I think that you're mistaken that I'm judging ohters.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Evan Platt" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 18:54:05 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Again, I think you're mistaken to judge a person by a
couple
sentences on a computer.

And I think you're mistaken to judge everyone by what a book
written
hundreds - or thousands of years ago.

This is a great 'article'.
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my
e-mail address.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in news:il57jo
:

God has spoken several times about homosexual behaviour.
It's in the scriptures for people to find.

I have nothing against homosexuals, or heterosexuals, until "they" start
abusing others. I get especially annoyed when those abusers are in
positions of authority (clerical/religious or other). Some religious
institutions still have a lot to clean up.

Btw, I'm non-religious, but do have respect for others.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 3/8/2011 7:30 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
God has spoken several times about homosexual behaviour.
It's in the scriptures for people to find.


This sounds like much of your opinion of gays comes out of the Bible.
Is that right? Exactly which scripture has gotten you so wound up?

I tend to judge people as I get to know them, not as I've read about
them. So this is a new concept to me.

You know, there is a place for many different kinds of people in this
big world, it's what makes it interesting and creative.

Jeff

There is an old expression that "power corrupts, and
absolute power corrupts absoloutely". I've found that people
have good and bad sides. Some people use position of power
to challenge others to grow, keep people safe, and and
become more like Christ. Others use the power to ammuse
themselves, or to satisfy thier lust, or power.

As to which if any churches need cleaning up, it's tragic
that any of them do. When you get enough people together in
a group, eventually someone is going to be trouble. I look
at how the organization deals with trouble makers, that's
one of my big considerations. Does the group hide the
trouble, and pretend it's not there? Hiding trouble makers,
I think that's a bad decision on many levels.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Han" wrote in message
...

I have nothing against homosexuals, or heterosexuals, until
"they" start
abusing others. I get especially annoyed when those abusers
are in
positions of authority (clerical/religious or other). Some
religious
institutions still have a lot to clean up.

Btw, I'm non-religious, but do have respect for others.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 3/8/2011 7:29 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Puzzled, as to why others are trying to assign hate to a
rather gentle and concerned usenet poster. I'm thinking
their best guess is mental projection.

When you say bigoted things that makes you a bigot. What is so hard
about that?

Edith loved Archie Bunker.

I love ya, but you are still a bigot.

Jeff

You're doing what others have. I wrote a comical limerick in
reply to AHR troll, and now you think you see some kind of
evil intent, on my part? Please notice that I was responding
to a troll, not responding to a serious question on
someone's part. That should be a BIG clue as to how serious
was my writing.

P.S. The troll won. Bunch of you are giving the original
troll a passionate emotional response, complete with
strongly worded response. Aren't you glad? Some troll poster
out there is cackling with evil glee, having gotten a lot of
AHR readers to post passionate responses.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jeff Thies" wrote in message
...
On 3/8/2011 7:30 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
God has spoken several times about homosexual behaviour.
It's in the scriptures for people to find.


This sounds like much of your opinion of gays comes out
of the Bible.
Is that right? Exactly which scripture has gotten you so
wound up?

I tend to judge people as I get to know them, not as I've
read about
them. So this is a new concept to me.

You know, there is a place for many different kinds of
people in this
big world, it's what makes it interesting and creative.

Jeff

The troll won. That's my last comment on the matter.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 3/8/2011 5:22 AM, Jeff Thies wrote:
On 3/8/2011 1:19 AM, Evan Platt wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 22:12:09 -0500, Jeff
wrote:

On 3/7/2011 6:54 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
So, you're pushing harder, to make the same point?

So are you.

Isn't it obvious that you've offended a number of us here. Isn't that
enough to dispel this notion you have that you are understanding and
tolerant. I'm offended and I don't even belong to one of the groups you
hate. How do you think others feel?

Opinions are like assholes - everyone has one. The issue with
religious nutjobs like Stormin Moron is they shove their particular
version of their religion down your throat.

Sure, I guess if you read enough into it the bible says some bad
things about homosexuality. But like the article I quoted, it also
said you can sell your first born into slavery.

Every translation I've seen of the Commandments says it is only bad to
steel your neighbors slaves. That must have been great comfort in the
Antebellum South.

