as per your own definition, unless >one woudl have seen ETs and say what they saw like it was, wihtout >interpreting the facts into a system of Beliefs then. >In that, by your own definition of truth above, you coudl not be seeking >the truth, as your belief is based on relatings from others that wrote >books on it and interpreted the intention and gave a function of messenger >to ETs, just like those who read the New Testament read the interpretation >of those who claim they saw and witnessed what they wrote about. Save that >in your case, it would be the interpretation fo the interpretation of >those who wrote the books you read on ETs, which comes back to the same >thing as what christians do: their understanding and interpretation of the >books written by those who saw moments of Christ life and recorded them and >interpreted them as they understood them. >That makes it so that by your own concept of truth or nothion of truth >seeking above, your work would not be seeking the truth any more or less >than the christians you seem so fascinated about. I.e. do you have your >own truth to even say or is your truth meanign to demystify christinaity >without havign a big global Truth per se? >Perhaps you shoudl then concentrate your efforts on speaking the truth of >whatevent you have witnessed about ETs landing and so on, rather than get >distratced and lose focus and go on a wothchunt about christians for their >not havign seen Christ and therfore not knowign the truth, where as long >as you have not seen ETs landing yourself, *by that same way of thinking >you use about christianity, you’d not know the truth about ET’s >anymore than cristians about Christ either. >I coudl see how one woudl maybe see christinanity woudl need demystigied >in that, but now how their using the exact same thinking procerss as they >use to demystify christianity woudl not itself be a myth, and in that, how >it coudl be "THE" Truth. >If you say it is an explanation of reality, then call it that, why not? >Truth is, many explanatiosn of reality have been super farfetched and off >target. Zeus and Jupiter did not make thunder. The earth is not flat. >There is not an end of the world where poeple fall off. he sun does not >revolve around us, etc, etc, etc. >> People die every day. Does the christian really think the spirit then just >> lies around until judgement day, and is then judged by god? >> What kind of sense is that? It’s non-sense – or nonsense. >Three things here. First, *chrust*ianity contains the word Christ and means >the belief in his teaching,s where he was not there in the days of the Old >Testament, only for some while during what makes the New Testament. The >apostles Acts is part of the New Testament and yet occured after CXhrist >died. Christinaity then, is not the ntire Bible in that. >Second, that means that when Christ arrived, there was ca context and >systmes of beliefs he faced, systems of beliefs that people had already, >from religions that alrerady were in place, and robbed people of any life >quality at all, not t mention of spirituality itself. His words were then >in that generation and in that context of facing established beliefs and >using at times images from the old beliefs and the book they were then >based on: the old testament. "Before Eli was, I was" is a fast example of >it. Eli was in the old testament and was then aprt of an old belief by >which it said that Eli woudl have to come back before teh messiah, i.e. >christ to christians then, would come back. His words were in teh context >of answerign a person exactly tellign him that he coudl not be the >messiah, cause Eli had not come back. He also yet was reported to ahve >said :"Eli *was* back and you did to him as you chose*". They then >itnerpreted that Eli had to be reincarnated as Johgn the Baptist, sicne >some religions of the time, namely the one that Matthew the apostle was in >and already shaped and influebced by and interpretign Christ’s words >with, then, believed in reincarnation. >And third: do you really believe that a spaceship will come to pick you >and take you to Saturn?;-) Silly question it is and you probably think I >am lending you beliefs and intentiosn you do not have. Well, the same, >lendign christians intentiosn that suit your theories about ETs is, to use >your words, just as nonsensical and makes non-sense. >We masybe can inagine why we’d not see sos waiting, cause souls are saidf >to be invisible, say, ort whatever else. But  to think that billions of >people were taken by spaceships when they died and no oen saw it happen >ever, now that woudl be harder to gobble. >Stupid reasoning, I know, yet it is not more brilliant Harvey when used by >you….Sorry to say. >One can not say he will tell Truth of All Things and use doubl standards >about any system of belief that is not his, showing its flaws, and then >use the exact same systenm he described as flawed to describe his own >system of belief and call it the truth right after he called it a flase >thing or an untruth. >Got to be consequent, the resonsings be inherently consequent but also >""parallely so"" with regards to other systems of beliefs. One can not >declare phony one reasoning and then use the same and declare it not just >true, but *THE* Truth, capital T. >If one wants to decrivbe their understanding of one explanation fo >relaity, then why not call it as it is, and not make it a religious belief >in the unexplained? >Tell us about the events you witnessed about ETs landing and so on, and >let us chose if we want to belive in that cause it makes sense or offers a >better system of Spiritual Beliefs. >Do you see what I mean? >Perhaps you shoudl focus on your topic, which is explaning a theory about >hwo earth came to be or how it wa populated or whatever it is to you, and >not get lost in digressiosn and attacks about this or that spiritual >beleif. Cause again, and englobing truth woudl not deny reality, and >religions, that we adhere to one of them or not, ARE part of daily life >and REALITY on earth. Excluding them as unrealities, if to you so means >truth or untruth, woudl infirm your own belief as englobing and thus as >*THE* one truth englibing all truths, cause it woudl reject all >systems of beliefs. >Spirituality is NOT an ""event"", if it yet happenes. I.e. we do not go "I >just saw pirituality at the corner cafe!!". Christianity is a happening >and an event in that. It had a begining and an unfolding and affected >hitory and in that christinaity IS a reality all right. That the belief is >right or wrong, it still is part of Earth’s reality. Denyign its reality >coudl then not be called The Turth. > Just liek denying the reality of the Muslim religion or of Zen for that >mnatter coudl not lead to THE one truth about reality on earth, and >even less about Reality. >So in short, to use the same simplistic reasinings and ridicule as you >generously appply to all other beliefs than yours, where a person of truth >woudl want to apply the same measure to their own belief too, then, it >shoudl be returned to you that this: >SDo you really believe that little men from space will coem and get you >when you die and reincarnate you into a body and create a life scenario >they will oversee the creation of so as to make you pay for the wrogn you >did and live ion the shoes of the oens you did wrogn to? >I am not sayign that si what ytou believe in, donlt read me wrong, I am >simply tryign to show you that you use two weights and two measures and >that in that your own belief is biased and interpretation, and not a >description of an event you;ld have witnessed any more than christians, >and that if simplifying to nonsense is fien to do with beliefs, then the >same shoudl be done by you about your own **if you want to talk about >truth*. Truth does not have two wights and two measures nor two standards >by which to be measure. Even less *THE* Truth, capital T. > >  > Then there is >the question of what happens at birth? Where do these >> souls come from? If christians believe that the human body is animated >> by a spirit within. Call it personality/consciousness/whatever – or even >> spirit/soul. >Are you talking ETs here? >Are you tlaking your topic or just going against an established oen with >nothign better to offer as a spiritual system of Belief? >Why not atlk about

… read more »

Response:

> Telling people what truth is, is kinda like the man saying the emperor has > no clothes. And tellng the truth, or seeking it — is I think explaining > what ‘reality’ is or is about. > To explain the gulf between say christian and science views – is like saying, > there is an event, and a christian sees it in terms of the bible and what > they are taught about christianity, and a scientist sees it in light of > current theories, and what science says… > They see the one event, but explain it vastly differently. > People saying what truth is, or seeing it, merely sees the event, and tell > it like it is.

Since exactly, no one alive has witnessed moments of the life of Christ, the figure around which christinaity was established, it follows that no one alive saw the event. Not those who believe it happened, not those who do not believe it where then by your own definition, telling christians they have not seen it and can not say the truth would be one: telling the emperor he has no clothes, to take your own image; 2. NOT b the truth either because your own defnition of truth is telling an event liek it happened, where you have not seen the event either and then can not say it as it happened. Furhter, if one holds this definition of triuth, their declaring untrue some event they nor the christians ever witnessed and opposing it as "true" by affitrmign that truth is Extra Terrestrials landing here and doing this and that, could not be true, as per your own definition, unless one woudl have seen ETs and say what they saw like it was, wihtout interpreting the facts into a system of Beliefs then. In that, by your own definition of truth above, you coudl not be seeking the truth, as your belief is based on relatings from others that wrote books on it and interpreted the intention and gave a function of messenger to ETs, just like those who read the New Testament read the interpretation of those who claim they saw and witnessed what they wrote about. Save that in your case, it would be the interpretation fo the interpretation of those who wrote the books you read on ETs, which comes back to the same thing as what christians do: their understanding and interpretation of the books written by those who saw moments of Christ life and recorded them and interpreted them as they understood them. That makes it so that by your own concept of truth or nothion of truth seeking above, your work would not be seeking the truth any more or less than the christians you seem so fascinated about. I.e. do you have your own truth to even say or is your truth meanign to demystify christinaity without havign a big global Truth per se? Perhaps you shoudl then concentrate your efforts on speaking the truth of whatevent you have witnessed about ETs landing and so on, rather than get distratced and lose focus and go on a wothchunt about christians for their not havign seen Christ and therfore not knowign the truth, where as long as you have not seen ETs landing yourself, *by that same way of thinking you use about christianity, you’d not know the truth about ET’s anymore than cristians about Christ either. I coudl see how one woudl maybe see christinanity woudl need demystigied in that, but now how their using the exact same thinking procerss as they use to demystify christianity woudl not itself be a myth, and in that, how it coudl be "THE" Truth. If you say it is an explanation of reality, then call it that, why not? Truth is, many explanatiosn of reality have been super farfetched and off target. Zeus and Jupiter did not make thunder. The earth is not flat. There is not an end of the world where poeple fall off. he sun does not revolve around us, etc, etc, etc. > People die every day. Does the christian really think the spirit then just > lies around until judgement day, and is then judged by god? > What kind of sense is that? It’s non-sense – or nonsense.

