On 7/22/2015 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 10:38 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 8:16 AM, Robert Green wrote:

I'm sure you're aware of what the Bible states about homosexuality, so
your argument here is a bit odd.

Yeah, a single throw-away line in the same chapter of the
old testament that forbids eating shellfish and pork.


Why were those things forbidden to eat in the old testament?


Ah, so _Muggles_ is a alias for Eliza.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA


LOL So, if you can't counter an argument or answer a question I've
posted then all of a sudden I'm not human? I'll have to tell my kids
that one. They'll be laughing about it for a while.

--
Maggie

Muggles writes:

Prejudice is only bad if it supports evil. Otherwise, prejudice that
supports good is good prejudice.

If you think "unfair" and "illogical" can be twisted into a virtue
you live is some kind of 1984 Truth Ministry.
Oh well, I'm done with you.

--
Dan Espen

On 7/22/2015 11:26 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

Prejudice is only bad if it supports evil. Otherwise, prejudice that
supports good is good prejudice.

If you think "unfair" and "illogical" can be twisted into a virtue
you live is some kind of 1984 Truth Ministry.
Oh well, I'm done with you.


If you think there is nothing under the sun that isn't open for
interpretation then you're deluded.

--
Maggie

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:31:44 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/22/2015 11:26 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

Prejudice is only bad if it supports evil. Otherwise, prejudice that
supports good is good prejudice.

If you think "unfair" and "illogical" can be twisted into a virtue
you live is some kind of 1984 Truth Ministry.
Oh well, I'm done with you.


If you think there is nothing under the sun that isn't open for
interpretation then you're deluded.

....thought I warned you before that Dan would kill file you. When he
disagrees he shuts you out. Oh well
--
"Woman up, stand your ground, and fight like a girl!" -- Sarah Palin

On 7/22/2015 12:42 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:31:44 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/22/2015 11:26 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

Prejudice is only bad if it supports evil. Otherwise, prejudice that
supports good is good prejudice.

If you think "unfair" and "illogical" can be twisted into a virtue
you live is some kind of 1984 Truth Ministry.
Oh well, I'm done with you.


If you think there is nothing under the sun that isn't open for
interpretation then you're deluded.

...thought I warned you before that Dan would kill file you. When he
disagrees he shuts you out. Oh well

Muggles isn't known for taking sage advise, she was forced to leave
another newsgroup after ****ing off enough people. That was under a
different name actually a shortened version of her real name which is
*not* Maggie.

--
Froz...

Quando omni flunkus, moritati

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

Just like the hypocrites of Hobby Lobby who
said they couldn't possibly have anything to do with paying for
contraception but somehow aren't reluctant to take money made
from investing in birth control makers.

What is hypocritical is the studious ignoring of the fact that HL were
more than willing to pay for all kinds of contraception except one kind.

Interesting. You're making it personal by accusing me of a) being
hypocritical and b) ignoring, apparently (and even studiously) some other
facts you've unfortunately failed to introduce as evidence.

Their investments (as far as I have been able to find out) did NOT
include the makers of the 4 specific medications they were concerned
about.

Hmmm. Well, I've carefully examined the citations and evidence you've
introduced to back up your claims and have to conclude you HAVEN'T submitted
any citations or evidence. I suspect this will play out like the Melissa
Cakes case once we get to examining substantive documents like Hobby Lobby's
pleadings. Let's go straight to the horses mouth to see if there was only
"one" kind of contraceptive they would not pay for because that's not how
I've read it.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...espondents.pdf

In a brief filed with the Supreme Court, the Greens object to covering
Plan B, Ella, and IUDs because they claim that these products can prevent a
fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus-a process the Greens
consider abortion. But researchers reject the notion that emergency
contraceptive pills prevent implantation the implantation of a fertilized
egg. Instead, they work by delaying ovulation or making it harder for sperm
to swim to the egg. The Green's contention that the pills cause abortions is
a central pillar of their argument for gutting the contraception mandate.
Yet, for years, Hobby Lobby's health insurance plans did cover Plan B and
Ella. It was only in 2012, when the Greens considered filing a lawsuit
against the Affordable Care Act, that they dropped these drugs from the
plan.

Only when they went to court did their religious convictions come into clear
focus, it seems. Like the Mormons. "You mean we'll lose our Fed tax
exemption if we don't admit blacks to the church?" And so blacks got to be
Mormons because of the LDS Elders and their deeply held faith in keeping
their humongous tax breaks.

So let's count so far:

1) Plan B
2) Ella
3) IUDs

Hmm. "One kind" you say? (-: Methinks this "studious hypocrite" deserves
an apology.

But wait. There's MORE! In case you think I am relying on second-hand news
reports:

From the PDF (written by HL's attorneys): "Hobby Lobby's health plan
therefore excludes drugs that can terminate a pregnancy, such as RU-486. The
plan also excludes four drugs or devices that can prevent an embryo from
implanting in the womb-namely, Plan B, Ella, and two types of intrauterine
devices. "

Wait a minute, now we're up to at least FIVE exclusions. (-:

--
Bobby G.

On 7/22/2015 11:05 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/22/2015 6:42 AM, Robert Green wrote:
The logic is pretty simple which is why it's hard to understand why the
religious types are so up in arms. No one I've ever heard of has "caught"
gayness like you might the measles.

