Since the people that want religious freedom can't agree with the rest of
the nation, why don't we just split. Those wanting religious freedom can
have their own country to run the way they want. Then they can see if God
blesses their country that acknowledges God. Maybe their constitution can
declare that their government not establish a church but exclude "Separation
of Church and State". Maybe they can have a pledge of allegiance that says
"One nation under God" and put "In God we Trust" on their money. Maybe they
can be free to place nativity scenes on public property, post the Ten
Commandments, and have a Bible in their schools.

I believe God would bless such a nation, I believe it would become a great
nation. But then, others would see how blessed that nation is, and they
would want to come in and enjoy the prosperity but not thank the God that
blessed it. Those who don't believe in the things that made the nation
great would infiltrate it and destroy it from the inside. They wouldn't be
part of what made the nation great, they would be part of what destroyed the
great nation. Just like it happened in the USA.

RogerN

I think that it is a great idea (with some questions remaining, like
which God will bless and who are the truly righteuos), and I am
generally supportive.

i

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
Since the people that want religious freedom can't agree with the rest of
the nation, why don't we just split. Those wanting religious freedom can
have their own country to run the way they want. Then they can see if God
blesses their country that acknowledges God. Maybe their constitution can
declare that their government not establish a church but exclude
"Separation of Church and State". Maybe they can have a pledge of
allegiance that says "One nation under God" and put "In God we Trust" on
their money. Maybe they can be free to place nativity scenes on public
property, post the Ten Commandments, and have a Bible in their schools.

I believe God would bless such a nation, I believe it would become a great
nation. But then, others would see how blessed that nation is, and they
would want to come in and enjoy the prosperity but not thank the God that
blessed it. Those who don't believe in the things that made the nation
great would infiltrate it and destroy it from the inside. They wouldn't
be part of what made the nation great, they would be part of what
destroyed the great nation. Just like it happened in the USA.

RogerN

I am aware of exactly three countries today that will meet your needs:

The Vatican
Israel
Saudi Arabia

Take your pick - They are all good countries for those who believe

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
Since the people that want religious freedom can't agree with the rest of
the nation, why don't we just split. Those wanting religious freedom can
have their own country to run the way they want. Then they can see if
God blesses their country that acknowledges God. Maybe their
constitution can declare that their government not establish a church but
exclude "Separation of Church and State". Maybe they can have a pledge
of allegiance that says "One nation under God" and put "In God we Trust"
on their money. Maybe they can be free to place nativity scenes on
public property, post the Ten Commandments, and have a Bible in their
schools.

I believe God would bless such a nation, I believe it would become a
great nation. But then, others would see how blessed that nation is, and
they would want to come in and enjoy the prosperity but not thank the God
that blessed it. Those who don't believe in the things that made the
nation great would infiltrate it and destroy it from the inside. They
wouldn't be part of what made the nation great, they would be part of
what destroyed the great nation. Just like it happened in the USA.

RogerN

I am aware of exactly three countries today that will meet your needs:

The Vatican
Israel
Saudi Arabia

Take your pick - They are all good countries for those who believe

So, according to Roger, it looks many of the founding fathers are the ones
that destroyed this country. They clearly would not pass his litmus test:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=6177

"Buerste" on Wed, 12 May 2010 22:18:29 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Actually I was thinking how nice it would be if the liberals and
conservatives could separate and each have their own part of the country
to run the way they wanted. But then when the conservatives did well and
the liberals spiraled down the toilet, the liberals would come in and ruin
what the conservatives accomplished. Then I realized that what I was
thinking about already happened and that's what I'm living in now, the
most blessed country but being destroyed by liberals. The enemy is here
and is destroying us from within!

Time to take my medicine and go to bed.

RogerN



As foretold. OBTW, it's not a good idea to mention God, He offends
liberals. Religious persecution will always exist and be blamed on
everything even remotely connected to any idiot doing something evil in the
name of his "god". I guess tolerance is only supposed to apply to gays and
terrorists.

And those religious fanatics who threaten gays and Western
Liberals with death.

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

I am in sympathy with some of your views but I fail to understand your
anger. Freedom to believe or not in a god, gods, no gods or what ever does
not detract from having a cordial relationship with your neighbors.

Government, in the eyes of our founding fathers, does not exist to promote a
belief in any religion, but rather to have a system where religions can
co-exist and be tolerated by each other.