So I guess you can
pick and choose what part of the bible you agree with? Or can you
choose to only agree with what you like?

This turn the other cheek bit always gets short shrift. Ditto with the
bits on tolerance.

A family friend is a lesbian. Her and her partner are Mormons. Last I
checked, they still go to church. And I'm pretty confident they
haven't been stoned there.So thankfully this bigot is in the minority.

What has always irritated me most about some Christians is how they wash
away their sins with Jesus. Many Christians say and do offensive things
and not feel bad about it because the Lord has their back. Sure doesn't
stop them or even slow them down.

Usually bigotry washes away with life experience. Lester Maddox and
George Wallace are no exceptions. Not sure why that hasn't happened with
Stormin.

Here is a concept for Stormin: It's more important what you do and say
then what you believe.

Jeff

Jeff, do you have any idea who the first slaves were in America? They
helped build this country and were sold in The Southern States too.
The descendants of these first slaves have never demanded reparations
because their ancestors gained their freedom and worked hard to make
a better life for themselves and their children. The only thing they've
ever demanded was to be left the hell alone. The story of the first
slaves is never taught in any government school history class because
it's not politically correct. Most Americans are clueless when it comes
to the true history of their country. Slavery existed in The Northern
States a lot longer than it lasted in The South. :-(

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html

http://preview.tinyurl.com/4g9twwq

http://preview.tinyurl.com/4ma5deg

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:

-snip-

Jeff, do you have any idea who the first slaves were in America?

Indentured servants, which you are going on about, were not slaves.
[for the most part]
1. Their term was limited.
2. Their children were free.
3. They got some sort of payment.
4. They [or their guardians] chose this route to the new world.

Also- since that article says the first batch of servants was 1723--
there were loads of black, native american, and maybe some white
folks, who were already slaves in America.

They
helped build this country and were sold in The Southern States too.
The descendants of these first slaves have never demanded reparations
because their ancestors gained their freedom and worked hard to make
a better life for themselves and their children. The only thing they've
ever demanded was to be left the hell alone.

Could you show me an example of the descendant of an indentured
servant asking to be left alone? [I am one-- so I'd love to jump on
the leave me alone bandwagon' --- Alone from what?]

The story of the first
slaves is never taught in any government school history class because
it's not politically correct.

Golly! We were taught about indentured students in my High School-- a
government one at that!

Most Americans are clueless when it comes
to the true history of their country.

I'll give you that--- But as much as I love history now-- I still
don't see much use in teaching it to kids.

Slavery existed in The Northern
States a lot longer than it lasted in The South. :-(

Where, exactly. I consider TX to be south, and thought they were
the last holdouts. Don't you celebrate Juneteenth?



http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html

This one is indentured servants-

http://preview.tinyurl.com/4g9twwq

Here the Rastafarians write about the Redemptioners, the poor, the
indentured servants, convicts, apprentices, impressed seamen, etc.
All pretty much limited term servants- whose children would be born
free citizens of the new world.


http://preview.tinyurl.com/4ma5deg

This one goes to a Facebook link with some youtube links that are
titled the Irish Slave Trade. I tried one and it didn't work-- but
it looks like they are talking about the impressment or transporting
of criminals to settle America. [Had to switch to Australia after
1776]

Hardly 'new' news. Basic US history. None of those folks were
slaves in the sense that the vast majority of African Americans were
slaves.

You got to be a first generation slave when a bunch of guys raided
your village and took you for no reason other than to be sold. There
would be no end to your enslavement- or your offspring's-- or theirs.
You were chattel.

All of those folks mentioned above were '1 lifetime or less' servants.
Some were paid. All had children born into relative freedom.

In 1776 an Englishman named Richard Serle came over with Lord Howe and
kept an excellent diary of his observations of America. One of the
things he noticed was;
"Is no Disgrace to have been transported here, nor consequently to be
the Descendants of Transports. It would be no Blot in an American
Genealogy to trace an Origin, within one Generation, from Jonathan
Wild or Moll Flanders. Some of the best Families in this Country can
boast of no better Descent."

Jim

TDD

On 3/8/2011 8:25 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
The Daring wrote:

-snip-

Jeff, do you have any idea who the first slaves were in America?