Have you ever heard of "influence"? What about "learned behavior"?



Of course, there are so many other behaviors we
just accept as part of society. Japanese bow,
English hold the little finger out for tea. Why
not homosexuality? I think that hetro is default,
but a kid who's poorly raised may be influenced.
Some poorly raised kids play all the time about
cutting heads off Jews.

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

On 7/22/2015 11:42 AM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:31:44 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/22/2015 11:26 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

Prejudice is only bad if it supports evil. Otherwise, prejudice that
supports good is good prejudice.

If you think "unfair" and "illogical" can be twisted into a virtue
you live is some kind of 1984 Truth Ministry.
Oh well, I'm done with you.


If you think there is nothing under the sun that isn't open for
interpretation then you're deluded.

...thought I warned you before that Dan would kill file you. When he
disagrees he shuts you out. Oh well


One liberal down, a multitude to go?

--
Maggie

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 11:55:45 AM UTC-5, FrozenNorth wrote:
On 7/22/2015 12:42 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:31:44 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/22/2015 11:26 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

Prejudice is only bad if it supports evil. Otherwise, prejudice that
supports good is good prejudice.

If you think "unfair" and "illogical" can be twisted into a virtue
you live is some kind of 1984 Truth Ministry.
Oh well, I'm done with you.


If you think there is nothing under the sun that isn't open for
interpretation then you're deluded.

...thought I warned you before that Dan would kill file you. When he
disagrees he shuts you out. Oh well

Muggles isn't known for taking sage advise, she was forced to leave
another newsgroup after ****ing off enough people. That was under a
different name actually a shortened version of her real name which is
*not* Maggie.

....from what I know of you...I would take her side in a second! Maybe you are intellectually castrated by women with an opinion?

On 7/22/2015 12:19 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/22/2015 11:05 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/22/2015 6:42 AM, Robert Green wrote:
The logic is pretty simple which is why it's hard to understand why the
religious types are so up in arms. No one I've ever heard of has
"caught"
gayness like you might the measles.

Have you ever heard of "influence"? What about "learned behavior"?



Of course, there are so many other behaviors we
just accept as part of society. Japanese bow,
English hold the little finger out for tea. Why
not homosexuality? I think that hetro is default,
but a kid who's poorly raised may be influenced.
Some poorly raised kids play all the time about
cutting heads off Jews.


When babies are born their sole goal in life is to demand what they want
when they want it and they scream and cry until they get it. From the
beginning they are in a learning mode to see what works for them. They
are all about 'self' until they "learn" to temper their needs and wants
based on what they've learned. From that point on it's a horse race as
to what direction they take their lives.

--
Maggie

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 11:09:14 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/22/2015 11:01 AM, bob_villa wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:50:30 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/22/2015 10:38 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Yeah, a single throw-away line in the same chapter of the
old testament that forbids eating shellfish and pork.


Why were those things forbidden to eat in the old testament?


Those were forbidden, at least pork, because Jewish tradition/purity
wouldn't eat meat from an animal with a cloven hoof. Because of the
reference to Lucifer...


Is the same law enforced in the New Testament?

--
Maggie

No, Peter had a dream (or vision) where he saw follows eating foods which were thought forbidden.

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 12:45:41 PM UTC-5, bob_villa wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 11:09:14 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/22/2015 11:01 AM, bob_villa wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:50:30 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/22/2015 10:38 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Yeah, a single throw-away line in the same chapter of the
old testament that forbids eating shellfish and pork.


Why were those things forbidden to eat in the old testament?


Those were forbidden, at least pork, because Jewish tradition/purity
wouldn't eat meat from an animal with a cloven hoof. Because of the
reference to Lucifer...


Is the same law enforced in the New Testament?

--
Maggie

No, Peter had a dream (or vision) where he saw follows eating foods which were thought forbidden.

*followers*

On 7/22/2015 12:52 PM, bob_villa wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 12:45:41 PM UTC-5, bob_villa wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 11:09:14 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/22/2015 11:01 AM, bob_villa wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:50:30 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/22/2015 10:38 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Yeah, a single throw-away line in the same chapter of the
old testament that forbids eating shellfish and pork.


Why were those things forbidden to eat in the old testament?


Those were forbidden, at least pork, because Jewish tradition/purity
wouldn't eat meat from an animal with a cloven hoof. Because of the
reference to Lucifer...


Is the same law enforced in the New Testament?

--
Maggie

No, Peter had a dream (or vision) where he saw follows eating foods which were thought forbidden.

*followers*


That would mean what Scott said about "a single throw-away line in the
same chapter of the old testament that forbids eating shellfish and
pork" was wrong.

It really WASN'T a throw away line in the old testament. Something
changed in the new testament that nullified the law of not eating pork
or shellfish which made it acceptable in the new testament.

--
Maggie

Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 10:38 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 8:16 AM, Robert Green wrote:

I'm sure you're aware of what the Bible states about homosexuality, so
your argument here is a bit odd.

Yeah, a single throw-away line in the same chapter of the
old testament that forbids eating shellfish and pork.


Why were those things forbidden to eat in the old testament?


Ah, so _Muggles_ is a alias for Eliza.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA


LOL So, if you can't counter an argument or answer a question I've
posted then all of a sudden I'm not human? I'll have to tell my kids
that one. They'll be laughing about it for a while.