Three things here. First, *chrust*ianity contains the word Christ and means the belief in his teaching,s where he was not there in the days of the Old Testament, only for some while during what makes the New Testament. The apostles Acts is part of the New Testament and yet occured after CXhrist died. Christinaity then, is not the ntire Bible in that. Second, that means that when Christ arrived, there was ca context and systmes of beliefs he faced, systems of beliefs that people had already, from religions that alrerady were in place, and robbed people of any life quality at all, not t mention of spirituality itself. His words were then in that generation and in that context of facing established beliefs and using at times images from the old beliefs and the book they were then based on: the old testament. "Before Eli was, I was" is a fast example of it. Eli was in the old testament and was then aprt of an old belief by which it said that Eli woudl have to come back before teh messiah, i.e. christ to christians then, would come back. His words were in teh context of answerign a person exactly tellign him that he coudl not be the messiah, cause Eli had not come back. He also yet was reported to ahve said :"Eli *was* back and you did to him as you chose*". They then itnerpreted that Eli had to be reincarnated as Johgn the Baptist, sicne some religions of the time, namely the one that Matthew the apostle was in and already shaped and influebced by and interpretign Christ’s words with, then, believed in reincarnation. And third: do you really believe that a spaceship will come to pick you and take you to Saturn?;-) Silly question it is and you probably think I am lending you beliefs and intentiosn you do not have. Well, the same, lendign christians intentiosn that suit your theories about ETs is, to use your words, just as nonsensical and makes non-sense. We masybe can inagine why we’d not see sos waiting, cause souls are saidf to be invisible, say, ort whatever else. But  to think that billions of people were taken by spaceships when they died and no oen saw it happen ever, now that woudl be harder to gobble. Stupid reasoning, I know, yet it is not more brilliant Harvey when used by you….Sorry to say. One can not say he will tell Truth of All Things and use doubl standards about any system of belief that is not his, showing its flaws, and then use the exact same systenm he described as flawed to describe his own system of belief and call it the truth right after he called it a flase thing or an untruth. Got to be consequent, the resonsings be inherently consequent but also ""parallely so"" with regards to other systems of beliefs. One can not declare phony one reasoning and then use the same and declare it not just true, but *THE* Truth, capital T. If one wants to decrivbe their understanding of one explanation fo relaity, then why not call it as it is, and not make it a religious belief in the unexplained? Tell us about the events you witnessed about ETs landing and so on, and let us chose if we want to belive in that cause it makes sense or offers a better system of Spiritual Beliefs. Do you see what I mean? Perhaps you shoudl focus on your topic, which is explaning a theory about hwo earth came to be or how it wa populated or whatever it is to you, and not get lost in digressiosn and attacks about this or that spiritual beleif. Cause again, and englobing truth woudl not deny reality, and religions, that we adhere to one of them or not, ARE part of daily life and REALITY on earth. Excluding them as unrealities, if to you so means truth or untruth, woudl infirm your own belief as englobing and thus as *THE* one truth englibing all truths, cause it woudl reject all systems of beliefs. Spirituality is NOT an ""event"", if it yet happenes. I.e. we do not go "I just saw pirituality at the corner cafe!!". Christianity is a happening and an event in that. It had a begining and an unfolding and affected hitory and in that christinaity IS a reality all right. That the belief is right or wrong, it still is part of Earth’s reality. Denyign its reality coudl then not be called The Turth.  Just liek denying the reality of the Muslim religion or of Zen for that mnatter coudl not lead to THE one truth about reality on earth, and even less about Reality. So in short, to use the same simplistic reasinings and ridicule as you generously appply to all other beliefs than yours, where a person of truth woudl want to apply the same measure to their own belief too, then, it shoudl be returned to you that this: SDo you really believe that little men from space will coem and get you when you die and reincarnate you into a body and create a life scenario they will oversee the creation of so as to make you pay for the wrogn you did and live ion the shoes of the oens you did wrogn to? I am not sayign that si what ytou believe in, donlt read me wrong, I am simply tryign to show you that you use two weights and two measures and that in that your own belief is biased and interpretation, and not a description of an event you;ld have witnessed any more than christians, and that if simplifying to nonsense is fien to do with beliefs, then the same shoudl be done by you about your own **if you want to talk about truth*. Truth does not have two wights and two measures nor two standards by which to be measure. Even less *THE* Truth, capital T.  >  > Then there is the question of what happens at birth? Where do these > souls come from? If christians believe that the human body is animated > by a spirit within. Call it personality/consciousness/whatever – or even > spirit/soul.

Are you talking ETs here? Are you tlaking your topic or just going against an established oen with nothign better to offer as a spiritual system of Belief? Why not atlk about YOUR belief? Wh thsi fascination in a christian belief YOU do nto believe about? If your book is about YOUR belief, then so be it, sure. But you seem to be lost in the opposition of the beliefs of others…And in that going off your own topic. Sure, I … read more »

Response:

In article <chv77d$nr…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >> In article <chobv5$bc…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >> says… >>>I bet my old couch, since a new one is on its way for my bday, present of >>>my mom:), that someoone who never read nor posted here before will decloak >>>to moan about that Eleonore thing taking all the posts to herself:):) >>>Anyone got, I dunno, maybe old mis-paired socks to top the bet?:) >>>:) >>>-Chloe >>>– >> Yeah, well you have been clogging up the NG here. I don’t mind. >> Someone ought to take centre stage and be a superstar… >Hehehehe:) >Where woudl you like that old couch delivered…?;-):) >> Read something about ‘The Terminal’ in the paper, saw something on TV >> about the real man, and read it too in the paper just a short while >> ago. He’s very very strange. He has the power to leave the terminal, >> but somehow feels safe? there… >The terminal being what sort of terminal? >Psychology experience woudl make me warp it all into thinking that some who >were >abused sexually need to relive the event to recreate or reenact it all. >I;d be thinking that such a person was sexually molested in a terminal, >or lived soem life changing event, and would unconsciously tryign to relive >the event, to go back in tiem and change the event/its outcome and the >course of their life from there. >  > I got the weirdst ideas at times, >some will make for an interesting >> film/whatever story – but I’m not a fiction to weave them into a fictional >> storyline. After all, if ‘The Terminal’ got made — there ought to be >> better stories than that… and I have some… >I fotne think in my case that writign any other story than "the" book in >my mind might be a good way, one to make a few bucks maybe and have more >time tow rite the bigger one that is more dear to me. >If oen has the time and means to eat while writing (i.e. not threatenign >their survival to stop all elese and write) then why not? It can only be >fun to do, if one enjjoys themself at it, that is. Money or not at the >end, publication or not, if it is fun to do, then why not take the money >if any at the end at all like an unpextected bonus?:) >C >>  > Harvey >

The terminal – meaning airport. The film is inspired by the real life story of a man trapped at a French airport – Paris? The real story and the movie are completely different. Hollywood has Tom Hanks meeting a helpful air stewardess – no such luck in real life, the real man is ‘alone’ without anyone special in his life. I’m not inspired to become a fictional writer – I deal with ideas, rather than characters and plot. I saw a TV special about Janet Frame’s life – a noted NZ writer. She died earlier this year, and grew up in this area. I haven’t read any of her books – she was nominated for the nobel prize in literature, but didn’t win. I think the real truth about things/life/etc is far more fantasical than anything in fiction or fantasy – and few people believe it – the truth. So, what I would write about – is a Harry Potter for adults. No, I haven’t read anything of Harry Potter. Harvey

Response:

In article <ci0pl6$mi…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >> In article <chv77d$nr…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >> says… >>>Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >>>> In article <chobv5$bc…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >>>> says… >>>>>I bet my old couch, since a new one is on its way for my bday, present of >>>>>my mom:), that someoone who never read nor posted here before will decloak >>>>>to moan about that Eleonore thing taking all the posts to herself:):) >>>>>Anyone got, I dunno, maybe old mis-paired socks to top the bet?:) >>>>>:) >>>>>-Chloe >>>>>– >>>> Yeah, well you have been clogging up the NG here. I don’t mind. >>>> Someone ought to take centre stage and be a superstar… >>>Hehehehe:) >>>Where woudl you like that old couch delivered…?;-):) >>>> Read something about ‘The Terminal’ in the paper, saw something on TV >>>> about the real man, and read it too in the paper just a short while >>>> ago. He’s very very strange. He has the power to leave the terminal, >>>> but somehow feels safe? there… >>>The terminal being what sort of terminal? >>>Psychology experience woudl make me warp it all into thinking that some who >>>were >>>abused sexually need to relive the event to recreate or reenact it all. >>>I;d be thinking that such a person was sexually molested in a terminal, >>>or lived soem life changing event, and would unconsciously tryign to relive >>>the event, to go back in tiem and change the event/its outcome and the >>>course of their life from there. >>>  > I got the weirdst ideas at times, >>>some will make for an interesting >>>> film/whatever story – but I’m not a fiction to weave them into a fictional >>>> storyline. After all, if ‘The Terminal’ got made — there ought to be >>>> better stories than that… and I have some… >>>I fotne think in my case that writign any other story than "the" book in >>>my mind might be a good way, one to make a few bucks maybe and have more >>>time tow rite the bigger one that is more dear to me. >>>If oen has the time and means to eat while writing (i.e. not threatenign >>>their survival to stop all elese and write) then why not? It can only be >>>fun to do, if one enjjoys themself at it, that is. Money or not at the >>>end, publication or not, if it is fun to do, then why not take the money >>>if any at the end at all like an unpextected bonus?:) >>>C >>>>  > Harvey > >> The terminal – meaning airport. >> The film is inspired by the real life story of a man trapped at >> a French airport – Paris? The real story and the movie are completely >> different. Hollywood has Tom Hanks meeting a helpful air stewardess – >Ah. Yes, saw a few ads about that one a while back. Forgot about it >completely. >> no such luck in real life, the real man is ‘alone’ without anyone >> special in his life. >…I take t that you eman that the book is about the story of a man in >Real Life (i.e. you not thinking a fictional character has a real life:)) >> I’m not inspired to become a fictional writer – I deal with ideas, >> rather than characters and plot. >Those are ideas too:) >> I saw a TV special about Janet Frame’s life – a noted NZ writer. >> She died earlier this year, and grew up in this area. >> I haven’t read any of her books – she was nominated for the nobel prize in >> literature, but didn’t win. >> I think the real truth about things/life/etc is far more fantasical than >> anything in fiction or fantasy – and few people believe it – the truth. >I always find a bit odd this fascination for The Truth poeple have. >No wonder the X Fioles caught on so much…..Usually people talking about >a quest for THE truth are people that end up suicidal, as what they seem >to be seeking -for the oens I met so far, say- is infinity or infinitude >maybe it woudl be called….In fact what they are looking for is pretty >much the same quest as those who looked for (a) god. The Pure thing, >whrre the pure thing can only be potential and neverrealization, as if >it "becomes" it no longer is perfect or pure….In that, if one coudl even >"know" THE truth, they coudl not speak it without speaking somethign else >than The truth. >Dunno if you see what I mean…. >But anyway. I am a truthful person and that maybe then suffices me. THE >truth is not somethign I seek more thanh good or happiness or this or >that. I donlt seek one thing at the expense of another thing, or so I try >and not do anyway…. >As well…To me, if "The" truth rejects other poeple’s various concepts and >beliefs and so on, it cna not be big enough to be "THE" truth. >Truth alone does not suffice and Truth is not a Prime thing, in that >morals to define what is true or not are presupposed and necessary, where >then other moral things are above truth to evaluate it and see when it is >true or not. >Hard to put in words, but to me, to say "I am looking for The Truth" or "I >hold The Truth" woudl be like my saying I am looking for the second branch >of a pear tree, when I woudl yet not be looking for a epar tree to find >the secodn branch IN….? >What is the ultimate value? The oen that all others are evaluated under? >To some it is truth. To me not all truth is good to say. Eg: telling a >maniac the real address of the eprson he woudl tell me he wants to kill >woudl not be a good truth to say. So if trith can be a wrogn thing, >soethign else has to be above Truth to make it so we can know and judge >when it is proper and good to say "the" truth and when it is not. >Because of that Truth is not for me the Ultimate or Prime Value. >In fact I do not think that any value can be above all others. >But I know this. If we see that saying the truth lovingly os always good, >i.e. saying the truth for our own well being and preservign that of others >too, then love is "overseing" truth. >In that and in other values, I think that Love is my top value of the >pyramid. Not love as in romance else when no ranace si there all my other >values would be what, suddenly changed or fluctuating and transforming >each minute back and forth? >And above my top "love" value is "God" in my case, i.e. this potentiality >where all pure concepts are, Truth among, and to which I can refer to when >I need to keep my concepts and values in check when love is at stake or at >rosk, else all would become chaos, if my top value was affected….Havign >this pure potential "container" of the pure concepts and values above it >all also makes it so that I can not take my own self too seriously and can >not as easily fall into conceitedness and arrogance or thinkign that my >own pyramid of values woudl be THE truth to impose on others. >It is mine and anothers is just as good for them as mine is for me, or >like me they will keep working at it until itis good enough for them, of >they care about that. If they donlt that si fine as that si their own self >and choice too…. >But for me, Trith is not the highest concept or value of the pyramid, as >not all truths are good to say, if mind you I find few exceptions, i.e. >very few exceptions are when the trith is not good to be said in my view. >I.e. that very rarely is it that in a loving way, one woudl have to not >say the truth. I can think of a few instances: someoen askign em if they >will have a suprise party. I am NOT gonna tell them and ruin it! The >maniac asking me some gal’s addie. I will NOT tell him/her! But that >suffices for me to see that soemthign is higher in my pyramid of values >than truth in that it oversees when sayign the truth is good or not: loving or >not. Love for me is what makes me know when it woudl not be good nor right >to tell some serial killer the truth about someoen else’s addrss when I >know they are after them to kill them, nah!:) >So that to me makes truth still a very important thing, but doe snot make >me think of The Turth as my "god" or as the top of my value pyuramid. Love >for my neighbor is above that one in the pyramid, simply. Yet that one >makes me think it sure is fine if my neighybor has whatever top value to >their pyramid of values or belief that they chose. Sure is all fine by me, >cause I love that neighbor!:). Some I love from a greater distance, >maybe;-) but I love them anyway!:) I want them happy…with or without >me;-), and I want myself happy with or without them;-):) > >  > So, what I would write >about – is a >Harry Potter for adults. > No, I haven’t read anything of Harry Potter. >I have not either if I might soem day:) >You’d be surprised btw how many adults read Harry Potter. >If I know what you eman:) >Chloe >> Harvey