Individual questions of what is permissible occur from time to time and are
settled and then we move on. Neither side in the debate on any particular
question usually ends up completely happy.

Consider Thomas Jefferson. As the prime author of the Declaration of
Independence, he wrote of:

"...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God..."
"...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
"...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world..."
"...solemnly publish and declare..."
"...a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence..."
"...pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

But he also coined the phrase "separation of church and state". In a letter
to the Danbury Baptists he wrote:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man
& his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions,
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus
building a wall of separation between Church & State."

In 1797 the US Senate by unanimous vote (Only the third time *all* of the
Senators voting agreed on anything.) ratified the "Treaty of Tripoli". In
doing so they publicly declared:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion..."

Myself, I really like the Jeffersonian concept of the US being the "Empire o
f Liberty", I suspect the reason "we don't just split" is because we are
stronger as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, and
each of us is left to decide as a matter of personal liberty just what
"under god" means to themselves.

--
Roger Shoaf
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent.



"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
Since the people that want religious freedom can't agree with the rest of
the nation, why don't we just split. Those wanting religious freedom can
have their own country to run the way they want. Then they can see if God
blesses their country that acknowledges God. Maybe their constitution can
declare that their government not establish a church but exclude
"Separation
of Church and State". Maybe they can have a pledge of allegiance that
says
"One nation under God" and put "In God we Trust" on their money. Maybe
they
can be free to place nativity scenes on public property, post the Ten
Commandments, and have a Bible in their schools.

I believe God would bless such a nation, I believe it would become a great
nation. But then, others would see how blessed that nation is, and they
would want to come in and enjoy the prosperity but not thank the God that
blessed it. Those who don't believe in the things that made the nation
great would infiltrate it and destroy it from the inside. They wouldn't
be
part of what made the nation great, they would be part of what destroyed
the
great nation. Just like it happened in the USA.

RogerN

"anorton" wrote in message
...

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
Since the people that want religious freedom can't agree with the rest
of the nation, why don't we just split. Those wanting religious freedom
can have their own country to run the way they want. Then they can see
if God blesses their country that acknowledges God. Maybe their
constitution can declare that their government not establish a church
but exclude "Separation of Church and State". Maybe they can have a
pledge of allegiance that says "One nation under God" and put "In God we
Trust" on their money. Maybe they can be free to place nativity scenes
on public property, post the Ten Commandments, and have a Bible in their
schools.

I believe God would bless such a nation, I believe it would become a
great nation. But then, others would see how blessed that nation is,
and they would want to come in and enjoy the prosperity but not thank
the God that blessed it. Those who don't believe in the things that
made the nation great would infiltrate it and destroy it from the
inside. They wouldn't be part of what made the nation great, they would
be part of what destroyed the great nation. Just like it happened in
the USA.

RogerN

I am aware of exactly three countries today that will meet your needs:

The Vatican
Israel
Saudi Arabia

Take your pick - They are all good countries for those who believe

So, according to Roger, it looks many of the founding fathers are the ones
that destroyed this country. They clearly would not pass his litmus test:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=6177


No, the problem I have is with those who took what the founding fathers
wrote and changed the meaning of it. Such as Thomas Jefferson, one of the
least religious of the founding fathers, attended church services in a
government building and gave government money to missionaries. Do you think
the ACLU would have a problem with that today?

RogerN

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" on Wed, 12 May 2010 22:18:29 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Actually I was thinking how nice it would be if the liberals and
conservatives could separate and each have their own part of the country
to run the way they wanted. But then when the conservatives did well
and
the liberals spiraled down the toilet, the liberals would come in and
ruin
what the conservatives accomplished. Then I realized that what I was
thinking about already happened and that's what I'm living in now, the
most blessed country but being destroyed by liberals. The enemy is here
and is destroying us from within!

Time to take my medicine and go to bed.

RogerN



As foretold. OBTW, it's not a good idea to mention God, He offends
liberals. Religious persecution will always exist and be blamed on
everything even remotely connected to any idiot doing something evil in
the
name of his "god". I guess tolerance is only supposed to apply to gays
and
terrorists.

And those religious fanatics who threaten gays and Western
Liberals with death.

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Like Jesus said, let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.