Indentured servants, which you are going on about, were not slaves.
[for the most part]
1. Their term was limited.
2. Their children were free.
3. They got some sort of payment.
4. They [or their guardians] chose this route to the new world.

Also- since that article says the first batch of servants was 1723--
there were loads of black, native american, and maybe some white
folks, who were already slaves in America.

They
helped build this country and were sold in The Southern States too.
The descendants of these first slaves have never demanded reparations
because their ancestors gained their freedom and worked hard to make
a better life for themselves and their children. The only thing they've
ever demanded was to be left the hell alone.

Could you show me an example of the descendant of an indentured
servant asking to be left alone? [I am one-- so I'd love to jump on
the leave me alone bandwagon' --- Alone from what?]

The story of the first
slaves is never taught in any government school history class because
it's not politically correct.

Golly! We were taught about indentured students in my High School-- a
government one at that!

Most Americans are clueless when it comes
to the true history of their country.

I'll give you that--- But as much as I love history now-- I still
don't see much use in teaching it to kids.

Slavery existed in The Northern
States a lot longer than it lasted in The South. :-(

Where, exactly. I consider TX to be south, and thought they were
the last holdouts. Don't you celebrate Juneteenth?



http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html

This one is indentured servants-

http://preview.tinyurl.com/4g9twwq

Here the Rastafarians write about the Redemptioners, the poor, the
indentured servants, convicts, apprentices, impressed seamen, etc.
All pretty much limited term servants- whose children would be born
free citizens of the new world.


http://preview.tinyurl.com/4ma5deg

This one goes to a Facebook link with some youtube links that are
titled the Irish Slave Trade. I tried one and it didn't work-- but
it looks like they are talking about the impressment or transporting
of criminals to settle America. [Had to switch to Australia after
1776]

Hardly 'new' news. Basic US history. None of those folks were
slaves in the sense that the vast majority of African Americans were
slaves.

You got to be a first generation slave when a bunch of guys raided
your village and took you for no reason other than to be sold. There
would be no end to your enslavement- or your offspring's-- or theirs.
You were chattel.

All of those folks mentioned above were '1 lifetime or less' servants.
Some were paid. All had children born into relative freedom.

In 1776 an Englishman named Richard Serle came over with Lord Howe and
kept an excellent diary of his observations of America. One of the
things he noticed was;
"Is no Disgrace to have been transported here, nor consequently to be
the Descendants of Transports. It would be no Blot in an American
Genealogy to trace an Origin, within one Generation, from Jonathan
Wild or Moll Flanders. Some of the best Families in this Country can
boast of no better Descent."

Jim


I'm afraid you'd better educate yourself, you got the entire first part
wrong up there. The indentured servitude story is a scam, some white
children were born into slavery for life. Look up the author Michael A.
Hoffman II and read his research and look for videos and interviews.
There are other works that expose the revisionist history about white
slavery but unless you are willing to grok them, no one change your
mind. Besides, your name isn't Jeff. ^_^

TDD

"Hugh Jayness" wrote in message

Gay sex, straight sex, I don't give a **** what adults do in the
privacy of their own home...and neither should nosy little church
people.


Actually churches are big business! If the "flock" grows, then the
business grows... So having lots of kids is encouraged (future
church members).

And being gay, using birth control, or having an abortion is contrary
to churches growing in size...

If you want a bit of insight into what many preachers are like when
not in church, read the book "Have Mercy!: Confessions of the Original
Rock 'N' Roll Animal" by Wolfman Jack

He was a radio station D.J. way back when and tells stories of
preachers who advertised on his radio station.

Or visit the Vatican in Rome. Look in the little shops and booths
nearby where they are selling trinkets. You will see rosaries for
sale. Some are blessed by someone lower down in the church and sell
for less money. Others are blessed by someone higher up and sell for
more money. If what they say is true, then a rosary blessed by your
local priest would work just as good as one blessed by the Pope
himself!

And the $31 million 28 story Mormon church office building. How do
churches pay for things like this?
http://www.ask.com/wiki/LDS_Church_O...ding?qsrc=3044

On 3/8/2011 7:58 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
You're doing what others have. I wrote a comical limerick in
reply to AHR troll, and now you think you see some kind of
evil intent, on my part? Please notice that I was responding
to a troll, not responding to a serious question on
someone's part. That should be a BIG clue as to how serious
was my writing.