Telling people what truth is, is kinda like the man saying the emperor has no clothes. And tellng the truth, or seeking it — is I think explaining what ‘reality’ is or is about. To explain the gulf between say christian and science views – is like saying, there is an event, and a christian sees it in terms of the bible and what they are taught about christianity, and a scientist sees it in light of current theories, and what science says… They see the one event, but explain it vastly differently. People saying what truth is, or seeing it, merely sees the event, and tell it like it is. People die every day. Does the christian really think the spirit then just lies around until judgement day, and is then judged by god? What kind of sense is that? It’s non-sense – or nonsense. Then there is the question of what happens at birth? Where do these souls come from? If christians believe that the human body is animated by a spirit within. Call it personality/consciousness/whatever – or even spirit/soul. And what does the atheist/scientist really … read more »

Response:

Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In article <chv77d$nr…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA > says… >>Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: >>> In article <chobv5$bc…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA >>> says… >>>>I bet my old couch, since a new one is on its way for my bday, present of >>>>my mom:), that someoone who never read nor posted here before will decloak >>>>to moan about that Eleonore thing taking all the posts to herself:):) >>>>Anyone got, I dunno, maybe old mis-paired socks to top the bet?:) >>>>:) >>>>-Chloe >>>>– >>> Yeah, well you have been clogging up the NG here. I don’t mind. >>> Someone ought to take centre stage and be a superstar… >>Hehehehe:) >>Where woudl you like that old couch delivered…?;-):) >>> Read something about ‘The Terminal’ in the paper, saw something on TV >>> about the real man, and read it too in the paper just a short while >>> ago. He’s very very strange. He has the power to leave the terminal, >>> but somehow feels safe? there… >>The terminal being what sort of terminal? >>Psychology experience woudl make me warp it all into thinking that some who >>were >>abused sexually need to relive the event to recreate or reenact it all. >>I;d be thinking that such a person was sexually molested in a terminal, >>or lived soem life changing event, and would unconsciously tryign to relive >>the event, to go back in tiem and change the event/its outcome and the >>course of their life from there. >>  > I got the weirdst ideas at times, >>some will make for an interesting >>> film/whatever story – but I’m not a fiction to weave them into a fictional >>> storyline. After all, if ‘The Terminal’ got made — there ought to be >>> better stories than that… and I have some… >>I fotne think in my case that writign any other story than "the" book in >>my mind might be a good way, one to make a few bucks maybe and have more >>time tow rite the bigger one that is more dear to me. >>If oen has the time and means to eat while writing (i.e. not threatenign >>their survival to stop all elese and write) then why not? It can only be >>fun to do, if one enjjoys themself at it, that is. Money or not at the >>end, publication or not, if it is fun to do, then why not take the money >>if any at the end at all like an unpextected bonus?:) >>C >>>  > Harvey > > The terminal – meaning airport. > The film is inspired by the real life story of a man trapped at > a French airport – Paris? The real story and the movie are completely > different. Hollywood has Tom Hanks meeting a helpful air stewardess –

Ah. Yes, saw a few ads about that one a while back. Forgot about it completely. > no such luck in real life, the real man is ‘alone’ without anyone > special in his life.

…I take t that you eman that the book is about the story of a man in Real Life (i.e. you not thinking a fictional character has a real life:))  > > I’m not inspired to become a fictional writer – I deal with ideas, > rather than characters and plot.

Those are ideas too:) > I saw a TV special about Janet Frame’s life – a noted NZ writer. > She died earlier this year, and grew up in this area. > I haven’t read any of her books – she was nominated for the nobel prize in > literature, but didn’t win. > I think the real truth about things/life/etc is far more fantasical than > anything in fiction or fantasy – and few people believe it – the truth.

I always find a bit odd this fascination for The Truth poeple have. No wonder the X Fioles caught on so much…..Usually people talking about a quest for THE truth are people that end up suicidal, as what they seem to be seeking -for the oens I met so far, say- is infinity or infinitude maybe it woudl be called….In fact what they are looking for is pretty much the same quest as those who looked for (a) god. The Pure thing, whrre the pure thing can only be potential and neverrealization, as if it "becomes" it no longer is perfect or pure….In that, if one coudl even "know" THE truth, they coudl not speak it without speaking somethign else than The truth. Dunno if you see what I mean…. But anyway. I am a truthful person and that maybe then suffices me. THE truth is not somethign I seek more thanh good or happiness or this or that. I donlt seek one thing at the expense of another thing, or so I try and not do anyway…. As well…To me, if "The" truth rejects other poeple’s various concepts and beliefs and so on, it cna not be big enough to be "THE" truth. Truth alone does not suffice and Truth is not a Prime thing, in that morals to define what is true or not are presupposed and necessary, where then other moral things are above truth to evaluate it and see when it is true or not. Hard to put in words, but to me, to say "I am looking for The Truth" or "I hold The Truth" woudl be like my saying I am looking for the second branch of a pear tree, when I woudl yet not be looking for a epar tree to find the secodn branch IN….? What is the ultimate value? The oen that all others are evaluated under? To some it is truth. To me not all truth is good to say. Eg: telling a maniac the real address of the eprson he woudl tell me he wants to kill woudl not be a good truth to say. So if trith can be a wrogn thing, soethign else has to be above Truth to make it so we can know and judge when it is proper and good to say "the" truth and when it is not. Because of that Truth is not for me the Ultimate or Prime Value. In fact I do not think that any value can be above all others. But I know this. If we see that saying the truth lovingly os always good, i.e. saying the truth for our own well being and preservign that of others too, then love is "overseing" truth. In that and in other values, I think that Love is my top value of the pyramid. Not love as in romance else when no ranace si there all my other values would be what, suddenly changed or fluctuating and transforming each minute back and forth? And above my top "love" value is "God" in my case, i.e. this potentiality where all pure concepts are, Truth among, and to which I can refer to when I need to keep my concepts and values in check when love is at stake or at rosk, else all would become chaos, if my top value was affected….Havign this pure potential "container" of the pure concepts and values above it all also makes it so that I can not take my own self too seriously and can not as easily fall into conceitedness and arrogance or thinkign that my own pyramid of values woudl be THE truth to impose on others. It is mine and anothers is just as good for them as mine is for me, or like me they will keep working at it until itis good enough for them, of they care about that. If they donlt that si fine as that si their own self and choice too…. But for me, Trith is not the highest concept or value of the pyramid, as not all truths are good to say, if mind you I find few exceptions, i.e. very few exceptions are when the trith is not good to be said in my view. I.e. that very rarely is it that in a loving way, one woudl have to not say the truth. I can think of a few instances: someoen askign em if they will have a suprise party. I am NOT gonna tell them and ruin it! The maniac asking me some gal’s addie. I will NOT tell him/her! But that suffices for me to see that soemthign is higher in my pyramid of values than truth in that it oversees when sayign the truth is good or not: loving or not. Love for me is what makes me know when it woudl not be good nor right to tell some serial killer the truth about someoen else’s addrss when I know they are after them to kill them, nah!:) So that to me makes truth still a very important thing, but doe snot make me think of The Turth as my "god" or as the top of my value pyuramid. Love for my neighbor is above that one in the pyramid, simply. Yet that one makes me think it sure is fine if my neighybor has whatever top value to their pyramid of values or belief that they chose. Sure is all fine by me, cause I love that neighbor!:). Some I love from a greater distance, maybe;-) but I love them anyway!:) I want them happy…with or without me;-), and I want myself happy with or without them;-):)  >  > So, what I would write about – is a Harry Potter for adults. > No, I haven’t read anything of Harry Potter. I have not either if I might soem day:) You’d be surprised btw how many adults read Harry Potter. If I know what you eman:) Chloe  > > Harvey

–

Response:

In article <chobv5$bc…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I bet my old couch, since a new one is on its way for my bday, present of >my mom:), that someoone who never read nor posted here before will decloak >to moan about that Eleonore thing taking all the posts to herself:):) >Anyone got, I dunno, maybe old mis-paired socks to top the bet?:) >:) >-Chloe >–

Yeah, well you have been clogging up the NG here. I don’t mind. Someone ought to take centre stage and be a superstar… Read something about ‘The Terminal’ in the paper, saw something on TV about the real man, and read it too in the paper just a short while ago. He’s very very strange. He has the power to leave the terminal, but somehow feels safe? there… I got the weirdst ideas at times, some will make for an interesting film/whatever story – but I’m not a fiction to weave them into a fictional storyline. After all, if ‘The Terminal’ got made — there ought to be better stories than that… and I have some… Harvey

Response:

Your Name Here=Harvey (y…@somewhere.not.aus) writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In article <chobv5$bc…@freenet9.carleton.ca>, bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA > says… >>I bet my old couch, since a new one is on its way for my bday, present of >>my mom:), that someoone who never read nor posted here before will decloak >>to moan about that Eleonore thing taking all the posts to herself:):) >>Anyone got, I dunno, maybe old mis-paired socks to top the bet?:) >>:) >>-Chloe >>– > Yeah, well you have been clogging up the NG here. I don’t mind. > Someone ought to take centre stage and be a superstar…