RogerN

"Roger Shoaf" wrote in message
...
I am in sympathy with some of your views but I fail to understand your
anger. Freedom to believe or not in a god, gods, no gods or what ever does
not detract from having a cordial relationship with your neighbors.

Government, in the eyes of our founding fathers, does not exist to promote
a
belief in any religion, but rather to have a system where religions can
co-exist and be tolerated by each other.

Individual questions of what is permissible occur from time to time and
are
settled and then we move on. Neither side in the debate on any particular
question usually ends up completely happy.

Consider Thomas Jefferson. As the prime author of the Declaration of
Independence, he wrote of:

"...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God..."
"...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
"...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world..."
"...solemnly publish and declare..."
"...a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence..."
"...pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

But he also coined the phrase "separation of church and state". In a
letter
to the Danbury Baptists he wrote:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
Man
& his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his
worship,
that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not
opinions,
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people
which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus
building a wall of separation between Church & State."

In 1797 the US Senate by unanimous vote (Only the third time *all* of the
Senators voting agreed on anything.) ratified the "Treaty of Tripoli". In
doing so they publicly declared:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion..."

Myself, I really like the Jeffersonian concept of the US being the "Empire
o
f Liberty", I suspect the reason "we don't just split" is because we are
stronger as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, and
each of us is left to decide as a matter of personal liberty just what
"under god" means to themselves.

--
Roger Shoaf
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent.


The part I don't agree with it the change in meaning of what the founding
fathers wrote. The things I mentioned such as "The national day of prayer",
"one nation under God", etc. wasn't seen as a violation of the constitution
until recently. Can't change the wording of the constitution? Then change
the meaning of the words in the constitution. You'll notice those who want
to take away religious liberties will use "separation of church and state"
(not in the constitution) instead of "establishment of religion".

RogerN

Unless you are conservative, and then tolerance applies to
everyone.

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


"Buerste" wrote in message
...

I guess tolerance is only supposed to apply to gays and
terrorists.

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"anorton" wrote in message
...

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
Since the people that want religious freedom can't agree with the rest
of the nation, why don't we just split. Those wanting religious
freedom can have their own country to run the way they want. Then they
can see if God blesses their country that acknowledges God. Maybe
their constitution can declare that their government not establish a
church but exclude "Separation of Church and State". Maybe they can
have a pledge of allegiance that says "One nation under God" and put
"In God we Trust" on their money. Maybe they can be free to place
nativity scenes on public property, post the Ten Commandments, and have
a Bible in their schools.

I believe God would bless such a nation, I believe it would become a
great nation. But then, others would see how blessed that nation is,
and they would want to come in and enjoy the prosperity but not thank
the God that blessed it. Those who don't believe in the things that
made the nation great would infiltrate it and destroy it from the
inside. They wouldn't be part of what made the nation great, they
would be part of what destroyed the great nation. Just like it
happened in the USA.

RogerN

I am aware of exactly three countries today that will meet your needs:

The Vatican
Israel
Saudi Arabia

Take your pick - They are all good countries for those who believe

So, according to Roger, it looks many of the founding fathers are the
ones that destroyed this country. They clearly would not pass his litmus
test:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=6177


No, the problem I have is with those who took what the founding fathers
wrote and changed the meaning of it. Such as Thomas Jefferson, one of the
least religious of the founding fathers, attended church services in a
government building and gave government money to missionaries. Do you
think the ACLU would have a problem with that today?

RogerN


That is not what you were talking about before. You said:

But then, others would see how blessed that nation is, and they would
want to come in and enjoy the prosperity but not thank the God that
blessed it. Those who don't believe in the things that made the nation
great would infiltrate it and destroy it from the inside.

As deists, many of the founding fathers did not believe god blessed or
cursed anything. They believed once he created the world and its natural
laws, he no longer interfered. Therefore according to you since they did not
believe God made this nation great, and did not God for it, they were
destroying the country from the inside.

As for Jefferson funding missionaries, this was hardly religiously
motivated. It was part of a policy of either assimilating or relocating
Indians.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/dat...y.cfm?HHID=638
I think none of this would fly today nor should it.

Aren't there enough metalworking topics that you could coment on?

Ever wonder why that is?

--
WB
..........