Actually, you asked a question you could have answered yourself
with a few minutes of due diligence. I'm not your research librarian.

On 7/22/2015 1:40 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 10:38 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 8:16 AM, Robert Green wrote:

I'm sure you're aware of what the Bible states about homosexuality, so
your argument here is a bit odd.

Yeah, a single throw-away line in the same chapter of the
old testament that forbids eating shellfish and pork.


Why were those things forbidden to eat in the old testament?


Ah, so _Muggles_ is a alias for Eliza.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA


LOL So, if you can't counter an argument or answer a question I've
posted then all of a sudden I'm not human? I'll have to tell my kids
that one. They'll be laughing about it for a while.

Actually, you asked a question you could have answered yourself
with a few minutes of due diligence. I'm not your research librarian.


I knew the answer already. I asked the question to see if you knew the
answer because you brought up the "old testament that forbids eating
shellfish and pork" argument.

If you're going to use an argument to support your point of view
shouldn't you know where your argument could go in the discussion and be
ready to respond and defend your point of view?

When you can't support your own argument and simply dismiss where the
discussion is going it only shows how ill prepared you were for that
discussion. You'd rather take it to some personal level in an effort to
send the discussion off on some tangent totally unrelated to the topic.
That's pure laziness, especially, if you had any intention of having a
valid discussion. Anyone can summarily dismiss a counterpoint. OTOH,
you responded with attempting to dehumanize me because you didn't like
the question, which is worse than laziness, imo.

--
Maggie

Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 1:40 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 10:38 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 8:16 AM, Robert Green wrote:

I'm sure you're aware of what the Bible states about homosexuality, so
your argument here is a bit odd.

Yeah, a single throw-away line in the same chapter of the
old testament that forbids eating shellfish and pork.


Why were those things forbidden to eat in the old testament?


Ah, so _Muggles_ is a alias for Eliza.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA


LOL So, if you can't counter an argument or answer a question I've
posted then all of a sudden I'm not human? I'll have to tell my kids
that one. They'll be laughing about it for a while.

Actually, you asked a question you could have answered yourself
with a few minutes of due diligence. I'm not your research librarian.


I knew the answer already. I asked the question to see if you knew the
answer because you brought up the "old testament that forbids eating
shellfish and pork" argument.

If you're going to use an argument to support your point of view
shouldn't you know where your argument could go in the discussion and be
ready to respond and defend your point of view?

When you can't support your own argument and simply dismiss where the
discussion is going it only shows how ill prepared you were for that
discussion. You'd rather take it to some personal level in an effort to
send the discussion off on some tangent totally unrelated to the topic.
That's pure laziness, especially, if you had any intention of having a
valid discussion. Anyone can summarily dismiss a counterpoint. OTOH,
you responded with attempting to dehumanize me because you didn't like
the question, which is worse than laziness, imo.

Actually, I consider argument about words in a book of fictional folktales to be
mental masturbation of the worst sort.

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 3:01:11 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 1:40 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 10:38 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 8:16 AM, Robert Green wrote:

I'm sure you're aware of what the Bible states about homosexuality, so
your argument here is a bit odd.

Yeah, a single throw-away line in the same chapter of the
old testament that forbids eating shellfish and pork.


Why were those things forbidden to eat in the old testament?


Ah, so _Muggles_ is a alias for Eliza.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA


LOL So, if you can't counter an argument or answer a question I've
posted then all of a sudden I'm not human? I'll have to tell my kids
that one. They'll be laughing about it for a while.

Actually, you asked a question you could have answered yourself
with a few minutes of due diligence. I'm not your research librarian.


I knew the answer already. I asked the question to see if you knew the
answer because you brought up the "old testament that forbids eating
shellfish and pork" argument.

If you're going to use an argument to support your point of view
shouldn't you know where your argument could go in the discussion and be
ready to respond and defend your point of view?

When you can't support your own argument and simply dismiss where the
discussion is going it only shows how ill prepared you were for that
discussion. You'd rather take it to some personal level in an effort to
send the discussion off on some tangent totally unrelated to the topic.
That's pure laziness, especially, if you had any intention of having a
valid discussion. Anyone can summarily dismiss a counterpoint. OTOH,
you responded with attempting to dehumanize me because you didn't like
the question, which is worse than laziness, imo.

Actually, I consider argument about words in a book of fictional folktales to be
mental masturbation of the worst sort.

Nice, now you insult everyone who believes in the bible...and pervert it with your chosen reference. Good comeback...I guess it hurt to be taken down a notch or two.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

Just like the hypocrites of Hobby Lobby who
said they couldn't possibly have anything to do with paying for
contraception but somehow aren't reluctant to take money made
from investing in birth control makers.

What is hypocritical is the studious ignoring of the fact that HL were
more than willing to pay for all kinds of contraception except one kind.

Interesting. You're making it personal by accusing me of a) being
hypocritical and b) ignoring, apparently (and even studiously) some other
facts you've unfortunately failed to introduce as evidence.
Really? That is the takeaway for you? It was said something was
hypocritical and I merely said what was hypocritical was not taking
facts into account.
ALL of the discussions back in the day and forward was that they
were only trying to avoid those 4. Heck even the respondent's brief you
quoted below noted that fact. Sorry if I was lax in assuming you
remebered this from the first. Mea culpa on that one.