Hehehehe:) Where woudl you like that old couch delivered…?;-):) > Read something about ‘The Terminal’ in the paper, saw something on TV > about the real man, and read it too in the paper just a short while > ago. He’s very very strange. He has the power to leave the terminal, > but somehow feels safe? there…

The terminal being what sort of terminal? Psychology experience woudl make me warp it all into thinking that some who were abused sexually need to relive the event to recreate or reenact it all. I;d be thinking that such a person was sexually molested in a terminal, or lived soem life changing event, and would unconsciously tryign to relive the event, to go back in tiem and change the event/its outcome and the course of their life from there.   > I got the weirdst ideas at times, some will make for an interesting > film/whatever story – but I’m not a fiction to weave them into a fictional > storyline. After all, if ‘The Terminal’ got made — there ought to be > better stories than that… and I have some…

I fotne think in my case that writign any other story than "the" book in my mind might be a good way, one to make a few bucks maybe and have more time tow rite the bigger one that is more dear to me. If oen has the time and means to eat while writing (i.e. not threatenign their survival to stop all elese and write) then why not? It can only be fun to do, if one enjjoys themself at it, that is. Money or not at the end, publication or not, if it is fun to do, then why not take the money if any at the end at all like an unpextected bonus?:) C >  > Harvey >

–

Response:

I bet my old couch, since a new one is on its way for my bday, present of my mom:), that someoone who never read nor posted here before will decloak to moan about that Eleonore thing taking all the posts to herself:):) Anyone got, I dunno, maybe old mis-paired socks to top the bet?:) -Chloe —

Response:

P.S.: Oh yeah./ And they will throw ever so priginally "which is it, Eleonore, or Chloe???" while they of course will have "JohnDoe" for a moniker and sign somethign liek Peter-Paul;-) Just having strong premonitions tonight;-) Hehehe. Oh yeah. And the last sip of beer that werte left from some other day, to test that malt hypo(hyper?)thesis Sklenge inspired. C  Eleonore Beaudoin – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -(bc…@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes: > I bet my old couch, since a new one is on its way for my bday, present of > my mom:), that someoone who never read nor posted here before will decloak > to moan about that Eleonore thing taking all the posts to herself:):) > Anyone got, I dunno, maybe old mis-paired socks to top the bet?:) > > -Chloe > —

–

Response:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:33:13 -0400, M

"JWB" <bigtomhgla…@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:DMAIc.62244$MB3.61866@attbi_s04… > > "JWB" <bigtomhgla…@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite > dot com> writes: > > > snip > > > I agree – but you have to realize to the conservative, they DO believe > the > > > fetus is a "person", and abortion is akin to killing people in the > street. > > I would give more credence to that opinion if they also believed in > > the same rights for homosexuals as everyone else, and didn’t believe > > in imposing their religous beliefs (in other wasy) on others, and if > > they believed in treating people different from themselves with > > respect. > you’re getting away from the point of  "is pro-choice an agenda" and instead > using it as a springboard for an attack on general conservative positions, > which I have no interest in debating. I know you’re a liberal,

I think you got away from the "is pro-choice an agenda" question when you brought up roaming through the streets killing people indiscriminately, thus trying to make an analogy between that behavior and behavior that allows people to make their own choices about their _own_ lives and murderous behavior. Actually, I consider myself a conservative.  But my views have more in common with a number of liberal points of view.  It is a twisted situation though when so-called conservatives want to use the government to regulate behavior which doesn’t harm others, and when belonging tot he ACLU is considered anything _other_ than conservative! > and I’m…. > well… I’m nothing politically, really (I think it’s all an amusing > sideshow how people get so worked up over stupid shit they can’t control).

Some of us thing we can affect things. > > Remember the bumper sticker parodying the values of the right (in the > > U.S.) "Life begins at conception, and ends at birth?"  If they believe > > human life is sacred, and that human life begins at conception, I’d > > like to see that belief practiced on lives that continue after birth too. > See, this is where people like you

What are "people like me?" > lose me – yea, I’m sure in all their > policies, conservatives care nothing for anyone once they are born. Ok, > gotcha.

Did you read the place where I said "parodying?"  I’m not proposing that the bumper sticker is literally true, but if conservatives thing _embryos_ are so sacred, how about if they get behind public health care for infants and small children too, instead of just public care for embryos!

Response:

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:DMAIc.62244$MB3.61866@attbi_s04… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "JWB" <bigtomhgla…@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> writes: > > "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:QpAIc.62253$a24.57610@attbi_s03… > > > "JWB" <bigtomhgla…@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite > > dot com> writes: > > > > "Caren" <care…@msn.com> wrote in message > > > > news:3754f0b3.0407120735.141d325f@posting.google.com… > > > > > I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his > > > > > "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an > > > > > agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice > > > > > an agenda? > > > > Yes. > > > >  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person > > > > > makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? > > > > >  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an > > > > > agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. > > > > I’m quite certain you don’t believe in widespread personal choice in all > > > > matters. If you say you do, then you must be for complete anarchy. > > Anyone > > > > legally killing people in the street because they "choose" to. Adults > > > > legally coming into your home and stealing from you because hey, that’s > > > > their choice. > > > It is a common theoretical position to believe in widespread personal > > > choice as long as it doesn’t harm others.  Such a position doesn’t > > > allow for the "personal choice" of killing people in the street. > > > In fact, many if not most conservatives claim to believe in this > > > prinicple.  Until the "choice" involved is one they don’t like. > > I agree – but you have to realize to the conservative, they DO believe the > > fetus is a "person", and abortion is akin to killing people in the street. > I would give more credence to that opinion if they also believed in > the same rights for homosexuals as everyone else, and didn’t believe > in imposing their religous beliefs (in other wasy) on others, and if > they believed in treating people different from themselves with > respect.

you’re getting away from the point of  "is pro-choice an agenda" and instead using it as a springboard for an attack on general conservative positions, which I have no interest in debating. I know you’re a liberal, and I’m…. well… I’m nothing politically, really (I think it’s all an amusing sideshow how people get so worked up over stupid shit they can’t control). > Remember the bumper sticker parodying the values of the right (in the > U.S.) "Life begins at conception, and ends at birth?"  If they believe > human life is sacred, and that human life begins at conception, I’d > like to see that belief practiced on lives that continue after birth too.

See, this is where people like you lose me – yea, I’m sure in all their policies, conservatives care nothing for anyone once they are born. Ok, gotcha.

Response:

"Tony Miller" <t…@cigardiary.com> wrote in message

news:slrncf5h6u.bf5.tony@home.cigardiary.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> On 12 Jul 2004 08:35:40 -0700, Caren > <care…@msn.com> wrote: > > I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his > > "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an > > agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice > > an agenda?  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person > > makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? > >  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an > > agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. > "Pro choice".  What a nice, harmelss and *fair* kind of opinion.  How > could anyone be against "choice"?  Especially if you can salve your > conscience by saying (like John Kerry did) that *you* would never have an > abortion, but you would never interfere with another woman’s right to an > abortion (keeping your options open if you ever decided that you didn’t > like that "choice" you said you’d make). > > I understand how Tony views abortion.  That is his "choice".  However, > > if his choice is to tell me or others that I should not have 3 options > > if I unexpectantly become pregnant, he is imposing his belief system > > onto me (hence, agenda).  If his wife became unexpectantly pregnant, I > > would not impose my belief onto her, I’d trust that she could make a > > choice that works for her and her family. > People impose their belief systme on you every day.  Some people don’t > believe you ought to be able to drove over 55 MPH on the highway.  Other > people believe that you shouldn’t steal from folks and yet others believe > that you shouldn’t kill your fellow man.  There are others who believe > that your grass shouldn’t be over 12 inches long, and others believe > that you shouldn’t drive when you’re drunk.  These people are imposing > their beliefs on you, but I don’t see you having a problem with that.

You know, for me the biggest dillema is the lack of a consistent framework on which legislation is based. It bothers me that there is biblical foundation for our laws. It gives the practice the strength of precidence. I do not think that the Christian religion has any more bearing on legislation than any other religion. Successful cohabitation of a lot of people in a limited space should be the framework of legislation, IMO. > In the case of abortion, I believe that the fertilized egg is a citizen, > fully deserving the protections our society offers.  This is the same case > as when black people weren’t considered human, and white people were able > to own them (and they salved their consciences while they were mistreating > them by remembering that they weren’t really human).

What do we do when there is a lack of accord on this fundamental principle? There is a guy over in alt.parenting.solutions who actually thinks that a child is not a "human" until like 3 months because they have no concept of self. This argument can never be settled in any satisfactory way with one half of the debate focusing on when human life begins and the other half if focusing on protecting the rights of women, which historically were regularly trampled, leaving women a little sceptical that they have an equal share in "rights." > Well, the civil rights movement happened.  And this new civil rights > movement is happening, and hopefully it will prevent the 1.2M deaths that > are occurring every year in the name of "choice".

Anyone who commits murder faces someone or something on the day of judgement. That is certainly no excuse to not try for justice in society. You know what I would love? I would love if all the Christians who claim to be interested in saving the lives of these children found some contructive way to educate, care for unwanted children or SOMETHING other than ram their view down non-believer’s throats through legisltation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> -Tony > — > "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it’s time > to fertilize your lawn!" > Want to jump start your marriage?  Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. > Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Response:

"Bill in Co." <surly7curmudg…@earthlink.net> writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Doug Anderson wrote: > > "JWB" <bigtomhgla…@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite > dot > > com> writes: > >> "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> news:QpAIc.62253$a24.57610@attbi_s03… > >>> "JWB" <bigtomhgla…@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite > >> dot com> writes: > >>>> "Caren" <care…@msn.com> wrote in message > >>>> news:3754f0b3.0407120735.141d325f@posting.google.com… > >>>>> I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his > >>>>> "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an > >>>>> agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice > >>>>> an agenda? > >>>> Yes. > >>>>  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person > >>>>> makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? > >>>>>  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an > >>>>> agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. > >>>> I’m quite certain you don’t believe in widespread personal choice in > all > >>>> matters. If you say you do, then you must be for complete anarchy. > >> Anyone > >>>> legally killing people in the street because they "choose" to. Adults > >>>> legally coming into your home and stealing from you because hey, that’s > >>>> their choice. > >>> It is a common theoretical position to believe in widespread personal > >>> choice as long as it doesn’t harm others.  Such a position doesn’t > >>> allow for the "personal choice" of killing people in the street. > >>> In fact, many if not most conservatives claim to believe in this > >>> prinicple.  Until the "choice" involved is one they don’t like. > >> I agree – but you have to realize to the conservative, they DO believe > the > >> fetus is a "person", and abortion is akin to killing people in the > street. > > I would give more credence to that opinion if they also believed in > > the same rights for homosexuals as everyone else, > Well, I guess I’m old fashioned, as I still think marriage is between a man > and a woman.   So in that respect, and only that one, you can call me > conservative.