Did you forget the last line?:

It don't rhyme, but it's about time.
Death to faggots!

That's what PV objected to and you defended. I find that indefensible
and called you a bigot for saying that. Which is not out of context
measured against past remarks you've made.

I have nothing against you, but I will call you out each time you cross
the line and defend yourself by saying what a good person you are. How
others perceive yourself is at least as important as how you think of
yourself.

Jeff



P.S. The troll won. Bunch of you are giving the original
troll a passionate emotional response, complete with
strongly worded response. Aren't you glad? Some troll poster
out there is cackling with evil glee, having gotten a lot of
AHR readers to post passionate responses.

The Daring Dufas wrote:

-snip-

I'm afraid you'd better educate yourself, you got the entire first part
wrong up there. The indentured servitude story is a scam, some white
children were born into slavery for life. Look up the author Michael A.
Hoffman II and read his research and look for videos and interviews.

Thanks- but this is plenty for me- [both about and by Hoffman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II

Jim

On 3/8/2011 11:10 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
The Daring wrote:

-snip-

I'm afraid you'd better educate yourself, you got the entire first part
wrong up there. The indentured servitude story is a scam, some white
children were born into slavery for life. Look up the author Michael A.
Hoffman II and read his research and look for videos and interviews.

Thanks- but this is plenty for me- [both about and by Hoffman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II

Jim

Ya missed the part at the top of the page:

"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion
on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is
resolved. (October 2009)"

Hoffman is not the only source on White slavery, I look at a lot of
sources in order to filter out the male bovine droppings. I would like
to get Hoffman's book on White slavery or just a copy of the
bibliography for the book which I understand is quite extensive. You
should know that Wikipedia is not always the gospel truth, sort of
like a government school history book. ^_^

P.S. You're still not Jeff. ROTFL

TDD

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 07:55:00 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

There is an old expression that "power corrupts, and
absolute power corrupts absoloutely".

BTW, Lord Acton's quote is "power TENDS to corrupt, and absolute power
corrupts absolutely".

I've found that people
have good and bad sides. Some people use position of power
to challenge others to grow, keep people safe, and and
become more like Christ. Others use the power to ammuse
themselves, or to satisfy thier lust, or power.

As to which if any churches need cleaning up, it's tragic
that any of them do. When you get enough people together in
a group, eventually someone is going to be trouble. I look
at how the organization deals with trouble makers, that's
one of my big considerations. Does the group hide the
trouble, and pretend it's not there? Hiding trouble makers,
I think that's a bad decision on many levels.

As long as churches don't have absolute power over anyone...

Call A Baptist Pastor Immediately If You've Experienced The Following
Secret Homo Handshake

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0101/shake.html

- Pastor Brother Harry Hardwick

In , Stormin Mormon wrote:

God has spoken several times about homosexual behaviour.
It's in the scriptures for people to find.

SNIP from here

But who wrote the scriptures? Not God, but men.

However, what did God (or 1/3 of God) say about homosexuality and
homosexual activity when He was on this planet in male human form?
According to all popular versions of the Bible having 4 Gospels, as
far back as when the latest was in Greek, absolutely nothing!

Most elsewhere in the New Testament was written by Paul, famously
anti-sex, known to say that sexual activity ("in my words") is only
good-after-all because it results in production of virgins!

As for the bit in Romans - surely looks like advice for people to
keep to their true sexual orientations.

As for elsewhere in the New Testamant, for example I Corinthians 6:9-10:

Where most modern versions say "homosexuals and sodomites", the
famously anti-homosexual (arguably closet homo) King James says,
"effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind".

What was said there back when it was said in Greek were "malakoi"
and "arsenokoitai".

"Malakoi" were a very specific small group, femininely dressed young,
often teenage, male prostitutes. The more literal translation of
"malakoi" is "the soft ones".

"Arsenokoitai" is obviously a compound word of a Greek word for male
and the Greek word that "coitus" was derived from. There was a time that
Greek scholars found "common usage" of that compound word to be so low
as to "leave for argument", mostly in favor of meaning "men who sleep
around", as in a "male version of slut". (As opposed to "those who go
to bed with men" - which would include most women and every woman
"consumating" a marriage to a man.)