Their investments (as far as I have been able to find out) did NOT
include the makers of the 4 specific medications they were concerned
about.

Hmmm. Well, I've carefully examined the citations and evidence you've
introduced to back up your claims and have to conclude you HAVEN'T submitted
any citations or evidence. I suspect this will play out like the Melissa
Cakes case once we get to examining substantive documents like Hobby Lobby's
pleadings. Let's go straight to the horses mouth to see if there was only
"one" kind of contraceptive they would not pay for because that's not how
I've read it.

The kind that prevented a fertilized egg from being implanted. I
didn't say one medication but one type. As this below shows.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...54-Brief-for-R
espondents.pdf

In a brief filed with the Supreme Court, the Greens object to covering
Plan B, Ella, and IUDs because they claim that these products can prevent a
fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus-a process the Greens
consider abortion. But researchers reject the notion that emergency
contraceptive pills prevent implantation the implantation of a fertilized
egg. Instead, they work by delaying ovulation or making it harder for sperm
to swim to the egg. The Green's contention that the pills cause abortions is
a central pillar of their argument for gutting the contraception mandate.
Yet, for years, Hobby Lobby's health insurance plans did cover Plan B and
Ella. It was only in 2012, when the Greens considered filing a lawsuit
against the Affordable Care Act, that they dropped these drugs from the
plan.

But then the VERY NEXT sentence said:
Indeed, when the Greens discovered that two of these drugs had been
included without their knowledge in the plan formulary, they immediately
removed them.5
Sorta different from the original statment.


Only when they went to court did their religious convictions come into clear
focus, it seems. Like the Mormons. "You mean we'll lose our Fed tax
exemption if we don't admit blacks to the church?" And so blacks got to be
Mormons because of the LDS Elders and their deeply held faith in keeping
their humongous tax breaks.

So let's count so far:

1) Plan B
2) Ella
3) IUDs

Hmm. "One kind" you say? (-: Methinks this "studious hypocrite" deserves
an apology.
Why. It was only one kind. I never said one brand. The original
statement was that they " said they couldn't possibly have anything to
do with paying for contraception but somehow aren't reluctant to take
money made from investing in birth control makers." They did not suggest
that they wouldn't pay for contraception. They are still paying for 20
of 24.


But wait. There's MORE! In case you think I am relying on second-hand news
reports:

From the PDF (written by HL's attorneys): "Hobby Lobby's health plan
therefore excludes drugs that can terminate a pregnancy, such as RU-486. The
plan also excludes four drugs or devices that can prevent an embryo from
implanting in the womb-namely, Plan B, Ella, and two types of intrauterine
devices. "

Wait a minute, now we're up to at least FIVE exclusions.
Not really. But heck, who am I to argue.
BTW: Since we are discussing facts not in evidence, is there anything
YOU have to suggest that they were invested in any of the companies
whose drugs they were against? It wouldn't have been remotely
hypocrical to invest in the companies making the ones they were still
paying for now would it?
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On 7/22/2015 3:01 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 1:40 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 11:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 10:38 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 8:16 AM, Robert Green wrote:

I'm sure you're aware of what the Bible states about homosexuality, so
your argument here is a bit odd.

Yeah, a single throw-away line in the same chapter of the
old testament that forbids eating shellfish and pork.


Why were those things forbidden to eat in the old testament?


Ah, so _Muggles_ is a alias for Eliza.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA


LOL So, if you can't counter an argument or answer a question I've
posted then all of a sudden I'm not human? I'll have to tell my kids
that one. They'll be laughing about it for a while.

Actually, you asked a question you could have answered yourself
with a few minutes of due diligence. I'm not your research librarian.


I knew the answer already. I asked the question to see if you knew the
answer because you brought up the "old testament that forbids eating
shellfish and pork" argument.

If you're going to use an argument to support your point of view
shouldn't you know where your argument could go in the discussion and be
ready to respond and defend your point of view?

When you can't support your own argument and simply dismiss where the
discussion is going it only shows how ill prepared you were for that
discussion. You'd rather take it to some personal level in an effort to
send the discussion off on some tangent totally unrelated to the topic.
That's pure laziness, especially, if you had any intention of having a
valid discussion. Anyone can summarily dismiss a counterpoint. OTOH,
you responded with attempting to dehumanize me because you didn't like
the question, which is worse than laziness, imo.

Actually, I consider argument about words in a book of fictional folktales to be
mental masturbation of the worst sort.


You jumped in the middle of a discussion I was having with Robert Green
about that fictional book of folktales, so you must have been missing
your girlfriend and decided to get off on a topic you knew nothing
about? It was your choice to join the discussion. Feel free to go clean
up and possibly return when you can think with the right head.

--
Maggie

On 7/19/15 12:04 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:28:48 -0400, Norminn


Jesus would have brought cupcakes and fed thousands ;o)

Probably so. Although some there think he would have made sure none
of the cupcakes got into the hands of gay people. I think Jesus would
have wanted the cupcakes to go to everyone, gay, straight, Trans,
whatever. That's how Jesus was.

His brother Jimmy wasn't. The Fourth Gospel said Jesus' brothers didn't
believe in him. Jimmy worked to revise what Jesus said.

Traditionally, the lessons of Sodom were to give cupcakes to strangers
without regard to race, creed, national origin, or sexual orientation;
and to listen to international scientists when they warned of the
effects of Global Drying. A few good men saved the stubborn population
from ecological disaster by forcing them to leave, then burning their
roofs to prevent resettlement. For diplomatic reasons, they blamed it on
brimstone, which everyone in those days knew was lightning.

When Jesus came to town and wasn't given cupcakes, he'd say they were
going to get what Sodom got. Jimmy said the lesson of Sodom was not to
let gentiles come to church because they were looking for hot Jewish girls.

He didn't get far bashing intermarriage, so others said the lesson of
Sodom was that men outside their congregation were probably looking for
hot Christian boys.

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Yeah, a single throw-away line in the same chapter of the
old testament that forbids eating shellfish and pork.

/sarcasm on

But Scott!!!!! What's wrong with taking the Old Testament literally? Think
of the benefits! I want to have 700 wives like Solomon. I want to sleep
with the hired help like Abraham who if born in this century would be
serving 7-15 years for attempted murder of his son. If any of my 700 wives
behave badly, I shall beat them as is stipulated in Proverbs 10:12-31. I
shall follow the teachings of Leviticus who also provides that I will
administer death or beatings, as the Law ordains, to my wives if they reap
the edges of a field, plant differing seeds in that field (both from 19:19),
pick up fallen grapes in our vineyard (19:10), sell an Israelite as a slave
(25:40), or wear clothes mixing different kinds of fabric (again from
19:19).

While to the non-religious "left behinds" I might seem to be breaking the
laws of man but I answer to a higher power. I refuse to let Man's laws
"burden my religion" because I surrender to a "higher law" - the one decreed
by the Almighty Himself. I can quote the Holy Scripture chapter and verse to
prove it.

If I say my religious convictions are very deeply held, who can disprove me?
There appears to be no "sincerity gauge" visible to others the last time I
checked in the mirror so I have no fear I will be challenged to prove the
depth of my convictions. And thanks to politicians who missed the
"separation of church and state" class in civics, I can turn to the growing
number of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts to back me up. Why even the
Supreme Court says my religious rights trump certain laws of man. Maybe
soon they're going to rule that only God's law need be obeyed. /sarcasm
off

--
Bobby G.

On 7/22/2015 4:02 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Yeah, a single throw-away line in the same chapter of the
old testament that forbids eating shellfish and pork.

/sarcasm on

But Scott!!!!! What's wrong with taking the Old Testament literally? Think
of the benefits! I want to have 700 wives like Solomon. I want to sleep
with the hired help like Abraham who if born in this century would be
serving 7-15 years for attempted murder of his son. If any of my 700 wives
behave badly, I shall beat them as is stipulated in Proverbs 10:12-31. I
shall follow the teachings of Leviticus who also provides that I will
administer death or beatings, as the Law ordains, to my wives if they reap
the edges of a field, plant differing seeds in that field (both from 19:19),
pick up fallen grapes in our vineyard (19:10), sell an Israelite as a slave
(25:40), or wear clothes mixing different kinds of fabric (again from
19:19).

While to the non-religious "left behinds" I might seem to be breaking the
laws of man but I answer to a higher power. I refuse to let Man's laws
"burden my religion" because I surrender to a "higher law" - the one decreed
by the Almighty Himself. I can quote the Holy Scripture chapter and verse to
prove it.

If I say my religious convictions are very deeply held, who can disprove me?
There appears to be no "sincerity gauge" visible to others the last time I
checked in the mirror so I have no fear I will be challenged to prove the
depth of my convictions. And thanks to politicians who missed the
"separation of church and state" class in civics, I can turn to the growing
number of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts to back me up. Why even the
Supreme Court says my religious rights trump certain laws of man. Maybe
soon they're going to rule that only God's law need be obeyed. /sarcasm
off



Since, you have difficulty discussing the topic all you're left with is
sarcasm. Anybody who can type can do that. It appears that you aren't
the exception.

--
Maggie

On 7/22/2015 1:27 PM, Muggles wrote:

When babies are born their sole goal in life is to demand what they want
when they want it and they scream and cry until they get it. From the
beginning they are in a learning mode to see what works for them. They
are all about 'self' until they "learn" to temper their needs and wants
based on what they've learned. From that point on it's a horse race as
to what direction they take their lives.


And, perhaps, some never really learn?
--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/22/2015 2:01 PM, Muggles wrote:

It really WASN'T a throw away line in the old testament. Something
changed in the new testament that nullified the law of not eating pork
or shellfish which made it acceptable in the new testament.


I remember some thing about a man coming to
fulfil the law.

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

On 7/22/2015 2:01 PM, Muggles wrote:


It really WASN'T a throw away line in the old testament. Something
changed in the new testament that nullified the law of not eating pork
or shellfish which made it acceptable in the new testament.


The invention of BBQ sauce for pork and butter for lobster.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 21:23:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/22/2015 2:01 PM, Muggles wrote:


It really WASN'T a throw away line in the old testament. Something
changed in the new testament that nullified the law of not eating pork
or shellfish which made it acceptable in the new testament.


The invention of BBQ sauce for pork and butter for lobster.

Real BBQ don't need no stinkin' sauce, nor does raw oysters. I do like
lobster with lemon and butter though.

On 7/22/2015 7:10 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/22/2015 2:01 PM, Muggles wrote:

It really WASN'T a throw away line in the old testament. Something
changed in the new testament that nullified the law of not eating pork
or shellfish which made it acceptable in the new testament.