No.  In that respect _I’m_ the conservative because I think this is none of the government’s business.

Response:

Caren <care…@msn.com> wrote: > I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his > "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an > agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice > an agenda?  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person > makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? >  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an > agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant.

An agenda is a plan of action with desired results (my definition; I din’t look it up).  So no, leaving everyone to make up their own mind is not an agenda.  Once you have a plan with results you want (say you lobby for government subsidies for abortion) then you have an agenda. Note that I don’t think that there is anything wrong with agenda – we all have them – it’s hidden agendas that can be worrisome.

Response:

"urf" <u…@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:9oAIc.33517$Xb4.15681@nwrdny02.gnilink.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Tony Miller" <t…@cigardiary.com> wrote in message > news:slrncf5i9j.bf5.tony@home.cigardiary.com… > > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:11:25 GMT, urf > > <u…@nospam.com> wrote: > > > Life is so much easier for us liberals. > > Sure it is.  You take our money and use it to make life easier for you > > liberals. > > -Tony > I take "your" money?????? > There’s a stretch. You  actually made me laugh out loud. > Tony, I’m a millionaire. I paid my dues to society to get here. I don’t > live very big but I get more money from the government now than > when I only made $25k. I guess I should love the tax cut but I think > there are others who could use the money more than I could. Probably > you could use the money more than me.

I’m not a millionaire (yet), but we’ve made a nice chunk so far – and I agree – while tax cuts are nice, I get the feeling that a lot of people needed them more than I did. When we got that $300 (each) that Bush sent everyone a few years ago, we donated it to the local animal shelter where we got our two dogs.

Response:

"Emma Anne" <m…@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:1ggt845.1r74m1w1stncbqN%mbjq@earthlink.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Caren <care…@msn.com> wrote: > > I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his > > "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an > > agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice > > an agenda?  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person > > makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? > >  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an > > agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. > An agenda is a plan of action with desired results (my definition; I > din’t look it up).  So no, leaving everyone to make up their own mind is > not an agenda.  Once you have a plan with results you want (say you > lobby for government subsidies for abortion) then you have an agenda. > Note that I don’t think that there is anything wrong with agenda – we > all have them – it’s hidden agendas that can be worrisome.

That’s something I forgot to mention to Caren – although i believe being pro-choice *is* an agenda, there’s nothing wrong with that.

Response:

"JWB" <bigtomhgla…@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:QpAIc.62253$a24.57610@attbi_s03… > > "JWB" <bigtomhgla…@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite > dot com> writes: > > > "Caren" <care…@msn.com> wrote in message > > > news:3754f0b3.0407120735.141d325f@posting.google.com… > > > > I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his > > > > "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an > > > > agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice > > > > an agenda? > > > Yes. > > >  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person > > > > makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? > > > >  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an > > > > agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. > > > I’m quite certain you don’t believe in widespread personal choice in all > > > matters. If you say you do, then you must be for complete anarchy. > Anyone > > > legally killing people in the street because they "choose" to. Adults > > > legally coming into your home and stealing from you because hey, that’s > > > their choice. > > It is a common theoretical position to believe in widespread personal > > choice as long as it doesn’t harm others.  Such a position doesn’t > > allow for the "personal choice" of killing people in the street. > > In fact, many if not most conservatives claim to believe in this > > prinicple.  Until the "choice" involved is one they don’t like. > I agree – but you have to realize to the conservative, they DO believe the > fetus is a "person", and abortion is akin to killing people in the street.

I would give more credence to that opinion if they also believed in the same rights for homosexuals as everyone else, and didn’t believe in imposing their religous beliefs (in other wasy) on others, and if they believed in treating people different from themselves with respect. Remember the bumper sticker parodying the values of the right (in the U.S.) "Life begins at conception, and ends at birth?"  If they believe human life is sacred, and that human life begins at conception, I’d like to see that belief practiced on lives that continue after birth too.

Response:

"Caren" <care…@msn.com> wrote in message

news:3754f0b3.0407120735.141d325f@posting.google.com… > I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his > "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an > agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice > an agenda?  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person > makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself?

In the context of the legal debate, I would say yes it is an agenda. For some people, the fact that abortion is legal is awful and are actively seeking that it be overturned. Your position would be in opposition to this, and thus an agenda. Side note. I do not understand this. In the Old Testament, it was good enough when people did what God told them to do. So laws governing morality made sense. But Jesus’ message was different. Rightness had to be in your heart, not just your behavior. So what good does legislating this morality? It does not make the compliant ones any more moral. If they think they are protecting the life of the child, I guess that is crazy. There is more to protecting the life of a child than preventing the mother from aborting. Who is going to protect the rest of the child’s life when the mother does not want it? The adoption market is not THAT strong. >  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an > agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. > I understand how Tony views abortion.  That is his "choice".  However, > if his choice is to tell me or others that I should not have 3 options > if I unexpectantly become pregnant, he is imposing his belief system > onto me (hence, agenda).  If his wife became unexpectantly pregnant, I > would not impose my belief onto her, I’d trust that she could make a > choice that works for her and her family.

Because it is a hot legal topic.

Response:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:39:35 -0400, glunk – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<st…@whackthisvsac.org> wrote: > "Caren" <care…@msn.com> wrote in message > news:3754f0b3.0407120735.141d325f@posting.google.com… >> I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his >> "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an >> agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice >> an agenda?  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person >> makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? > In the context of the legal debate, I would say yes it is an agenda. For > some people, the fact that abortion is legal is awful and are actively > seeking that it be overturned. Your position would be in opposition to this, > and thus an agenda. > Side note. I do not understand this. In the Old Testament, it was good > enough when people did what God told them to do. So laws governing morality > made sense. But Jesus’ message was different. Rightness had to be in your > heart, not just your behavior. So what good does legislating this morality? > It does not make the compliant ones any more moral. If they think they are > protecting the life of the child, I guess that is crazy. There is more to > protecting the life of a child than preventing the mother from aborting. Who > is going to protect the rest of the child’s life when the mother does not > want it? The adoption market is not THAT strong.

LOL!!!!! -Tony — "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it’s time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage?  Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Response:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:34:46 GMT, JWB – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<bigtomhgla…@servo.com> wrote: > "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:DMAIc.62244$MB3.61866@attbi_s04… >> "JWB" <bigtomhgla…@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite > dot com> writes: >> > "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > news:QpAIc.62253$a24.57610@attbi_s03… >> > > "JWB" <bigtomhgla…@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at > excite >> > dot com> writes: >> > > > "Caren" <care…@msn.com> wrote in message >> > > > news:3754f0b3.0407120735.141d325f@posting.google.com… >> > > > > I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his >> > > > > "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an >> > > > > agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro > choice >> > > > > an agenda? >> > > > Yes. >> > > >  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person >> > > > > makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in > itself? >> > > > >  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice > as an >> > > > > agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. >> > > > I’m quite certain you don’t believe in widespread personal choice in > all >> > > > matters. If you say you do, then you must be for complete anarchy. >> > Anyone >> > > > legally killing people in the street because they "choose" to. > Adults >> > > > legally coming into your home and stealing from you because hey, > that’s >> > > > their choice. >> > > It is a common theoretical position to believe in widespread personal >> > > choice as long as it doesn’t harm others.  Such a position doesn’t >> > > allow for the "personal choice" of killing people in the street. >> > > In fact, many if not most conservatives claim to believe in this >> > > prinicple.  Until the "choice" involved is one they don’t like. >> > I agree – but you have to realize to the conservative, they DO believe > the >> > fetus is a "person", and abortion is akin to killing people in the > street. >> I would give more credence to that opinion if they also believed in >> the same rights for homosexuals as everyone else, and didn’t believe >> in imposing their religous beliefs (in other wasy) on others, and if >> they believed in treating people different from themselves with >> respect. > you’re getting away from the point of  "is pro-choice an agenda" and instead > using it as a springboard for an attack on general conservative positions, > which I have no interest in debating. I know you’re a liberal, and I’m…. > well… I’m nothing politically, really (I think it’s all an amusing > sideshow how people get so worked up over stupid shit they can’t control).

I don’t believe this is true, or I wouldn’t get "worked up".  I think we can profoundly affect how our laws are made and I, for one, will be at the forefront of trying to affect that change. >> Remember the bumper sticker parodying the values of the right (in the >> U.S.) "Life begins at conception, and ends at birth?"  If they believe >> human life is sacred, and that human life begins at conception, I’d >> like to see that belief practiced on lives that continue after birth too. > See, this is where people like you lose me – yea, I’m sure in all their > policies, conservatives care nothing for anyone once they are born. Ok, > gotcha.

And I saw a bumper sticker that said: "Abort a fetus, kill a liberal".  So what? -Tony — "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it’s time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage?  Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Doug Anderson wrote: > "JWB" <bigtomhgla…@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot > com> writes: >> "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:QpAIc.62253$a24.57610@attbi_s03… >>> "JWB" <bigtomhgla…@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite >> dot com> writes: >>>> "Caren" <care…@msn.com> wrote in message >>>> news:3754f0b3.0407120735.141d325f@posting.google.com… >>>>> I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his >>>>> "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an >>>>> agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice >>>>> an agenda? >>>> Yes. >>>>  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person >>>>> makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? >>>>>  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an >>>>> agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. >>>> I’m quite certain you don’t believe in widespread personal choice in all >>>> matters. If you say you do, then you must be for complete anarchy. >> Anyone >>>> legally killing people in the street because they "choose" to. Adults >>>> legally coming into your home and stealing from you because hey, that’s >>>> their choice. >>> It is a common theoretical position to believe in widespread personal >>> choice as long as it doesn’t harm others.  Such a position doesn’t >>> allow for the "personal choice" of killing people in the street. >>> In fact, many if not most conservatives claim to believe in this >>> prinicple.  Until the "choice" involved is one they don’t like. >> I agree – but you have to realize to the conservative, they DO believe the >> fetus is a "person", and abortion is akin to killing people in the street. > I would give more credence to that opinion if they also believed in > the same rights for homosexuals as everyone else,

Well, I guess I’m old fashioned, as I still think marriage is between a man and a woman.   So in that respect, and only that one, you can call me conservative.   I’m after protecting what I think is best for society – at large.   Just look at the breakdown in society today!   And I say this, despite having had some good gay friends.   I think gays can live together and get something else to signify their bond – but not "marriage", per se. ISTJ, Guardian

Response:

"Tony Miller" <t…@cigardiary.com> wrote in message

news:slrncf5i9j.bf5.tony@home.cigardiary.com… > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:11:25 GMT, urf > <u…@nospam.com> wrote: > > Life is so much easier for us liberals. > Sure it is.  You take our money and use it to make life easier for you > liberals. > -Tony

I take "your" money?????? There’s a stretch. You  actually made me laugh out loud. Tony, I’m a millionaire. I paid my dues to society to get here. I don’t live very big but I get more money from the government now than when I only made $25k. I guess I should love the tax cut but I think there are others who could use the money more than I could. Probably you could use the money more than me.