Then-arguably invented by Paul The Apostle so that not only women can be
referred to as "sluts".

More recently, a few bits of some "common usage" were dug up, with
translation to "men who are customers of prostitutes".

--
- Don Klipstein )

In article , Stormin Mormon wrote:
The apostle Timothy did mention Bishops.

The title Bishop is used by the LDS / Mormon church. I think
also by the Catholics, and possibly by a few other churches.

In immediate response, to post-interleaved, I would like to mention
that bishops are inventions of "organized religion". The Roman Catholic
church has those. I seem to think that Eastern Orthodox has bishops, but
gives them a little less power and gives church hierarchy a lot less power
than the breakaway Church of Rome does.

However, bishops persisted into Protestant denominations, for example
the Methodists, specifically the "United Methodists" of USA.

I have yet to hear the Bible promoting Christian churches being
organized to extent of having government structure including bishops.

--
- Don Klipstein )

I edit for line count from here

"I, Don, wrote in
In , "Stormie" top-posted:
(edited-slightly-4-space)
The church people don't much care, but God does. That's why
God gave us commandments, prophets, Bishops, etc.

Bishops surely appear to me to be prmomotions by humans rather than God.

Does any version of the Bible overtly favor existence of bishops or
even any church structure so oprganized as to even have bishops?

SNIP from here to keep to point of church organization with bishops

In , Stormin Mormon wrote:

You're doing what others have. I wrote a comical limerick in
reply to AHR troll, and now you think you see some kind of
evil intent, on my part? Please notice that I was responding
to a troll, not responding to a serious question on
someone's part. That should be a BIG clue as to how serious
was my writing.

SNIP from here to edit for line count

Many here see that you are willing in this thread to both repeat
and support negativity to a specific demographic group of people.

Are you willing to overtly sufficiently repudiate such a
negative stance to that demographic group?

--
- Don Klipstein )

On 3/8/2011 9:17 PM, Don Klipstein wrote:
In , Stormin Mormon wrote:
The apostle Timothy did mention Bishops.

The title Bishop is used by the LDS / Mormon church. I think
also by the Catholics, and possibly by a few other churches.

In immediate response, to post-interleaved, I would like to mention
that bishops are inventions of "organized religion". The Roman Catholic
church has those. I seem to think that Eastern Orthodox has bishops, but
gives them a little less power and gives church hierarchy a lot less power
than the breakaway Church of Rome does.

However, bishops persisted into Protestant denominations, for example
the Methodists, specifically the "United Methodists" of USA.

I have yet to hear the Bible promoting Christian churches being
organized to extent of having government structure including bishops.


Somebody refresh my memory- aren't a lot of the org structures and
hierarchies of the various flavors of Christianity that flowed from
Rome, based on the Imperial Roman practices of the time? I know that for
hundreds of years, the line between Church and State was extremely fuzzy
in that part of the world, and people with power tend to do things the
same way no matter who they work for.

--
aem sends...

On 3/8/2011 7:50 PM, Don Klipstein wrote:
, Stormin Mormon wrote:

snip

What was said there back when it was said in Greek were "malakoi"
and "arsenokoitai".

"Malakoi" were a very specific small group, femininely dressed young,
often teenage, male prostitutes. The more literal translation of
"malakoi" is "the soft ones".

Although Stormin has moved on, for lack of being able to argue facts, I
am fascinated.

A little more reading has shown that there were many words of that time
period that referred to homosexuals in general, and they were *not*
Malakoi and Arsenokoitai. Those referred to specific behaviors.

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.or...o_fairies.html

There are hundreds of Greek writings from this period that refer to
homosexual activity using terms other than arsenokoitai. (See note 8.)
If Paul had intended to refer generally to homosexual sex, or to one of
the partners in gay-male sex, he had other commonly-used, well-known
words at his disposal. He wouldn’t have had to resort to this ambiguous
compound word, which future generations would find difficult to
translate. Apparently Paul was trying to refer to some more obscure type
of behavior.

So, to bring the ancient to modern relevance, I am able to take this
away from it. On my next sex vacation to Thailand, don't get taken in by
the Malikoi, or as they would be called now "LadyBoys".

Jeff

That's a common thing for people to say when they are
feeling the rebuke of God, and have something to hide. Are
you feeling guilt for some reason?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...

In , Stormin Mormon
wrote:

God has spoken several times about homosexual behaviour.
It's in the scriptures for people to find.

SNIP from here

But who wrote the scriptures? Not God, but men.

On 3/9/2011 9:14 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
That's a common thing for people to say when they are
feeling the rebuke of God, and have something to hide. Are
you feeling guilt for some reason?

Which Bible are you reading? They are all translations, if not
translations of translations. Men, not God did the translations.

And why do you feel no remorse? Obviously you feel offended by the
words I've written, and yet you think no one should feel offended by
what you write. It has a distinct air of sanctimonious, does it not?

Jeff

Yes, the troll won, on this one. You sure are emotional.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jeff Thies" wrote in message
...
On 3/9/2011 9:14 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
That's a common thing for people to say when they are
feeling the rebuke of God, and have something to hide. Are
you feeling guilt for some reason?

Which Bible are you reading? They are all translations,
if not
translations of translations. Men, not God did the
translations.

And why do you feel no remorse? Obviously you feel
offended by the
words I've written, and yet you think no one should feel
offended by
what you write. It has a distinct air of sanctimonious, does
it not?

Jeff

On 3/9/2011 10:39 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Yes, the troll won, on this one. You sure are emotional.

That is just a cop out. You never cared about the troll or any troll
until you wanted to escape reasoned arguments. You've kicked in more
than the usual share of OT, most of it along moral lines.

Jeff

On 3/21/2011 2:32 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 09:36:56 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

A bit judgemental, you think? Labelling me based on
something I wrote on Usenet, and you havn't met me in
person?


I would NOT want to meet you in person.

You christians are all alike, with the Mormons being worst than most
other christian types, since Mormonism is a CULT. You all have three
things in mind

1. Annoying me with your judgemental preaching.
2. Calling me a sinner.
3. Getting your hands on my wallet.

Anyone who has to include religion in their sig (on non-religion
newsgroups), is an asshole only interested in doing these 3 things
above.

And I hate to burst your bubble, but Jesus never was God. Just a man
who thought he was better than others (just like most christians).


Who the heck are you? SM has never pushed his faith on anyone as far as
I've seen, I should know, I have Evangelical Southern Baptist relatives
who can irritate the crap out of a pile of dog squeeze. Stormin has a
sig with Jesus in it, big deal. It's no worse than someone wearing a
Cross pin on their lapel. I bark at nuns because they tortured me when
I was a small boy. ^_^

TDD

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 04:32:44 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 3/21/2011 2:32 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 09:36:56 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

A bit judgemental, you think? Labelling me based on
something I wrote on Usenet, and you havn't met me in
person?


I would NOT want to meet you in person.

You christians are all alike, with the Mormons being worst than most
other christian types, since Mormonism is a CULT. You all have three
things in mind

1. Annoying me with your judgemental preaching.
2. Calling me a sinner.
3. Getting your hands on my wallet.

Anyone who has to include religion in their sig (on non-religion
newsgroups), is an asshole only interested in doing these 3 things
above.

And I hate to burst your bubble, but Jesus never was God. Just a man
who thought he was better than others (just like most christians).


Who the heck are you? SM has never pushed his faith on anyone as far as
I've seen, I should know, I have Evangelical Southern Baptist relatives
who can irritate the crap out of a pile of dog squeeze. Stormin has a
sig with Jesus in it, big deal. It's no worse than someone wearing a
Cross pin on their lapel. I bark at nuns because they tortured me when
I was a small boy. ^_^

JW is one of those tolerant lefties.

wrote in news:tmg6n6prfqn6dakbbksohb6h2v1db8kebr@
4ax.com:

I've been dating this homosexual man for two years and he left me for
another man. I came to alt.homo.repair to ask for advice how to repair
our love. I still love him, but he said he dont love me anymore. He
said he just wants to cut it off. What can I do to repair his love for
me?

Butch

There's an app for that.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/457nmmp