"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

babble, fantasy, superstition

On 2010-05-13, RogerN wrote:
Not Pelosi, that woman wouldn't know a moral if she stepped on it. I think
women like her is why the Bible says women shouldn't lead in the Church,

Nancy Pelosi has been married to one man since 1963.

Conversely, Newt Gingrich, of whom I previously thought highly, is a
male whore and a perfect example of immorality.

i

Preform. V. To form ahead of time, such as to get multiple
nose jobs.

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


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...


Let me guess, you just found out that Michael Jackson died
and can't
preform at your birthday party.
John R. Carroll

"Preform", eh?

On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:31:58 -0400, "Wild_Bill"
wrote the following:

"RogerN" wrote in message
news:xtudnc2uJKUKyXbWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@earthlink. com...

babble, fantasy, superstition

Aren't there enough metalworking topics that you could coment on?

Ever wonder why that is?

I keep wondering why people quote these guys instead of plonking them.
Just Do It!

--
Work and struggle and never accept an evil that you can change.
-- Andre Gide

On 5/13/2010 3:38 AM, RogerN wrote:
"pyotr wrote in message
...
on Wed, 12 May 2010 22:18:29 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Actually I was thinking how nice it would be if the liberals and
conservatives could separate and each have their own part of the country
to run the way they wanted. But then when the conservatives did well
and
the liberals spiraled down the toilet, the liberals would come in and
ruin
what the conservatives accomplished. Then I realized that what I was
thinking about already happened and that's what I'm living in now, the
most blessed country but being destroyed by liberals. The enemy is here
and is destroying us from within!

Time to take my medicine and go to bed.

RogerN



As foretold. OBTW, it's not a good idea to mention God, He offends
liberals. Religious persecution will always exist and be blamed on
everything even remotely connected to any idiot doing something evil in
the
name of his "god". I guess tolerance is only supposed to apply to gays
and
terrorists.

And those religious fanatics who threaten gays and Western
Liberals with death.

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Like Jesus said, let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.

RogerN



Someone else in antiquity said, that true piety is most laudably
expressed by silence and submission, and that man, ignorant of his own
nature, should not presume to scrutinize the nature of his God.

It seems to me those are words that every man who thinks of himself as
religious should take to heart. That means you, Roger.

Hawke

On 5/13/2010 3:48 AM, RogerN wrote:
"Roger wrote in message
...
I am in sympathy with some of your views but I fail to understand your
anger. Freedom to believe or not in a god, gods, no gods or what ever does
not detract from having a cordial relationship with your neighbors.

Government, in the eyes of our founding fathers, does not exist to promote
a
belief in any religion, but rather to have a system where religions can
co-exist and be tolerated by each other.

Individual questions of what is permissible occur from time to time and
are
settled and then we move on. Neither side in the debate on any particular
question usually ends up completely happy.

Consider Thomas Jefferson. As the prime author of the Declaration of
Independence, he wrote of:

"...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God..."
"...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
"...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world..."
"...solemnly publish and declare..."
"...a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence..."
"...pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

But he also coined the phrase "separation of church and state". In a
letter
to the Danbury Baptists he wrote:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
Man
& his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his
worship,
that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only,& not
opinions,
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people
which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus
building a wall of separation between Church& State."

In 1797 the US Senate by unanimous vote (Only the third time *all* of the
Senators voting agreed on anything.) ratified the "Treaty of Tripoli". In
doing so they publicly declared:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion..."

Myself, I really like the Jeffersonian concept of the US being the "Empire
o
f Liberty", I suspect the reason "we don't just split" is because we are
stronger as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, and
each of us is left to decide as a matter of personal liberty just what
"under god" means to themselves.

--
Roger Shoaf
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent.


The part I don't agree with it the change in meaning of what the founding
fathers wrote. The things I mentioned such as "The national day of prayer",
"one nation under God", etc. wasn't seen as a violation of the constitution
until recently. Can't change the wording of the constitution? Then change
the meaning of the words in the constitution. You'll notice those who want
to take away religious liberties will use "separation of church and state"
(not in the constitution) instead of "establishment of religion".

RogerN


You don't get what is really a simple point. Back in the days of the
founding fathers there were two religions basically, Christian and
Heathens, which means Indians. There were so few people in the early
U.S. that followed any religion other than Christianity that back then
people didn't think much about any other religions. Everyone was a
Christian, pretty much.