Response:

"JWB" <bigtomhgla…@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Caren" <care…@msn.com> wrote in message > news:3754f0b3.0407120735.141d325f@posting.google.com… > > I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his > > "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an > > agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice > > an agenda? > Yes. >  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person > > makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? > >  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an > > agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. > I’m quite certain you don’t believe in widespread personal choice in all > matters. If you say you do, then you must be for complete anarchy. Anyone > legally killing people in the street because they "choose" to. Adults > legally coming into your home and stealing from you because hey, that’s > their choice.

It is a common theoretical position to believe in widespread personal choice as long as it doesn’t harm others.  Such a position doesn’t allow for the "personal choice" of killing people in the street. In fact, many if not most conservatives claim to believe in this prinicple.  Until the "choice" involved is one they don’t like.

Response:

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:QpAIc.62253$a24.57610@attbi_s03… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "JWB" <bigtomhgla…@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> writes: > > "Caren" <care…@msn.com> wrote in message > > news:3754f0b3.0407120735.141d325f@posting.google.com… > > > I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his > > > "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an > > > agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice > > > an agenda? > > Yes. > >  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person > > > makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? > > >  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an > > > agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. > > I’m quite certain you don’t believe in widespread personal choice in all > > matters. If you say you do, then you must be for complete anarchy. Anyone > > legally killing people in the street because they "choose" to. Adults > > legally coming into your home and stealing from you because hey, that’s > > their choice. > It is a common theoretical position to believe in widespread personal > choice as long as it doesn’t harm others.  Such a position doesn’t > allow for the "personal choice" of killing people in the street. > In fact, many if not most conservatives claim to believe in this > prinicple.  Until the "choice" involved is one they don’t like.

I agree – but you have to realize to the conservative, they DO believe the fetus is a "person", and abortion is akin to killing people in the street. Personally, I really don’t care either way, although I’d like to see the fathers have a say in what happens

Response:

"Tony Miller" <t…@cigardiary.com> wrote in message

news:slrncf5h6u.bf5.tony@home.cigardiary.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> On 12 Jul 2004 08:35:40 -0700, Caren > <care…@msn.com> wrote: > > I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his > > "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an > > agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice > > an agenda?  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person > > makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? > >  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an > > agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. > "Pro choice".  What a nice, harmelss and *fair* kind of opinion.  How > could anyone be against "choice"?  Especially if you can salve your > conscience by saying (like John Kerry did) that *you* would never have an > abortion, but you would never interfere with another woman’s right to an > abortion (keeping your options open if you ever decided that you didn’t > like that "choice" you said you’d make). > > I understand how Tony views abortion.  That is his "choice".  However, > > if his choice is to tell me or others that I should not have 3 options > > if I unexpectantly become pregnant, he is imposing his belief system > > onto me (hence, agenda).  If his wife became unexpectantly pregnant, I > > would not impose my belief onto her, I’d trust that she could make a > > choice that works for her and her family. > People impose their belief systme on you every day.  Some people don’t > believe you ought to be able to drove over 55 MPH on the highway.  Other > people believe that you shouldn’t steal from folks and yet others believe > that you shouldn’t kill your fellow man.  There are others who believe > that your grass shouldn’t be over 12 inches long, and others believe > that you shouldn’t drive when you’re drunk.  These people are imposing > their beliefs on you, but I don’t see you having a problem with that. > In the case of abortion, I believe that the fertilized egg is a citizen, > fully deserving the protections our society offers.  This is the same case > as when black people weren’t considered human, and white people were able > to own them (and they salved their consciences while they were mistreating > them by remembering that they weren’t really human). > Well, the civil rights movement happened.  And this new civil rights > movement is happening, and hopefully it will prevent the 1.2M deaths that > are occurring every year in the name of "choice". > -Tony

Tony, You get far too excited about everything. On the abortion issue we could be very similar. For myself and for my family, I don’t believe in abortion. I would make every effort to bring any pregnancy to term. I would even take care of any baby that came from a family pregnancy, wanted or not but…… what I wouldn’t do is tell you what to do. I believe too much in America and the implied freedoms that ideal stands for.

Response:

"Caren" <care…@msn.com> wrote in message

news:3754f0b3.0407120735.141d325f@posting.google.com… > I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his > "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an > agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice > an agenda?

Yes.  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person > makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? >  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an > agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant.

I’m quite certain you don’t believe in widespread personal choice in all matters. If you say you do, then you must be for complete anarchy. Anyone legally killing people in the street because they "choose" to. Adults legally coming into your home and stealing from you because hey, that’s their choice. so, that being noted, your agenda is to see that there IS personal choice on the issue of abortion. So yes, in being pro-choice, you DO have an agenda. > I understand how Tony views abortion.  That is his "choice".  However, > if his choice is to tell me or others that I should not have 3 options > if I unexpectantly become pregnant, he is imposing his belief system > onto me (hence, agenda).  If his wife became unexpectantly pregnant, I > would not impose my belief onto her, I’d trust that she could make a > choice that works for her and her family.

I don’t have a uterus, so I feel it’s my duty to stay out of the debate.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Tony Miller wrote: > On 12 Jul 2004 08:35:40 -0700, Caren > <care…@msn.com> wrote: >> I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his >> "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an >> agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice >> an agenda?  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person >> makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? >>  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an >> agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. > "Pro choice".  What a nice, harmelss and *fair* kind of opinion.  How > could anyone be against "choice"?  Especially if you can salve your > conscience by saying (like John Kerry did) that *you* would never have an > abortion, but you would never interfere with another woman’s right to an > abortion (keeping your options open if you ever decided that you didn’t > like that "choice" you said you’d make). >> I understand how Tony views abortion.  That is his "choice".  However, >> if his choice is to tell me or others that I should not have 3 options >> if I unexpectantly become pregnant, he is imposing his belief system >> onto me (hence, agenda).  If his wife became unexpectantly pregnant, I >> would not impose my belief onto her, I’d trust that she could make a >> choice that works for her and her family. > People impose their belief systme on you every day.  Some people don’t > believe you ought to be able to drove over 55 MPH on the highway.  Other > people believe that you shouldn’t steal from folks and yet others believe > that you shouldn’t kill your fellow man.  There are others who believe > that your grass shouldn’t be over 12 inches long, and others believe > that you shouldn’t drive when you’re drunk.  These people are imposing > their beliefs on you, but I don’t see you having a problem with that. > In the case of abortion, I believe that the fertilized egg is a citizen, > fully deserving the protections our society offers.  This is the same case > as when black people weren’t considered human, and white people were able > to own them (and they salved their consciences while they were mistreating > them by remembering that they weren’t really human). > Well, the civil rights movement happened.  And this new civil rights > movement is happening, and hopefully it will prevent the 1.2M deaths that > are occurring every year in the name of "choice". > -Tony

This is really too much.    Unbelieveable.

Response:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:11:25 GMT, urf <u…@nospam.com> wrote: > Life is so much easier for us liberals.

Sure it is.  You take our money and use it to make life easier for you liberals. -Tony – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:VOyIc.75527$Oq2.55427@attbi_s52… >> "Chrys" <notarealaddr…@lycos.com> writes: >> > "Caren" <care…@msn.com> wrote in message >> > news:3754f0b3.0407120735.141d325f@posting.google.com… >> > > I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his >> > > "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an >> > > agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice >> > > an agenda?  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person >> > > makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? >> > >  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an >> > > agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. >> > > I understand how Tony views abortion.  That is his "choice".  However, >> > > if his choice is to tell me or others that I should not have 3 options >> > > if I unexpectantly become pregnant, he is imposing his belief system >> > > onto me (hence, agenda).  If his wife became unexpectantly pregnant, I >> > > would not impose my belief onto her, I’d trust that she could make a >> > > choice that works for her and her family. >> > You have to keep in mind how pro-life people view abortion. >> You have to also keep in mind how conservatives view freedom and >> liberty.  Those words are rallying cries for them until they conflict >> with something else that they believe in.  Then freedom or liberty >> become an "agenda."

– "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it’s time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage?  Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Response:

"urf" <u…@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:1DzIc.16390$Al5.5585@nwrdny03.gnilink.net… > Life is so much easier for us liberals.

Hard to say urf.  Yesterday I heard the observation that Jews regard "the law" (starting with the 10 commandments) as a gift from God that makes life easier.   It was compared to a baby’s playpen — within the confines of the playpen you are free to do anything.  Which is easier urf — simply accepting that no abortion is right or having to agonize over how mature the foetus has to be, under what circumstance it was conceived, how healthy it is likely to be, and into what environment will it be born? Or were you speaking sarcastically? Ted

Response:

Life is so much easier for us liberals. "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:VOyIc.75527$Oq2.55427@attbi_s52… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Chrys" <notarealaddr…@lycos.com> writes: > > "Caren" <care…@msn.com> wrote in message > > news:3754f0b3.0407120735.141d325f@posting.google.com… > > > I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his > > > "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an > > > agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice > > > an agenda?  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person > > > makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? > > >  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an > > > agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. > > > I understand how Tony views abortion.  That is his "choice".  However, > > > if his choice is to tell me or others that I should not have 3 options > > > if I unexpectantly become pregnant, he is imposing his belief system > > > onto me (hence, agenda).  If his wife became unexpectantly pregnant, I > > > would not impose my belief onto her, I’d trust that she could make a > > > choice that works for her and her family. > > You have to keep in mind how pro-life people view abortion. > You have to also keep in mind how conservatives view freedom and > liberty.  Those words are rallying cries for them until they conflict > with something else that they believe in.  Then freedom or liberty > become an "agenda."

Response:

On 12 Jul 2004 08:35:40 -0700, Caren <care…@msn.com> wrote: > I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his > "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an > agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice > an agenda?  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person > makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? >  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an > agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant.

"Pro choice".  What a nice, harmelss and *fair* kind of opinion.  How could anyone be against "choice"?  Especially if you can salve your conscience by saying (like John Kerry did) that *you* would never have an abortion, but you would never interfere with another woman’s right to an abortion (keeping your options open if you ever decided that you didn’t like that "choice" you said you’d make). > I understand how Tony views abortion.  That is his "choice".  However, > if his choice is to tell me or others that I should not have 3 options > if I unexpectantly become pregnant, he is imposing his belief system > onto me (hence, agenda).  If his wife became unexpectantly pregnant, I > would not impose my belief onto her, I’d trust that she could make a > choice that works for her and her family.