I remember some thing about a man coming to
fulfil the law.


I remember that, too.

--
Maggie

On 7/22/2015 8:23 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/22/2015 2:01 PM, Muggles wrote:


It really WASN'T a throw away line in the old testament. Something
changed in the new testament that nullified the law of not eating pork
or shellfish which made it acceptable in the new testament.


The invention of BBQ sauce for pork and butter for lobster.

oh yeah. LOVE bbq ribs. Lobster is good, too, but a close 2nd.

--
Maggie

On 7/22/2015 11:12 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/22/2015 7:10 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/22/2015 2:01 PM, Muggles wrote:

It really WASN'T a throw away line in the old testament. Something
changed in the new testament that nullified the law of not eating pork
or shellfish which made it acceptable in the new testament.


I remember some thing about a man coming to
fulfil the law.


I remember that, too.


Wonder if that was the guy who invented
BBQ sauce, and melted butter? Colonel
Sanders, the chicken guy, was it? Chicken
that is just heavenly. Probably the first
guy to splash hot cooking oil and holler
Jesus Christ! while cooking.

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

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 00:21:33 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 22:01:26 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:
The same principle could be turned against you,
and you'd equally be a bigot. I don't think you are,
though. We just don't agree for whatever reasons.


It's not because I don't agree with your point of view.
It's because you, if you support discrimination
because someone is gay, are a bigot. If I agreed with
you then BOTH of us would be bigots.

You're a bigot because you're intolerant and discriminate against
people you don't agree with, so I should be calling you a bigot based
on your own example. You discriminate against people who want to
practice their freedom of religion.


Who, pray tell, am I discriminating against? Have I refused to bake
you a cake because you are a Christian? Sorry my friend, you are the
one who wants to discriminate and to be able to ignore the law because
you want your RELIGOUS LAW to be HIGHER LAW then our civil law. You
are supporting the Muslims who want to impose their Sharia Law on
everyone.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 21:21:58 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

It's not because I don't agree with your point of view. It's because
you, if you support discrimination because someone is gay, are a
bigot. If I agreed with you then BOTH of us would be bigots.

This gayness is a choice thing is pretty easy to demolish. When did any
straight person reading this thread make a conscious decision to become a
heterosexual? The surprisingly simple answer is that they didn't just as
most (all?) homosexuals didn't make a decision to become homosexual. One
day they realized that's who they were.

But if that's not enough proof it's NOT a moral choice, but an innate
process common to more than 10% of all species, there's this:

http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/0...homosexuality/

Recent research has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much
more common than previously thought. Although Darwin's theory of natural
selection predicts an evolutionary disadvantage for animals that fail to
pass along their traits through reproduction with the opposite sex, the
validity of this part of his theory has been questioned with the discoveries
of homosexual behavior in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the
world.

Rats turn "gay" when their colonies become over-crowded as if Nature was
trying to reduce the population by limiting pup-producing sexual relations.

How can it be a choice for a dumb animal without a moral system whatsoever?
It's most likely to be just the same for human beings. One thing's clear
from everything I've read, you can't *really* cure gay and trying to live as
a straight person is a loveless hell that a loving Creator would never force
upon us.

There was a time when "left-handedness" was treated the same as
"gayness". People where discriminated against in various ways for
being left-handed and people tried to 'cure' them of it. We've come
along a bit since then and people now accept that left-handedness is
as normal as right-handedness, just different. The GLBT thing is
heading in the same direction as the dinosaurs die out.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:05:00 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/22/2015 6:42 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message On
wrote:

stuff snipped

a choice thing is pretty easy to demolish. When did any
straight person reading this thread make a conscious decision to become a
heterosexual? The surprisingly simple answer is that they didn't just as
most (all?) homosexuals didn't make a decision to become homosexual. One
day they realized that's who they were.

But if that's not enough proof it's NOT a moral choice, but an innate
process common to more than 10% of all species, there's this:

http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/0...homosexuality/


When I was in college ('70's) I said gays are born with "gayness" -
during a lit class discussion. I hadn't given it much thought, but
used the same simple logic as you did above. The professor was
probably gay, and he took exception.

The logic is pretty simple which is why it's hard to understand why the
religious types are so up in arms. No one I've ever heard of has "caught"
gayness like you might the measles.

Have you ever heard of "influence"? What about "learned behavior"?


Looking at the lines that snaked around courthouses across the county full
of gay people waiting to get married one thing struck me: They were plain,
simple looking folks for the most part. They looked just so damn average.


Just because people prefer to do something, it doesn't mean it's right,
natural, normal, or good.


And it's so wonderful we have people like you around to tell people
what is and isn't right, natural, normal, or good. Can I do the same?
The right thinking for people to do is use their minds and realize
that like the Easter bunny and Santa Claus, ALL "gods" are fantasies
left over from a time when people thought the earth was flat and the
four basic elements were phlegm, fire, bile, and who knows what else.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 23:34:47 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/21/2015 8:21 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

It's not because I don't agree with your point of view. It's because
you, if you support discrimination because someone is gay, are a
bigot. If I agreed with you then BOTH of us would be bigots.

This gayness is a choice thing is pretty easy to demolish. When did any
straight person reading this thread make a conscious decision to become a
heterosexual? The surprisingly simple answer is that they didn't just as
most (all?) homosexuals didn't make a decision to become homosexual. One
day they realized that's who they were.

But if that's not enough proof it's NOT a moral choice, but an innate
process common to more than 10% of all species, there's this:

http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/0...homosexuality/

Recent research has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much
more common than previously thought. Although Darwin's theory of natural
selection predicts an evolutionary disadvantage for animals that fail to
pass along their traits through reproduction with the opposite sex, the
validity of this part of his theory has been questioned with the discoveries
of homosexual behavior in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the
world.

Rats turn "gay" when their colonies become over-crowded as if Nature was
trying to reduce the population by limiting pup-producing sexual relations.

How can it be a choice for a dumb animal without a moral system whatsoever?
It's most likely to be just the same for human beings. One thing's clear
from everything I've read, you can't *really* cure gay and trying to live as
a straight person is a loveless hell that a loving Creator would never force
upon us.


One argument in favor of being gay is people are born gay. I've always
countered that argument with a logical response. Do you think people are
born gay?

Are people born left handed or do they learn it?

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 06:25:46 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/19/2015 11:11 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:26:53 -0400, Stormin Mormon

I'm starting to wonder. Ashton appears to be
completely convinced that he has a complete
and correct understanding of Jesus. And that
he has a complete understanding of what
others believe. That's pretty bold.

Jesus might be speaking thru me. Prove he isn't.


Now I know you're a troll, trying to
prove a negative.

I've provided the teachings of the living
prophets, don't need to prove any more
than that.
https://www.lds.org/topics/same-gend...ction?lang=eng

No, you've simply done the thing I posted as the example of the
absurdity.

What's the LDS position on shaving and cutting your hair? Both are
sins according to the bible.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 00:25:57 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 22:06:37 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:
though it's against your beliefs. There is nothing
special about religion that should give you the right
to pick and choose which laws

It's called the Constitution. The laws cannot infringe on the
freedom of religion.


And they don't. Where in the bible does it say "Thou shall not sell
cakes to gay people." Recall, no one is asking you to have gay sex,
just to sell them a cake like you would sell to anyone else.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 02:23:53 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"trader_4" wrote in message news:82f87de9-

The bakery didn't refuse to bake cakes for gays.

I suspect you have that wrong as you did the "damages" being called "fines"
part of this case and the cease and desist order being called a "gag" order.

They served the gay couple wanting the cake in the past.

I believe they served non-gay relations of the couple in the past. The
whole affair "blew up" when the cake baker taking the order asked for the
name of the husband. I'd love to see a credible source for your claim
because it neither has the ring of truth to it nor does it match with what's
in the document that details BOLIs actions.

http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet...lissa-damages/

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsset...Cakes%20FO.pdf

They refused to bake a wedding cake for them.

That I will agree with because that's the specific violation of state law
that landed them in the hot water they're in. Key words being "violation of
law." And now, since the religious Right has clearly lost the battle in the
gay marriage law, is looking for a way to end-run that decision. Hence the
"closely held" religious BS. Just like the hypocrites of Hobby Lobby who
said they couldn't possibly have anything to do with paying for
contraception but somehow aren't reluctant to take money made from investing
in birth control makers.

Sheer hypocrisy. Hiding behind the respect most people in the US have for
the religion of their fellow Americans is reprehensible, especially when
using it to advance a very dubious agenda. If it hurts SO much to pay for
contraception, why is making money from the sale of it to others "fair game"
for Hobby Lobby?

I don't pretend to know what Jesus would or would not do.

Gee, why not? Everyone else here (including me) has ventured some opinion
as to what Jesus would do. That's not unusual considering the question
"What would Jesus do?" is obviously one that's asked often.

As I understand it, Jesus had high moral standards
and since according to the bible homosexuality is a sin, baking a
cake for a gay wedding sounds like something he might not want to
participate in.

One sentence ago you say you "won't pretend" to know but it *sounds* like
you're "pretending to know what Jesus would do" now - doesn't it? As
someone here is fond of writing: good grief!

Prostitution is also a sin, but Jesus clearly had no fear of interacting
with such people. How is ANYONE expected to guide someone to the light if
they're afraid to be in the same room with them? It makes no sense. You
don't "catch gayness." So when people say they are following the teachings
of Jesus I say "that's doubtful." His teachings are rather compact - if you
eliminate all the follow-on interpretations and stick to words it's believed
he actually used. And his teachings are nearly universally inclusive, not
exclusive. "Turn the other cheek, do unto others, take the beam out of your
eye" - it's all there in very plain language.

If someone came to Jesus and wanted to rent a
room so that they could commit adultery, what would Jesus do?

Oh God, you tell us "I don't pretend to know what Jesus would do" and now
you have him as a hypothetical landlord of a hotsheet hotel. He'd more
likely say (and is on record as saying) "Judge not lest ye be judged."
Find more than a passing reference to homosexuality in the Gospels and
*maybe* I'll concede that Jesus had strong feelings against gays. It will
be a fruitless search, however. It isn't there.

See, this is the problem with libs and all the lib laws.

Here we go - everything wrong with the world in your eyes is because of
something "libs" do. sigh Yet you'll easily excuse Bush for dragging us
into two ten-year plus wars that solved nothing. And you protest mightily
if someone dare blame him for the economic mess two ten year wars brought
us. He may have had bad intel to start, but he stayed LONG after it was
determined the WMD intel was bad. So the bad intel argument you often make
to excuse his war-mongering collapses at that point. We gave him the go
ahead to find and destroy WMDs, but he enlarged his mission to the
preposterous one of trying to bring order to an orderless bunch of religious
zealots who've been killing each other over who loves Allah more for over
1000 years.

One could easily argue that our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan has
resulted in home-grown terrorists acting on their own (like the Boston
bomber) because they believe Islam is under attack by the US. Heckuva job,
as GW would say. We not only didn't solve the Muslim terrorist problem,
we've begun growing our own.

You wind up having to resort to figuring out what is in
people's minds and what Jesus would do. If you leave people
free to do as they please in their own business, you don't have
that problem.

Good gracious God almighty. The way you see things, there's never been any
gay bashing and all discrimination has stopped. What I don't understand is
how a person as smart as you are still believes so profoundly in free
markets. They have notorious failure points and 100 years after the Civil
War the free market had done nothing to end discrimination. In fact, it
institutionalized it in Jim Crow laws. It took Lyndon Johnson's Civil
Rights Act of 1964 to move toward a more fair nation.

Under a truly free market, workers have little/no leverage as its employers
who are able to pick and choose among workers much easier than workers can
pick and choose amongst employees. The free market fails to protect natural
resources and it failed to provide affordable health insurance to seniors,
giving rise to the birth of Medicare. If you remember, the "free market" of
auto manufacturers fought tooth and nail against standards that would clean
up the air, despite LA and many other cities drowning in smog. Not only did
the free market not help to clean the air, it actively fought making this
change that has been beneficial to nearly all members of society. But this
is a subject for another thread.

Or, for the most part, any other real problems.

That's why Nixon had to create the EPA, that's why we had to create a
Superfund to clean up toxic waste sites. How well does the free market,
left alone, keep companies from polluting the environment so much that
billions are required to clean up sites they poisoned? The sad truth is
that your faith in the free market is misplaced because time and again the
bad acts of companies that went bankrupt left taxpayers with the clean-up
bill.

The ultimate refutation of your quaint idea that people, when left alone,
will do the right thing is that there has never been such a society in the
history of the world. There probably never will be. People's
self-interests almost always interfere with altruism. Free market failures
(like the Great Depression) are almost always what cause regulations to come
into being. The US took a very serious swing towards socialism as the
result of the 1929 disaster - the free market run wild.

There were 1000 bakeries that would supply the cake.

But this one insisted on violating state law in Oregon. And they got caught
and punished. Sounds pretty biblical to me. If you want to open a bakery
to the public in Oregon, you have to obey state law. What a quaint idea.
Obeying the Bible is a voluntary choice, obeying the Constitution and law of
the land is not, although some people are trying to make it seem that way.
If a vendor feels the Bible prohibits themfrom interacting with gay people
in the public sphere, they had better go set up a religious commune where
they won't run into people who will disturb their precious sensibilities.

People in love with unfettered "free market" are free to move to
Somalia. Yet few of the USA lovers of the unfettered free market
choose to do so. Some do of course, but the ones who go there by
choice are almost always companies cashing in on the mayhem, not
individuals going to "start a good life".

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 9:21:42 AM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
ALL "gods" are fantasies
left over from a time when people thought the earth was flat and the
four basic elements were phlegm, fire, bile, and who knows what else.

If you *think* you have all the answers...you should read St. Augustine.

On 7/23/2015 6:43 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/22/2015 11:12 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/22/2015 7:10 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/22/2015 2:01 PM, Muggles wrote:

It really WASN'T a throw away line in the old testament. Something
changed in the new testament that nullified the law of not eating pork
or shellfish which made it acceptable in the new testament.


I remember some thing about a man coming to
fulfil the law.


I remember that, too.


Wonder if that was the guy who invented
BBQ sauce, and melted butter? Colonel
Sanders, the chicken guy, was it? Chicken
that is just heavenly. Probably the first
guy to splash hot cooking oil and holler
Jesus Christ! while cooking.


Some things you just take on faith like who invented BBQ sauce!

--
Maggie

On 7/23/2015 10:26 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 06:25:46 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/19/2015 11:11 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:26:53 -0400, Stormin Mormon

I'm starting to wonder. Ashton appears to be
completely convinced that he has a complete
and correct understanding of Jesus. And that
he has a complete understanding of what
others believe. That's pretty bold.

Jesus might be speaking thru me. Prove he isn't.


Now I know you're a troll, trying to
prove a negative.

I've provided the teachings of the living
prophets, don't need to prove any more
than that.
https://www.lds.org/topics/same-gend...ction?lang=eng

No, you've simply done the thing I posted as the example of the
absurdity.

What's the LDS position on shaving and cutting your hair? Both are
sins according to the bible.


Again, I'm not going to try to prove a negative.


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

On 7/23/2015 10:42 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/23/2015 6:43 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Wonder if that was the guy who invented
BBQ sauce, and melted butter? Colonel
Sanders, the chicken guy, was it? Chicken
that is just heavenly. Probably the first
guy to splash hot cooking oil and holler
Jesus Christ! while cooking.


Some things you just take on faith like who invented BBQ sauce!


We can always consult Strang's Concordance,
and see what the learned scholars say.

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