Today, we have a gigantic, multicultural nation with all kinds of
different religions that all want to be recognized by the government.
The only way today to be fair is to show no favoritism to any of them
and that means Christianity, even though most people still are members
of that religion. To avoid problems it's just far easier for the
government to take the position where they keep totally away from having
anything to do with any religion for fear of upsetting the others.
Better to just keep all religious stuff out of government affairs. So
that's what they are doing. The problem is you see not favoring your
religion as being persecuted. But that's your problem and not anyone
else's. I'm sure plenty of Muslims feel just like you do. Which is why
it's so much better for the government to just have nothing to do with
religion at all. It's the only way to be fair to all the different
religions. That's a problem the founders never had to deal with. It's
like your day of prayer. Nowadays the question would be if we have a day
of prayer which religion should we favor by having it in that particular
one. How would you like a day of prayer from the Koran? Something tells
me that would not make you very happy.

Hawke

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" on Wed, 12 May 2010 22:18:29 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Actually I was thinking how nice it would be if the liberals and
conservatives could separate and each have their own part of the country
to run the way they wanted. But then when the conservatives did well
and
the liberals spiraled down the toilet, the liberals would come in and
ruin
what the conservatives accomplished. Then I realized that what I was
thinking about already happened and that's what I'm living in now, the
most blessed country but being destroyed by liberals. The enemy is here
and is destroying us from within!

Time to take my medicine and go to bed.

RogerN



As foretold. OBTW, it's not a good idea to mention God, He offends
liberals. Religious persecution will always exist and be blamed on
everything even remotely connected to any idiot doing something evil in
the
name of his "god". I guess tolerance is only supposed to apply to gays
and
terrorists.

And those religious fanatics who threaten gays and Western
Liberals with death.

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Not followers of a peaceful God, are they? Maybe they should threaten
Western Liberals with Gays!

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" on Wed, 12 May 2010 22:18:29 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Actually I was thinking how nice it would be if the liberals and
conservatives could separate and each have their own part of the
country
to run the way they wanted. But then when the conservatives did well
and
the liberals spiraled down the toilet, the liberals would come in and
ruin
what the conservatives accomplished. Then I realized that what I was
thinking about already happened and that's what I'm living in now, the
most blessed country but being destroyed by liberals. The enemy is
here
and is destroying us from within!

Time to take my medicine and go to bed.

RogerN



As foretold. OBTW, it's not a good idea to mention God, He offends
liberals. Religious persecution will always exist and be blamed on
everything even remotely connected to any idiot doing something evil in
the
name of his "god". I guess tolerance is only supposed to apply to gays
and
terrorists.

And those religious fanatics who threaten gays and Western
Liberals with death.

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Like Jesus said, let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.

RogerN



And, as a stone went whizzing by, Jesus was heard saying: "MOM, cut it
out!"

"Wild_Bill" wrote in message
...
Aren't there enough metalworking topics that you could coment on?

Ever wonder why that is?

--
WB
.........


"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

babble, fantasy, superstition

Anything interesting going on in metalworking here?

I always thought it would be awesome to design products and contract the
work out through the group, give the hobbyists a chance to have their
equipment pay for itself.

RogerN

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
snip
Someone else in antiquity said, that true piety is most laudably expressed
by silence and submission, and that man, ignorant of his own nature,
should not presume to scrutinize the nature of his God.

It seems to me those are words that every man who thinks of himself as
religious should take to heart. That means you, Roger.

Hawke

Yet, Jesus demands his followers to spread His testament.

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...


In the situation of today's world perhaps God is the only hope?

RogerN


Who has any idea of God's plan for today's world? It's up to each of us to
have hope in a greater reality.

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

"Wild_Bill" wrote in message
...
Aren't there enough metalworking topics that you could coment on?

Ever wonder why that is?

--
WB
.........


"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

babble, fantasy, superstition

Anything interesting going on in metalworking here?

I always thought it would be awesome to design products and contract the
work out through the group, give the hobbyists a chance to have their
equipment pay for itself.

RogerN



I tried that a few times and the quotes I got for cash and time were out of
whack, even on simple parts. I got three quotes for a 1/2" x 6" O-1 drill
rod with both ends faced and a 17/64" hole drilled through the length. This
is a consumable part that holds a steel disk in a machine that makes
knot-type wheel brushes. Sometimes they last for months, sometimes we bend
four a day. The lowest quote I got from hobbyists was $25 each, with me
supplying the material cut to length. I can make one of these in 12
minutes. I only WISH I could get $125.00 per hour of lathe work. But, I
confess...I've made many hundreds of these and have a 10 hp lathe.

Buerste wrote:

Not followers of a peaceful God, are they? Maybe they should threaten
Western Liberals with Gays!


Would that be an oxymoron, or cannibalism?


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

Like Jesus said, let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.

RogerN

"He" said no such thing. (...and BTW, it's "he that is without sin", not
"the one" in the irredeemably misogynist "New Testament.")
It was made up by one of the latter-day authors of the "New Testament"
because it seemed like a ripping good yarn, the telling of which would suit
the authors' ulterior motives.

John 7:53-8:11 was not written by "John" - as indeed most of the library of
fables was not written by their namesakes.
(But you know that, yes?)

But what the hey?
Whatever floats your boat.
Whatever gets you through the day.
Whatever fantasy keeps you happy and docile.

Darth Vader never said "..you don't know the power of the dark side...", but
its still a jolly good story.

Just don't try to attribute "truth" to that which is obviously fiction.
And don't tell my children that your fables and myths are the "truth".
It makes you look very silly and naive.

Don't you think?

No?

--
Jeff R.
(maybe you should)

"Jeff R." wrote in message
u...
snip
Just don't try to attribute "truth" to that which is obviously fiction.
And don't tell my children that your fables and myths are the "truth".
It makes you look very silly and naive.

Don't you think?

No?

--
Jeff R.
(maybe you should)




Yet most atheists think nothing of shoving their faith down others' throats.
Gee, another double standard from the left.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Buerste wrote:

Not followers of a peaceful God, are they? Maybe they should threaten
Western Liberals with Gays!


Would that be an oxymoron, or cannibalism?


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Damn good question!

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote in message
u...
snip
Just don't try to attribute "truth" to that which is obviously fiction.
And don't tell my children that your fables and myths are the "truth".
It makes you look very silly and naive.

Don't you think?

No?

--
Jeff R.
(maybe you should)




Yet most atheists think nothing of shoving their faith down others'
throats. Gee, another double standard from the left.

You misunderstand.
All I said was:
" Just don't try to attribute "truth" to that which is obviously fiction.
And don't tell my children that your fables and myths are the "truth".
It makes you look very silly and naive."

All other assumptions are your constructions - entirely.
You don't have the right to make up things and attribute them to me - or
anyone else.

You go right ahead and believe whatever you like. I don't care.
Just don't ....
....oh heck.
Just read what I wrote.

--
Jeff R.
(for a change)

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

Not Pelosi, that woman wouldn't know a moral if she stepped on it. I
think women like her is why the Bible says women shouldn't lead in the
Church, they do such a horrible job at every government job and judge job.
That is why sin entered the human race through a woman, I love women but
they are more easily lead astray, as demonstrated recently, and should not
rule over men.

RogerN


....and that, Roger, is one of many, many reasons why you will never be taken
seriously by a majority of reasonable individuals.

For shame, you poor insecure misogynist.

--
Jeff R.

"Jeff R." wrote in message
u...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

Like Jesus said, let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.

RogerN

"He" said no such thing. (...and BTW, it's "he that is without sin", not
"the one" in the irredeemably misogynist "New Testament.")
It was made up by one of the latter-day authors of the "New Testament"
because it seemed like a ripping good yarn, the telling of which would
suit the authors' ulterior motives.

John 7:53-8:11 was not written by "John" - as indeed most of the library
of fables was not written by their namesakes.
(But you know that, yes?)

But what the hey?
Whatever floats your boat.
Whatever gets you through the day.
Whatever fantasy keeps you happy and docile.

Darth Vader never said "..you don't know the power of the dark side...",
but its still a jolly good story.

Just don't try to attribute "truth" to that which is obviously fiction.
And don't tell my children that your fables and myths are the "truth".
It makes you look very silly and naive.

Don't you think?

No?

--
Jeff R.
(maybe you should)


No, actually the Bible was written in 2022 and was taken back in time and
planted by aliens. If you can make unsubstantiated claims so can I!

RogerN

"Jeff R." wrote in message
u...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

Like Jesus said, let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.

RogerN

"He" said no such thing. (...and BTW, it's "he that is without sin", not
"the one" in the irredeemably misogynist "New Testament.")
It was made up by one of the latter-day authors of the "New Testament"
because it seemed like a ripping good yarn, the telling of which would
suit the authors' ulterior motives.

John 7:53-8:11 was not written by "John" - as indeed most of the library
of fables was not written by their namesakes.
(But you know that, yes?)

But what the hey?
Whatever floats your boat.
Whatever gets you through the day.
Whatever fantasy keeps you happy and docile.

Darth Vader never said "..you don't know the power of the dark side...",
but its still a jolly good story.

Just don't try to attribute "truth" to that which is obviously fiction.
And don't tell my children that your fables and myths are the "truth".
It makes you look very silly and naive.

Don't you think?

No?

--
Jeff R.
(maybe you should)

The story in John 7:53 to 8:11 was in some of the early manuscripts but in
Luke after Luke 21:38, it may have been moved at a later date but wasn't
made up at a later date. When and why was it moved from Luke to John?

RogerN

RogerN wrote:

No, actually the Bible was written in 2022 and was taken back in time and
planted by aliens. If you can make unsubstantiated claims so can I!


The same aliens that gang probed Cliffie's dad, and implanted
Cliffie?


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Jeff R." wrote in message

....
Don't you think?

No?

--
Jeff R.
(maybe you should)


No, actually the Bible was written in 2022 and was taken back in time and
planted by aliens. If you can make unsubstantiated claims so can I!

RogerN

LOL!
Good one Roger!
Add it to your list of irrational beliefs.
(..but you really should read some Bart Ehrman.)


--
Jeff R.
(that could make it *two* books you've read!)

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Unless you are conservative, and then tolerance applies to
everyone.

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


"Buerste" wrote in message
...

I guess tolerance is only supposed to apply to gays and
terrorists.

Did you ever notice that those who cry out "Tolerance" can't tolerate
anybody that disagrees with them?

RogerN

"Jeff R." wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

Not Pelosi, that woman wouldn't know a moral if she stepped on it. I
think women like her is why the Bible says women shouldn't lead in the
Church, they do such a horrible job at every government job and judge
job. That is why sin entered the human race through a woman, I love women
but they are more easily lead astray, as demonstrated recently, and
should not rule over men.

RogerN


...and that, Roger, is one of many, many reasons why you will never be
taken seriously by a majority of reasonable individuals.

For shame, you poor insecure misogynist.

--
Jeff R.

Notice the lie that deceived woman, this is important because it happens
over and over in this day.

The command God gave:
Genesis 2:
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in
the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Genesis 3:
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God
had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from
any tree in the garden'?"

Notice the truth was twisted, spun, just like liberals twist and spin the
truth every day. God didn't say not to eat from any tree, he said eat from
any tree except one.

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and
pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some
and ate it.

Notice the woman desired to gain wisdom, nothing wrong with that in itself.

16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

The facts are plain and simple, when a woman gets a position she desires, to
rule over men, she gets deceived by twisted half truths and makes bad
judgment calls. I wish the Bible was only referring to spiritual maters or
some such, but I can't deny what I see over and over. There are plenty of
things that women are better at then men but when put in a position to rule,
it is like putting the cart before the horse. This is demonstrated almost
daily, for example with Barbara Crabb's judgment and with Obama's supreme
court nominee. Sorry that it happens this way, I know it's not politically
correct, but men aren't mothers and women aren't fit for rulers, even though
her desire to be goes back to the first woman.

RogerN

On May 12, 9:44*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in ...





RogerN wrote:
Since the people that want religious freedom can't agree with the
rest of the nation, why don't we just split. *Those wanting religious
freedom can have their own country to run the way they want. *Then
they can see if God blesses their country that acknowledges God.
Maybe their constitution can declare that their government not
establish a church but exclude "Separation of Church and State".
Maybe they can have a pledge of allegiance that says "One nation
under God" and put "In God we Trust" on their money. *Maybe they can
be free to place nativity scenes on public property, post the Ten
Commandments, and have a Bible in their schools.

I believe God would bless such a nation, I believe it would become a
great nation. *But then, others would see how blessed that nation is,
and they would want to come in and enjoy the prosperity but not thank
the God that blessed it. *Those who don't believe in the things that
made the nation great would infiltrate it and destroy it from the
inside. *They wouldn't be part of what made the nation great, they
would be part of what destroyed the great nation. *Just like it
happened in the USA.

Let me guess, you just found out that Michael Jackson died and can't
preform
at your birthday party.

--
John R. Carroll

Actually I was thinking how nice it would be if the liberals and
conservatives could separate and each have their own part of the country to
run the way they wanted. *But then when the conservatives did well and the
liberals spiraled down the toilet, the liberals would come in and ruin what
the conservatives accomplished. *Then I realized that what I was thinking
about already happened and that's what I'm living in now, the most blessed
country but being destroyed by liberals. *The enemy is here and is
destroying us from within!

Time to take my medicine and go to bed.

RogerN

And are you completely unwilling to accept the possibility that the
outcome may be different from what you imagine? What would you do if
the "liberal nation" was prosperous and the "conservative nation"
circled the bowl? Would THAT be enough to get you to stop believing,
or would you just smile and say something like, "It's all part of
God's bigger plans."?

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

"Jeff R." wrote in message
...


The facts are plain and simple, when a woman gets a position she desires,
to rule over men, she gets deceived by twisted half truths and makes bad
judgment calls. I wish the Bible was only referring to spiritual maters
or some such, but I can't deny what I see over and over. There are plenty
of things that women are better at then men but when put in a position to
rule, it is like putting the cart before the horse. This is demonstrated
almost daily, for example with Barbara Crabb's judgment and with Obama's
supreme court nominee. Sorry that it happens this way, I know it's not
politically correct, but men aren't mothers and women aren't fit for
rulers, even though her desire to be goes back to the first woman.

RogerN


Here's an example in Judge Barbara Crabb's recent decision that "The
national day of prayer" is unconstitutional.

Case: 3:08-cv-00588-bbc Document #: 132 Filed: 04/15/2010 Page 1 of 66

The role that prayer should play in public life has been a matter of intense
debate in

this country since its founding. When the Continental Congress met for its
inaugural

session in September 1774, delegate Thomas Cushing proposed to open the
session with a

prayer. Delegates John Jay and John Rutledge (two future Chief Justices of
the Supreme

Court) objected to the proposal on the ground that the Congress was “so
divided in religious

Sentiments . . . that We could not join in the same Act of Worship.”
Eventually, Samuel

Adams convinced the other delegates to allow the reading of a psalm the
following day.



She starts out her reasoning with the delegates objected because they were
divided in religious Sentiments. Notice they did not object based on
establishment or separation of church and state. It is true that there was
a controversy but it had nothing to do with claiming prayer was
inappropriate in government. If you care to read the rest of the judges
decision you can see that she goes from establishment to endorsement to
secular purpose to lemon test to acknowledgement. So it turns out a day of
prayer is declared unconstitutional by a woman judge in 2010 even though it
has never been declared unconstitutional from before the time George
Washington called for a day of prayer in 1795. Simply put, Barbara Crabb is
not capable of making consistently good judgments.



RogerN

On 2010-05-15, RogerN wrote:
From what little I looked, Adolph Hitler was married to only one woman and
also came from a Catholic background, did that make him moral? Maybe no
worse than Pelosi but still not moral.

Hitler married to his long term lover Eva Braun only 40 hours before his death.

As for your family story, you only gave us one side of it, and you
have not disproven anything with your example. Newt Gingrich is a
whore because he cheated on his wives, including on one with cancer.
He was not an unlucky, upstanding guy. I could not want him to babysit
my kids or manage my money, or my country.

i

Roger, does having thoughts of carnal nature, make me an immoral
person? What do you think? I sometimes have lots of those.

i

On 5/13/2010 11:20 PM, Buerste wrote:
"Jeff wrote in message
u...
snip
Just don't try to attribute "truth" to that which is obviously fiction.
And don't tell my children that your fables and myths are the "truth".
It makes you look very silly and naive.

Don't you think?

No?

--
Jeff R.
(maybe you should)




Yet most atheists think nothing of shoving their faith down others' throats.
Gee, another double standard from the left.


Sorry, but not believing in a "faith" and not accepting the word of
various ancient books as being from a supernatural being does not make
someone a member of a faith. Atheism is not a faith it's a refusal to
accept a proposition as factual without any proof.

Hawke