People impose their belief systme on you every day.  Some people don’t believe you ought to be able to drove over 55 MPH on the highway.  Other people believe that you shouldn’t steal from folks and yet others believe that you shouldn’t kill your fellow man.  There are others who believe that your grass shouldn’t be over 12 inches long, and others believe that you shouldn’t drive when you’re drunk.  These people are imposing their beliefs on you, but I don’t see you having a problem with that. In the case of abortion, I believe that the fertilized egg is a citizen, fully deserving the protections our society offers.  This is the same case as when black people weren’t considered human, and white people were able to own them (and they salved their consciences while they were mistreating them by remembering that they weren’t really human). Well, the civil rights movement happened.  And this new civil rights movement is happening, and hopefully it will prevent the 1.2M deaths that are occurring every year in the name of "choice". -Tony — "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it’s time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage?  Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -"Chrys" <notarealaddr…@lycos.com> writes: > "Caren" <care…@msn.com> wrote in message > news:3754f0b3.0407120735.141d325f@posting.google.com… > > I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his > > "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an > > agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice > > an agenda?  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person > > makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? > >  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an > > agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. > > I understand how Tony views abortion.  That is his "choice".  However, > > if his choice is to tell me or others that I should not have 3 options > > if I unexpectantly become pregnant, he is imposing his belief system > > onto me (hence, agenda).  If his wife became unexpectantly pregnant, I > > would not impose my belief onto her, I’d trust that she could make a > > choice that works for her and her family. > You have to keep in mind how pro-life people view abortion.

You have to also keep in mind how conservatives view freedom and liberty.  Those words are rallying cries for them until they conflict with something else that they believe in.  Then freedom or liberty become an "agenda."  

Response:

I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice an agenda?  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself?  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. I understand how Tony views abortion.  That is his "choice".  However, if his choice is to tell me or others that I should not have 3 options if I unexpectantly become pregnant, he is imposing his belief system onto me (hence, agenda).  If his wife became unexpectantly pregnant, I would not impose my belief onto her, I’d trust that she could make a choice that works for her and her family.

Response:

"Caren" <care…@msn.com> wrote in message

news:3754f0b3.0407120735.141d325f@posting.google.com… > I have a question.  Tony challenged my statement regarding his > "agenda".  He replied with something to the effect of my having an > agenda.  What I have been thinking about is this:  Is being pro choice > an agenda?  Is it an agenda when I don’t mind what choice a person > makes regarding an unplanned pregnancy?  Or is it an agenda in itself? >  I’m honestly confused about this.  I don’t view personal choice as an > agenda, however maybe I’m just being ignorant. > I understand how Tony views abortion.  That is his "choice".  However, > if his choice is to tell me or others that I should not have 3 options > if I unexpectantly become pregnant, he is imposing his belief system > onto me (hence, agenda).  If his wife became unexpectantly pregnant, I > would not impose my belief onto her, I’d trust that she could make a > choice that works for her and her family.

You have to keep in mind how pro-life people view abortion.  From the moment conception happens, they’re viewing the zygote as a full human being and any interference as murder.  His reaction is the same as yours would be if you heard someone saying it was valid to kill a 5 year old child if the parent was tired of dealing with it.  You would not see murdering a five year old as being a valid choice, and that is how he would see abortion.

Response:

And had you been there you would have screamed the loudest "Crucify him." DW Suiter Son of God

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks Bill for displaying the mind of the religionist. A perverted mind believing the perverted interpretation of what Paul wrote. It is not possible for you or any other person to know what Paul said unless you have first been taught truth by God. ===What a pompous ass you are, Mr. Suiter, "Son of God"! Any educated person can read what is written, but only your "perverted" mind, which you imagine is being "taught by God", can give it the twist YOU prefer. You live in a fantasy world, having developed a set of interpretations and beliefs on the basis of which you consider yourself superior to the "religionists", i.e. everyone who disagrees with your absurdities. — L. Which you have not. So with mental density you join the other religionists with the perverted mind condemning what you know nothing about. And that, is pure stupidity. Paul continued the same works begun by Jesus of Nazareth, teaching the reality of God and the way of transformation by God.  But these are matters you cannot begin to comprehend because you are not of God; your mind is filled with false religious teachings. DW Suiter Son of God Only dumb and ignorant people do not believe what Paul declared of ongoing life. Paul, was a Son and Christ of God. He continued the works begun by Jesus of Nazareth. To speak against him and his word is to speak against God. DW Suiter Son of God Bullshit, Donald!! Paul was a lying, conniving opportunist. Read Galations very carefully and tell me how he managed to twist the promise to Abraham to suit his own doctrine. That’s just for starters. Was he a Pharisee as he claimed? Very doubtful if you research the Jewish religious hierarchy at that time. How did he become converted? Well, there are at least three different versions in Acts…seems he could not ever get his story straight! The Christian religion should be called *Paulism* since he triumphed over the original founder(s). Shalom, Bill Dufour) I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification). Since I frequent alt.bible, I didn’t catch the thread, but Paul, the self-confessed liar who would be all things to all men, deserves maligning. ===There is no evidence of him "giving his life". Perhaps he realized how he conned people into believing they would not die if they listened to him, so he went into exile somewhere in the Empire. — L.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Renay St. James said: Thanks Bill for displaying the mind of the religionist. A perverted mind believing the perverted interpretation of what Paul wrote. It is not possible for you or any other person to know what Paul said unless you have first been taught truth by God. Which you have not. So with mental density you join the other religionists with the perverted mind condemning what you know nothing about. And that, is pure stupidity. Paul continued the same works begun by Jesus of Nazareth, teaching the reality of God and the way of transformation by God.  But these are matters you cannot begin to comprehend because you are not of God; your mind is filled with false religious teachings. DW Suiter Son of God for a "son of god" you sure act like an asshole. do you know Chunk? he’s a sog too. Renay God must be a player to have so many sons. Sad though, having only boys. I mean, you never hear "daughter of God".

For some reason, bible God just doesn’t seem to like women, even had to have a Ghost go rape an Earth women for him to have a son, very possible that he is impotent or perhaps homosexual. As are all of these people calling themselves "son of God". John

Response:

Renay St. James said: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks Bill for displaying the mind of the religionist. A perverted mind believing the perverted interpretation of what Paul wrote. It is not possible for you or any other person to know what Paul said unless you have first been taught truth by God. Which you have not. So with mental density you join the other religionists with the perverted mind condemning what you know nothing about. And that, is pure stupidity. Paul continued the same works begun by Jesus of Nazareth, teaching the reality of God and the way of transformation by God.  But these are matters you cannot begin to comprehend because you are not of God; your mind is filled with false religious teachings. DW Suiter Son of God for a "son of god" you sure act like an asshole. do you know Chunk? he’s a sog too. Renay

God must be a player to have so many sons. Sad though, having only boys. I mean, you never hear "daughter of God". — Cm~

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – DW Suiter, I’ve heard that name before, weren’t you involved in a big crime that made all of the newspapers  a while ago? John ===Of course not. Don’t you believe he is the "son of God"??? — L. Something to do with Sam Berkowitz maybe?  Wait… it’s coming to me now in a vision… damned static… wait, wait… Son of Sam! That’s it, have you ever or do you now live in NY City? John ===Just wait till "God" starts talking to "son of God" and tells him to something criminal. — L.

That’s what worries me about a lot of these morons. John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification).  Here is a poem by Rudyard Kipling: So who maligned him? Those are some pretty harsh words to accuse somebody of. Are you sure you are NOT judging people too harshly? I guess you must be refering to the *critics* of MOON who you worship? WHY am I NOT surprised by your attempt to defame the opposition? By NO less using the words of Paul to do it with. Here’s somebody who keeps saying that Paul is "The AntiChrist". But not in alt.religion.unification, in alt.bible (among many other newsgroups):

Well he could be the Anti-Christ but it is highly unlikely. Characters in works of fiction like the bible very rarely do anything in real life. John

Response:

I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification).  Here is a poem by Rudyard Kipling: So who maligned him? Those are some pretty harsh words to accuse somebody of. Are you sure you are NOT judging people too harshly? I guess you must be refering to the *critics* of MOON who you worship? WHY am I NOT surprised by your attempt to defame the opposition? By NO less using the words of Paul to do it with.

Here’s somebody who keeps saying that Paul is "The AntiChrist". But not in alt.religion.unification, in alt.bible (among many other newsgroups): http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=rTLzc.94706%240X2.4286228%40twis… Here is the entire thread: http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=7fXFc.15520%24uK.3496%40twist…

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks Bill for displaying the mind of the religionist. A perverted mind believing the perverted interpretation of what Paul wrote. It is not possible for you or any other person to know what Paul said unless you have first been taught truth by God. Which you have not. So with mental density you join the other religionists with the perverted mind condemning what you know nothing about. And that, is pure stupidity. Paul continued the same works begun by Jesus of Nazareth, teaching the reality of God and the way of transformation by God.  But these are matters you cannot begin to comprehend because you are not of God; your mind is filled with false religious teachings. DW Suiter Son of God

for a "son of god" you sure act like an asshole. do you know Chunk? he’s a sog too. Renay

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – DW Suiter, I’ve heard that name before, weren’t you involved in a big crime that made all of the newspapers  a while ago? John ===Of course not. Don’t you believe he is the "son of God"??? — L. Something to do with Sam Berkowitz maybe?  Wait… it’s coming to me now in a vision… damned static… wait, wait… Son of Sam! That’s it, have you ever or do you now live in NY City? John

===Just wait till "God" starts talking to "son of God" and tells him to something criminal. — L.

Response:

DW Suiter, I’ve heard that name before, weren’t you involved in a big crime that made all of the newspapers  a while ago? John ===Of course not. Don’t you believe he is the "son of God"??? — L.

Something to do with Sam Berkowitz maybe?  Wait… it’s coming to me now in a vision… damned static… wait, wait… Son of Sam! That’s it, have you ever or do you now live in NY City? John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Only dumb and ignorant people do not believe what Paul declared of ongoing life. Paul, was a Son and Christ of God. He continued the works begun by Jesus of Nazareth. To speak against him and his word is to speak against God. DW Suiter Son of God I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification). Since I frequent alt.bible, I didn’t catch the thread, but Paul, the self-confessed liar who would be all things to all men, deserves maligning. ===There is no evidence of him "giving his life". Perhaps he realized how he conned people into believing they would not die if they listened to him, so he went into exile somewhere in the Empire. — L.

Response:

Thanks Bill for displaying the mind of the religionist. A perverted mind believing the perverted interpretation of what Paul wrote. It is not possible for you or any other person to know what Paul said unless you have first been taught truth by God.

===What a pompous ass you are, Mr. Suiter, "Son of God"! Any educated person can read what is written, but only your "perverted" mind, which you imagine is being "taught by God", can give it the twist YOU prefer. You live in a fantasy world, having developed a set of interpretations and beliefs on the basis of which you consider yourself superior to the "religionists", i.e. everyone who disagrees with your absurdities. — L. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Which you have not. So with mental density you join the other religionists with the perverted mind condemning what you know nothing about. And that, is pure stupidity. Paul continued the same works begun by Jesus of Nazareth, teaching the reality of God and the way of transformation by God.  But these are matters you cannot begin to comprehend because you are not of God; your mind is filled with false religious teachings. DW Suiter Son of God Only dumb and ignorant people do not believe what Paul declared of ongoing life. Paul, was a Son and Christ of God. He continued the works begun by Jesus of Nazareth. To speak against him and his word is to speak against God. DW Suiter Son of God Bullshit, Donald!! Paul was a lying, conniving opportunist. Read Galations very carefully and tell me how he managed to twist the promise to Abraham to suit his own doctrine. That’s just for starters. Was he a Pharisee as he claimed? Very doubtful if you research the Jewish religious hierarchy at that time. How did he become converted? Well, there are at least three different versions in Acts…seems he could not ever get his story straight! The Christian religion should be called *Paulism* since he triumphed over the original founder(s). Shalom, Bill I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification). Since I frequent alt.bible, I didn’t catch the thread, but Paul, the self-confessed liar who would be all things to all men, deserves maligning. ===There is no evidence of him "giving his life". Perhaps he realized how he conned people into believing they would not die if they listened to him, so he went into exile somewhere in the Empire. — L.

Response:

DW Suiter, I’ve heard that name before, weren’t you involved in a big crime that made all of the newspapers  a while ago? John

===Of course not. Don’t you believe he is the "son of God"??? — L. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Only dumb and ignorant people do not believe what Paul declared of ongoing life. Paul, was a Son and Christ of God. He continued the works begun by Jesus of Nazareth. To speak against him and his word is to speak against God. DW Suiter Son of God I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification). Since I frequent alt.bible, I didn’t catch the thread, but Paul, the self-confessed liar who would be all things to all men, deserves maligning. ===There is no evidence of him "giving his life". Perhaps he realized how he conned people into believing they would not die if they listened to him, so he went into exile somewhere in the Empire. — L.

Response:

<<liberated from redundancy Perhaps he realized how he conned people into believing they would not die if they listened to him, so he went into exile somewhere in the Empire. — L.         This bit of conjecture ranks with the great pulp fiction of the past, redolent of Lovecraft, et al.

===Of course it is a conjecture. Silly comment. Where did you learn to read? The first word was "Perhaps". It means "possibly but not certainly : MAYBE" But there is no proof of any other ending, is there? — L.

Response:

Only dumb and ignorant people do not believe what Paul declared of ongoing life.

===Only dumb and ignorant people make such biased ASSertions. Paul, was a Son and Christ of God. He continued the works begun by Jesus of Nazareth. To speak against him and his word is to speak against God. DW Suiter Son of God

===That explains it. You think you are superior to others because you believe that nonsense, ignoring the FACT that his "gospel" wa teaching a FALSEHOOD. "The Lord" did not show up, no one rose from the graves, nor did either he or his followers get suddenly transsubstantiated and taken up to "heaven". — L. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification). Since I frequent alt.bible, I didn’t catch the thread, but Paul, the self-confessed liar who would be all things to all men, deserves maligning. ===There is no evidence of him "giving his life". Perhaps he realized how he conned people into believing they would not die if they listened to him, so he went into exile somewhere in the Empire. — L.

Response:

Thanks Bill for displaying the mind of the religionist. A perverted mind believing the perverted interpretation of what Paul wrote. It is not possible for you or any other person to know what Paul said unless you have first been taught truth by God. Which you have not. So with mental density you join the other religionists with the perverted mind condemning what you know nothing about. And that, is pure stupidity. Paul continued the same works begun by Jesus of Nazareth, teaching the reality of God and the way of transformation by God.  But these are matters you cannot begin to comprehend because you are not of God; your mind is filled with false religious teachings. DW Suiter Son of God

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Only dumb and ignorant people do not believe what Paul declared of ongoing life. Paul, was a Son and Christ of God. He continued the works begun by Jesus of Nazareth. To speak against him and his word is to speak against God. DW Suiter Son of God Bullshit, Donald!! Paul was a lying, conniving opportunist. Read Galations very carefully and tell me how he managed to twist the promise to Abraham to suit his own doctrine. That’s just for starters. Was he a Pharisee as he claimed? Very doubtful if you research the Jewish religious hierarchy at that time. How did he become converted? Well, there are at least three different versions in Acts…seems he could not ever get his story straight! The Christian religion should be called *Paulism* since he triumphed over the original founder(s). Shalom, Bill I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification). Since I frequent alt.bible, I didn’t catch the thread, but Paul, the self-confessed liar who would be all things to all men, deserves maligning. ===There is no evidence of him "giving his life". Perhaps he realized how he conned people into believing they would not die if they listened to him, so he went into exile somewhere in the Empire. — L.

Response:

Only dumb and ignorant people do not believe what Paul declared of ongoing life. Paul, was a Son and Christ of God. He continued the works begun by Jesus of Nazareth. To speak against him and his word is to speak against God. DW Suiter Son of God

Bullshit, Donald!! Paul was a lying, conniving opportunist. Read Galations very carefully and tell me how he managed to twist the promise to Abraham to suit his own doctrine. That’s just for starters. Was he a Pharisee as he claimed? Very doubtful if you research the Jewish religious hierarchy at that time. How did he become converted? Well, there are at least three different versions in Acts…seems he could not ever get his story straight! The Christian religion should be called *Paulism* since he triumphed over the original founder(s). Shalom, Bill – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification). Since I frequent alt.bible, I didn’t catch the thread, but Paul, the self-confessed liar who would be all things to all men, deserves maligning. ===There is no evidence of him "giving his life". Perhaps he realized how he conned people into believing they would not die if they listened to him, so he went into exile somewhere in the Empire. — L.

Response:

I was thinking

No you weren’t, Moonie. — PJR alt.usenet.kooks award-winners and FAQs: http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/

Response:

Sorry, you are mistaken. DW Suiter Son of God

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – DW Suiter, I’ve heard that name before, weren’t you involved in a big crime that made all of the newspapers  a while ago? John Only dumb and ignorant people do not believe what Paul declared of ongoing life. Paul, was a Son and Christ of God. He continued the works begun by Jesus of Nazareth. To speak against him and his word is to speak against God. DW Suiter Son of God I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification). Since I frequent alt.bible, I didn’t catch the thread, but Paul, the self-confessed liar who would be all things to all men, deserves maligning. ===There is no evidence of him "giving his life". Perhaps he realized how he conned people into believing they would not die if they listened to him, so he went into exile somewhere in the Empire. — L.

Response:

DW Suiter, I’ve heard that name before, weren’t you involved in a big crime that made all of the newspapers  a while ago? John

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Only dumb and ignorant people do not believe what Paul declared of ongoing life. Paul, was a Son and Christ of God. He continued the works begun by Jesus of Nazareth. To speak against him and his word is to speak against God. DW Suiter Son of God I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification). Since I frequent alt.bible, I didn’t catch the thread, but Paul, the self-confessed liar who would be all things to all men, deserves maligning. ===There is no evidence of him "giving his life". Perhaps he realized how he conned people into believing they would not die if they listened to him, so he went into exile somewhere in the Empire. — L.

Response:

<<liberated from redundancy Perhaps he realized how he conned people into believing they would not die if they listened to him, so he went into exile somewhere in the Empire. — L.

        This bit of conjecture ranks with the great pulp fiction of the past, redolent of Lovecraft, et al. Dissin’ Cthulhu, Hector

Response:

Only dumb and ignorant people do not believe what Paul declared of ongoing life. Paul, was a Son and Christ of God. He continued the works begun by Jesus of Nazareth. To speak against him and his word is to speak against God. DW Suiter Son of God

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification). Since I frequent alt.bible, I didn’t catch the thread, but Paul, the self-confessed liar who would be all things to all men, deserves maligning. ===There is no evidence of him "giving his life". Perhaps he realized how he conned people into believing they would not die if they listened to him, so he went into exile somewhere in the Empire. — L.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification).  Here is a poem by Rudyard Kipling: So who maligned him? Those are some pretty harsh words to accuse somebody of. Are you sure you are NOT judging people too harshly? I guess you must be refering to the *critics* of MOON who you worship? WHY am I NOT surprised by your attempt to defame the opposition? By NO less using the words of Paul to do it with. I gotta ask myself.. ..WHY are you doing this? Have you *moonies* NO shame, or conscience? bd4u

???  Isn’t a Moon a form of showing off an asshole? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – At His Execution St. Paul I am made all things to all men–    Hebrew, Roman, and Greek–    In each one’s tongue I speak, Suiting to each my word, That some may be drawn to the Lord! I am made all things to all men–    In City or Wilderness    Praising the crafts they profess That some may be drawn to the Lord– By any means to my Lord! Since I was overcome    By that great Light and Word,    I have forgot or forgone The self men call their own (Being made all things to all men)    So that I might save some    At such small price, to the Lord, As being all things to all men. I was made all things to all men, But now my course is done– And now is my reward… Ah, Christ, when I stand at Thy Throne With those I have drawn to the Lord, Restore me my self again!

– ——-(m+   ~/:o)_| The most essential gift for a good writer is  a built-in, shock-proof, shit detector.  – Hemingway http://scrawlmark.org

Response:

I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification). Since I frequent alt.bible, I didn’t catch the thread, but Paul, the self-confessed liar who would be all things to all men, deserves maligning.

===There is no evidence of him "giving his life". Perhaps he realized how he conned people into believing they would not die if they listened to him, so he went into exile somewhere in the Empire. — L.

Response:

I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification).

Since I frequent alt.bible, I didn’t catch the thread, but Paul, the self-confessed liar who would be all things to all men, deserves maligning. ## The New Testament is less a Christiad than a Pauliad. Thomas Hardy

Response:

I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification).  Here is a poem by Rudyard Kipling:

So who maligned him? Those are some pretty harsh words to accuse somebody of. Are you sure you are NOT judging people too harshly? I guess you must be refering to the *critics* of MOON who you worship? WHY am I NOT surprised by your attempt to defame the opposition? By NO less using the words of Paul to do it with. I gotta ask myself.. ..WHY are you doing this? Have you *moonies* NO shame, or conscience? bd4u – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -At His Execution St. Paul I am made all things to all men–    Hebrew, Roman, and Greek–    In each one’s tongue I speak, Suiting to each my word, That some may be drawn to the Lord! I am made all things to all men–    In City or Wilderness    Praising the crafts they profess That some may be drawn to the Lord– By any means to my Lord! Since I was overcome    By that great Light and Word,    I have forgot or forgone The self men call their own (Being made all things to all men)    So that I might save some    At such small price, to the Lord, As being all things to all men. I was made all things to all men, But now my course is done– And now is my reward… Ah, Christ, when I stand at Thy Throne With those I have drawn to the Lord, Restore me my self again!

Response:

I was thinking about how cruelly St. Paul, a man who gave his life to bring people back to God, was maligned recently here in this group (alt.religion.unification).  Here is a poem by Rudyard Kipling: At His Execution St. Paul I am made all things to all men–     Hebrew, Roman, and Greek–     In each one’s tongue I speak, Suiting to each my word, That some may be drawn to the Lord! I am made all things to all men–     In City or Wilderness     Praising the crafts they profess That some may be drawn to the Lord– By any means to my Lord! Since I was overcome     By that great Light and Word,     I have forgot or forgone The self men call their own (Being made all things to all men)     So that I might save some     At such small price, to the Lord, As being all things to all men. I was made all things to all men, But now my course is done– And now is my reward… Ah, Christ, when I stand at Thy Throne With those I have drawn to the Lord,  Restore me my self again!

Response: