On Jun 25, 7:16*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
TMT has to guarantee the coons won't leave his yard.

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

"RogerN" wrote in message

m..."Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...

\
\So you throw tiny defenseless baby coons in a pond to
drown.
\
\Mind having the local news crew come over and film it for
the 10
\oclock news.
\
\TMT

Ok, but only if they also agree to film a sonogram of an
abortion and play
it on the news.

To be Humane I'll be glad to release the raccoons, possums,
and skunks that
I catch in my live trap. *I'll release them in your yard,
where do you live?

It's sad you care for a "tiny defenseless baby coon" but
don't give a damn
about tiny defenseless baby humans.

RogerN

Hey...I just had three baby raccoons and their mother show up on my
deck....I sent them over to the conservative neighbor so they could
crap on his ProLife sign.

And did you know that Michelle Bachmann is also known as "Raccoon
Lady"?

TMT

On Jun 25, 7:19*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
The atonement of Jesus Christ did away with the effects of
original sin on newborns and children young enough not to be
accountable. Have you read the Bible?

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

"Jeff R." wrote in message

u...



So, what sin did the unborn commit that keeps them from
going to Heaven?

Original sin.
Have you read the bible?
It's in there.

The Bible doesn't say that.

TMT

On Jun 25, 8:00*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message

...

The atonement of Jesus Christ did away with the effects of
original sin on newborns and children young enough not to be
accountable. Have you read the Bible?

How about before they're newborns? Anything in the Bible about their state
of sin?

--
Ed Huntress





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

"Jeff R." wrote in message
. au...

So, what sin did the unborn commit that keeps them from
going to Heaven?

Original sin.
Have you read the bible?
It's in there.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No.

But that won't stop the Bible Thumpers here from coming up with
something.

TMT

On Jun 25, 3:10*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message

...

TMT has to guarantee the coons won't leave his yard.

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

After a few hours with TMT you'd be guilty of cruel treatment of animals:-)
The critters would probably try to kill themselves!

RogerN

I am on very good terms with my animal friends.

They are much better neighbors than the damn conservatives on the
street.

TMT

On Jun 25, 3:24*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Jeff R." wrote in message

u...



"RogerN" wrote in message
news
"Jeff R." wrote in message

"No heaven for you!"

--
Jeff R.

So, what sin did the unborn commit that keeps them from going to Heaven?

Original sin.
Have you read the bible?
It's in there.

Eve was tempted by the tempter twisting God's words, exactly like you are
trying to get by with, to make it seem as if God said something that he
didn't, just like you, Hmmm. *God got you figured out in the first part of
Genesis.

If God is the God of the Bible then he knows every second of every day of
every life and know the life of every miscarried baby if it were not
miscarried,

Whoops!
There goes the notin of free will - out with the bathwater.

There goes the notion of free will only by your misunderstanding. *For
example, if I watch a movie that I've seen a dozen times I can know what is
going to happen all through the movie, but it doesn't mean I caused the
outcome of the movie. *If God is not limited by time, if he is now present
in the past, present, and future, he can know the outcome but it is not
required that he pre-determined the outcome. *God know what's going on in
2011, 2012, 2013... even though we aren't at that part of the "movie" yet..

...therefore he alone is qualified to determine who should or should not
live on Earth or in Heaven.

Uh huh.
...and which are the evil unborn babies who should be murdered.
Great.

Why should women have the right to choose but God shouldn't?

... I see you try to spin everything to place the blame on God but death
exists for mankind because of man's sin,

Now that's just plain looney.
No death before Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, huh?

Your claim, not mine.

Well - I'm glad to see you're doing your bit by staying away from
knowledge.

Spin again, the sin was disobeying God that forbid them from eating of the
tree of knowledge of good and evil.

much like your rebellion against God.

I don't rebel against god.
That'd be silly.

Then why do you keep twisting the Bible to make it appear to say things it
doesn't?

I rebel against your inane and childish belief in some man-made deity.
How can I rebel against something that so plainly does not esist?

I agree that the man made diety you describe doesn't exist except in your
imagination. *The God of the Bible is someone entirely different though..

RogerN



--
Jeff R.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Notice how Roger won't answer the questions asked of him.

He has gone into "Bible Rant" mode.

At least the precious little baby raccoons are safe when Roger "The
Raccoon Abortionist" is Bible Ranting.

I wonder if God wears ear plugs around Roger.

TMT
TMT

On Jun 25, 3:24*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Jeff R." wrote in message

u...



"RogerN" wrote in message
news
"Jeff R." wrote in message

"No heaven for you!"

--
Jeff R.

So, what sin did the unborn commit that keeps them from going to Heaven?

Original sin.
Have you read the bible?
It's in there.

Eve was tempted by the tempter twisting God's words, exactly like you are
trying to get by with, to make it seem as if God said something that he
didn't, just like you, Hmmm. *God got you figured out in the first part of
Genesis.

If God is the God of the Bible then he knows every second of every day of
every life and know the life of every miscarried baby if it were not
miscarried,

Whoops!
There goes the notin of free will - out with the bathwater.

There goes the notion of free will only by your misunderstanding. *For
example, if I watch a movie that I've seen a dozen times I can know what is
going to happen all through the movie, but it doesn't mean I caused the
outcome of the movie. *If God is not limited by time, if he is now present
in the past, present, and future, he can know the outcome but it is not
required that he pre-determined the outcome. *God know what's going on in
2011, 2012, 2013... even though we aren't at that part of the "movie" yet..

...therefore he alone is qualified to determine who should or should not
live on Earth or in Heaven.

Uh huh.
...and which are the evil unborn babies who should be murdered.
Great.

Why should women have the right to choose but God shouldn't?

... I see you try to spin everything to place the blame on God but death
exists for mankind because of man's sin,

Now that's just plain looney.
No death before Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, huh?

Your claim, not mine.

Well - I'm glad to see you're doing your bit by staying away from
knowledge.

Spin again, the sin was disobeying God that forbid them from eating of the
tree of knowledge of good and evil.

much like your rebellion against God.

I don't rebel against god.
That'd be silly.

Then why do you keep twisting the Bible to make it appear to say things it
doesn't?

I rebel against your inane and childish belief in some man-made deity.
How can I rebel against something that so plainly does not esist?

I agree that the man made diety you describe doesn't exist except in your
imagination. *The God of the Bible is someone entirely different though..

RogerN



--
Jeff R.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have it on good info that Eve is a tatoo artist who dances poles on
weekends who lives in Salt Lake City, rides a Harley and has a pet
coyote with an incontinence problem.

And oh...she likes applesauce and raccoons too.


TMT

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:08:18 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:02:42 -0700, the renowned Winston
wrote:

Ignoramus26506 wrote:

(...)

In our village, it is forbidden to catch and release raccoons. Once
caught, a raccoon much be humanely euthanized. Drowning is OK.

Drowning is not OK.
Drowning is torturing an animal to death.
It is vicious and sadistic.

Drowning them swiftly in deep water, not waterboarding them 183 times.

The latter IS torture.


What is your stand on waterboarding lawyers? ;-)

The same as my stand on torturing lawyers. ;-)


I had to look twice. I thought you said "The same as my stand on
torching lawyers." ;-)


--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Jun 25, 7:15 am, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
"Jeff R." fired this volley in news:4e05ac01$0$13390
:

Original sin.
Have you read the bible?
It's in there.

No... it isn't.

That's a perversion of the 'data' by one religious faction.

There have been SO many "fingers in that pie", it's hard to accept any
modern translation (post-papal era) as not having been messed with for
political reasons, and not just by Catholics, although theirs and the
Mormon revisions seem the most radical. King James wasn't too far behind
with his "translation" (re-writing).

One needs go back to the original Hebrew and Greek to make up your own
mind. Of course, that takes it out of the reach of most individuals, so
'translators' (*read this as 'revisionists' or 'history changers'*) get
to make up our minds for us.

LLoyd
\
\If Roger really wanted to know God's will he would learn Greek/Hebrew
\instead of killing baby raccoons for sport.
\
\TMT

Why do you think any of them that I killed were babies?

RogerN

"Jeff R." wrote in message
...

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
I'm sorry that you don't have a testimony of the atonement
of Christ. Maybe some day you will.

--
Christopher A. Young

I am likewise a little saddened that you should, as a presumably rational
adult, choose to follow the nonsensical and immoral teachings of
Christianity.

Your claim about it is nonsensical and immoral, but your claim takes what is
written and spins it to mean what it never meant. The story of the serpent
in the garden, the serpent did the same thing with God's words and that's
how he tempted Eve.

It makes it worse (if that were possible!) that you appear to swallow the
blindingly-obvious nonsense spouted by the likes of Joseph Smith and
Brigham Young, right up to the drivel of Thomas S. Monson.

Your inability to see through these charlatans may speak volumes for your
innocence and naivety, bit it does not say a lot for your rationality.

Seen any good Brooklyn Bridges for sale recently?

--
Jeff R.

You fell for the same spin BS that Eve did in Genesis. You take a part of a
Bible verse, spin it to mean something ridiculous, then pat yourself on the
back because you are so smart you wouldn't believe that ridiculous thing
that you spun up. Guess what, nobody else believes in the crap you spun up
either, we know that with your spin it's ridiculous.

Learn from somebody that doesn't add the spin.

http://www.ttb.org

The 5 year journey through the Bible started again last April, you can play
their daily broadcast or download for later. The types and shadows pointing
to Jesus in Genesis are incredible considering it having been written so
many years earlier. It helps to have someone so familiar with the Bible to
point out how this verse ties to another verse and is fulfilled in somewhere
else. The verses of scripture are practically woven together they connect
in so many ways in so many places, but you'll never see it if you don't take
the time to look.

RogerN

"Jeff R." wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

Eve was tempted by the tempter twisting God's words, exactly like you are
trying to get by with, to make it seem as if God said something that he
didn't, just like you, Hmmm. God got you figured out in the first part
of Genesis.

Would you knindly point out *exactly* what I have said that
misrepresents -in any way- the required beliefs of your fellow believers?

Pretty much everything you have written about the subject is based on all
kinds of misconceptions. First off, if an aborted or miscarried baby goes
to Hell, what part of Hell does it go to? The lake of fire and paradise are
both in Hell. The Old Testament men and women of God went to a place called
Abraham's Bosom, also know as Paradise, and it is in Hedes, AKA Hell. Not
very many Preachers will come right out and tell you that Paradise is in
Hell because people generally think Hell is only a lake of fire.

The Bible doesn't tell us much concerning the dead, it's for us who are
alive in our mortal body. The Gospel might be preached to infants that have
been aborted or miscarried, or even to those who have never heard the Gospel
and had a chance to respond. The idea doesn't seem to far fetched according
to: 1 Peter 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that
are dead...

If God is the God of the Bible then he knows every second of every day
of every life and know the life of every miscarried baby if it were not
miscarried,

Whoops!
There goes the notin of free will - out with the bathwater.

There goes the notion of free will only by your misunderstanding. For
example, if I watch a movie that I've seen a dozen times I can know what
is going to happen all through the movie, but it doesn't mean I caused
the outcome of the movie.

Most movies that I watch don't have free will - the ability to -say-
change their endings.
What sort of movie do you watch?

By watching the movie, if you know what's going to happen or not, it doesn't
make you responsible for the outcome, unless you were involved in the
process of making the movie.

If god knows what I am going to do, then I have no free will.
Since I do have free will, then god doesn't know what I'm going to do.
Hence, god is either unknowing or non-existant. I prefer the latter as
the more sensible alternative.

That's where it's difficult for humans to understand what it would be like
without the constraints of time, because we are always in the present. In
the back to the future movies, they could go ahead in time and see and know
the future, but that doesn't mean the people didn't have free will. The
decisions you make today can change your future but God can see the changes
in the future without the Delorean and flux capacitor.


No death before Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, huh?

Your claim, not mine.

Going back on your words?

I never said "No death before Eve ate from..."

You said man created death through original sin. Did Eve play any part in
this?

Sure she did.

Make up your mind.

I'm consistent. To the question of death before the Original sin, I don't
believe Adam and Eve died before this time. I think plants and animals
could die before this time, they weren't made in Gods image, God is eternal,
he made man to be eternal.


Well - I'm glad to see you're doing your bit by staying away from
knowledge.

Spin again, the sin was disobeying God that forbid them from eating of
the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Yes. As I said.
Thanks for making my point for me.

You said Knowledge that could include all Knowledge, the Bible says
knowledge of good and evil, that doesn't include all knowledge.

much like your rebellion against God.

I don't rebel against god.
That'd be silly.

Then why do you keep twisting the Bible to make it appear to say things
it doesn't?

I don't.
It does.
And you do, too.


I rebel against your inane and childish belief in some man-made deity.
How can I rebel against something that so plainly does not esist?

I agree that the man made diety you describe doesn't exist except in your
imagination. The God of the Bible is someone entirely different though.

No - the god of the bible is the man-made deity.
There is no other, except in the minds of the "faithful".


--
Jeff R.

Nice easy belief, but you have to have a lot of faith or just ignore a lot
of facts to hold your belief.

RogerN

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:59:38 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:02:42 -0700, the renowned Winston
wrote:

Ignoramus26506 wrote:

(...)

In our village, it is forbidden to catch and release raccoons. Once
caught, a raccoon much be humanely euthanized. Drowning is OK.

Drowning is not OK.
Drowning is torturing an animal to death.
It is vicious and sadistic.

Drowning them swiftly in deep water, not waterboarding them 183 times.

The latter IS torture.

Drowning IS cruel torture, taking one to two minutes with the animal
in extreme fear and pain. I sure wouldn't want my kid seeing me drown
an animal. It's absolutely the wrong message. They would either hate
us for it or take up the practice.

Shooting or clubbing-in the head is humane, instant.
Lethal injection is humane.
CO or nitrogen asphyxiation might be humane.
(No, Tawm, we're not talkin' "erotic asphyxia", which you girls love)

--
The whole life of man is but a point of time; let us enjoy it.
-- Plutarch

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:15:38 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:08:18 -0400, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:02:42 -0700, the renowned Winston
wrote:

Ignoramus26506 wrote:

(...)

In our village, it is forbidden to catch and release raccoons. Once
caught, a raccoon much be humanely euthanized. Drowning is OK.

Drowning is not OK.
Drowning is torturing an animal to death.
It is vicious and sadistic.

Drowning them swiftly in deep water, not waterboarding them 183 times.

The latter IS torture.


What is your stand on waterboarding lawyers? ;-)

The same as my stand on torturing lawyers. ;-)

Which is probably the same as passing out free 9mm lead pills, right?
Good man.

--
The whole life of man is but a point of time; let us enjoy it.
-- Plutarch

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
"Jeff R." wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

Eve was tempted by the tempter twisting God's words, exactly like you
are trying to get by with, to make it seem as if God said something that
he didn't, just like you, Hmmm. God got you figured out in the first
part of Genesis.

Would you knindly point out *exactly* what I have said that
misrepresents -in any way- the required beliefs of your fellow believers?

Pretty much everything you have written about the subject is based on all
kinds of misconceptions.

How do you know that my conceptions are mis-directed, and yours are not?

...First off, if an aborted or miscarried baby goes to Hell, what part of
Hell does it go to?

What the (pardon me) hell does that have to do with anything?

The lake of fire and paradise are both in Hell. The Old Testament men
and women of God went to a place called Abraham's Bosom, also know as
Paradise, and it is in Hedes, AKA Hell.

You mean Sheol, yes? Hardly in accordance with your new testament threats.
And so what anyway. I'm complaining about the act of abortion, not the
mythologised fate of the lost "souls".


Not very many Preachers will come right out and tell you that Paradise is
in Hell because people generally think Hell is only a lake of fire.

This is hardly relevant to my accusation - surely the point in question -
that your god is world's most prolific abortionist. The ultimate fate of
the aborted "souls" can be debated at leisure -surely- after we have
established culpability for their "murder".
Don't you think?

(And you don't need to tell me that most preachers are devious in their
omissions.)


The Bible doesn't tell us much concerning the dead, it's for us who are
alive in our mortal body.

Disregarding perhaps the Sermon on the Mount, which belittles life and
glorifies death.

"Yea, though your life here on earth is ****ty in the extreme,
fear not! For soon you will die, and it all gets better then."
Gospel of St. Matthew (5:3-10) et al
(slightly paraphrased)

...The Gospel might be preached to infants that have been aborted or
miscarried, or even to those who have never heard the Gospel and had a
chance to respond. The idea doesn't seem to far fetched according to: 1
Peter 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are
dead...

Oh good grief.
If the concept of preaching to the dead doesn't bother you, then how about
preaching to an embryo - a foetus - which may not have yet developed the
means to respond to stimuli, let alone language or thought or reason.
This is luney-tunes rationalising-after-the-fact taken to an absurd extreme.

Probably sounds quite OK to you, Roger. Yes?


If God is the God of the Bible then he knows every second of every day
of every life and know the life of every miscarried baby if it were
not miscarried,

Whoops!
There goes the notin of free will - out with the bathwater.

There goes the notion of free will only by your misunderstanding. For
example, if I watch a movie that I've seen a dozen times I can know what
is going to happen all through the movie, but it doesn't mean I caused
the outcome of the movie.

Most movies that I watch don't have free will - the ability to -say-
change their endings.
What sort of movie do you watch?

By watching the movie, if you know what's going to happen or not, it
doesn't make you responsible for the outcome, unless you were involved in
the process of making the movie.

Roger - read this very carefully:

The - movie - has - no - free - will.

It's a very poor analogy.

Now read the paragraph below, and stop making silly statements.

If god knows what I am going to do, then I have no free will.
Since I do have free will, then god doesn't know what I'm going to do.
Hence, god is either unknowing or non-existant. I prefer the latter as
the more sensible alternative.

That's where it's difficult for humans to understand what it would be like
without the constraints of time, because we are always in the present. In
the back to the future movies, they could go ahead in time and see and
know the future, but that doesn't mean the people didn't have free will.
The decisions you make today can change your future but God can see the
changes in the future without the Delorean and flux capacitor.

Never mind the gratuitous call to popular culture and science fiction.
Fact remains: If god knows what I'm going to do, I have no choice whether
or not to do it.


No death before Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, huh?

Your claim, not mine.

Going back on your words?

I never said "No death before Eve ate from..."

You said man created death through original sin. Did Eve play any part
in this?

Sure she did.

Make up your mind.

I'm consistent. To the question of death before the Original sin, I don't
believe Adam and Eve died before this time. I think plants and animals
could die before this time, they weren't made in Gods image, God is
eternal, he made man to be eternal.

....until Eve ate from the tree.

(cue sound fx: needle running in scratched record)




Well - I'm glad to see you're doing your bit by staying away from
knowledge.

Spin again, the sin was disobeying God that forbid them from eating of
the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Yes. As I said.
Thanks for making my point for me.

You said Knowledge that could include all Knowledge, the Bible says
knowledge of good and evil, that doesn't include all knowledge.

Did I?
Irrelevant.


much like your rebellion against God.

I don't rebel against god.
That'd be silly.

Then why do you keep twisting the Bible to make it appear to say things
it doesn't?

I don't.
It does.
And you do, too.


I rebel against your inane and childish belief in some man-made deity.
How can I rebel against something that so plainly does not esist?

I agree that the man made diety you describe doesn't exist except in
your imagination. The God of the Bible is someone entirely different
though.

No - the god of the bible is the man-made deity.
There is no other, except in the minds of the "faithful".


--
Jeff R.

Nice easy belief, but you have to have a lot of faith or just ignore a lot
of facts to hold your belief.

I have faith, sure, in some people and some propositions raised by some
people.
I have faith - but no proof - that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
Faith that is based on solid, repeatable evidence - not the rantings of
Bronze-Age shepherds and merchants with more ulterior motives than a cabinet
meeting.

You have not advanced a single fact to support your faith.
Not one.
....but that's how religion operates.


--
Jeff R.

"RogerN" wrote in message
...
"Jeff R." wrote in message

I am likewise a little saddened that you should, as a presumably rational
adult, choose to follow the nonsensical and immoral teachings of
Christianity.

Your claim about it is nonsensical and immoral, but your claim takes what
is written and spins it to mean what it never meant. The story of the
serpent in the garden, the serpent did the same thing with God's words and
that's how he tempted Eve.

No Roger.
Your religion claims that one man's death, 2000 years ago, can absolve me
from the responsibility of my sins.

That is immoral.

Each person is responsible for his/her own sins and cannot pass that
responsibility onto others.
Regardless of how he died, when he died, and who he thought he was.


It makes it worse (if that were possible!) that you appear to swallow the
blindingly-obvious nonsense spouted by the likes of Joseph Smith and
Brigham Young, right up to the drivel of Thomas S. Monson.

Your inability to see through these charlatans may speak volumes for your
innocence and naivety, bit it does not say a lot for your rationality.

Seen any good Brooklyn Bridges for sale recently?

--
Jeff R.

You fell for the same spin BS that Eve did in Genesis. You take a part of
a Bible verse, spin it to mean something ridiculous, then pat yourself on
the back because you are so smart you wouldn't believe that ridiculous
thing that you spun up. Guess what, nobody else believes in the crap you
spun up either, we know that with your spin it's ridiculous.

Nobody?
You may be surprised at just how few people actually swallow the nonsense
you peddle.


Learn from somebody that doesn't add the spin.

http://www.ttb.org

Oh, give me a break.
Is that mob related to the Rapture-on-May-21st brigade?
Sure looks and smells similar.

The 5 year journey through the Bible started again last April, you can
play their daily broadcast or download for later. The types and shadows
pointing to Jesus in Genesis are incredible considering it having been
written so many years earlier.

Yes - just like the quatrains of Nostradamus predicted -flawlessly- Jesus,
Hitler, Stalin, Horoshima and anybody/thing else you'd like to say he
predicted.

You could make Aesop's fables predict the future if you felt like making the
connections.

Why can't you use the bible to reliably (I repeat: *reliably*) predict
something which hasn't happened yet?
Not much profit ("prophet" - geddit?) in predicting something that's already
happened.
Heck- you can do that with tea leaves.

It helps to have someone so familiar with the Bible to point out how
this verse ties to another verse and is fulfilled in somewhere else. The
verses of scripture are practically woven together they connect in so many
ways in so many places, but you'll never see it if you don't take the time
to look.

Yes, that's because they (especially the four gospels) are so heavily
plagiarised from each other.
Its just a shame that their authors didn't manage to avoid contradictions -
of which there are so many.

--
Jeff R.

"Jeff R." wrote in message
...
Yes, that's because they (especially the four gospels) are so heavily
plagiarised from each other.
Its just a shame that their authors didn't manage to avoid contradictions -
of which there are so many.

--
Jeff R.

---------------

Let's not discuss Christian mythology here, please.

mike

On Jun 25, 2:08*pm, engineman wrote:
Wow!, I never thought that a discussion that I started about coons
would lead to such a heavy discussion about improbabilities such as
whether the bible can be believed or not.
Engineman

On Jun 24, 7:24*pm, "Jeff R." wrote:



"RogerN" wrote in message

om...

This isn't Heaven, God's will is not automatically done here, if it were
there would be no reason Jesus would teach to pray "thy will be done on
Earth as it is in Heaven". *So enough don't die of natural miscarriages or
other natural causes so TMT supports the killing of humans but opposes the
killing of Raccoons. *However if God would decide to shorten someone's
life on Earth but gives them eternal life in Heaven, has he short changed
them? I'd trade in a few miserable years for a better, longer, happier
life.

RogerN

I'll say this isn't heaven. *We can agree on that at least.

Don't forget that "natural miscarriages" = "god's abortions".
You can't sugar-coat this by calling them "natural causes" as if your deity
has no will or say on the matter.
He decided my unborn children had to die, so he killed them.
No harm? No foul? *Ask thier mother. (or me)

...and don't forget, that promise of enternal life in heaven after a short,
lousy one on earth only works if you believe in it, and commit yourself to
it. *I don't recall my unborn children accepting Jesus as their saviour, so:

"No heaven for you!"

--
Jeff R.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Only in RCM.... Raccoon Christian Melee ....;)

TMT

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:35:22 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:

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

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
I'm sorry that you don't have a testimony of the atonement
of Christ. Maybe some day you will.

--
Christopher A. Young

I am likewise a little saddened that you should, as a presumably rational
adult, choose to follow the nonsensical and immoral teachings of
Christianity.

Your claim about it is nonsensical and immoral, but your claim takes what is
written and spins it to mean what it never meant. The story of the serpent
in the garden, the serpent did the same thing with God's words and that's
how he tempted Eve.

It makes it worse (if that were possible!) that you appear to swallow the
blindingly-obvious nonsense spouted by the likes of Joseph Smith and
Brigham Young, right up to the drivel of Thomas S. Monson.

Your inability to see through these charlatans may speak volumes for your
innocence and naivety, bit it does not say a lot for your rationality.

Seen any good Brooklyn Bridges for sale recently?

--
Jeff R.

You fell for the same spin BS that Eve did in Genesis. You take a part of a
Bible verse, spin it to mean something ridiculous, then pat yourself on the
back because you are so smart you wouldn't believe that ridiculous thing
that you spun up. Guess what, nobody else believes in the crap you spun up
either, we know that with your spin it's ridiculous.

Learn from somebody that doesn't add the spin.

http://www.ttb.org

The 5 year journey through the Bible started again last April, you can play
their daily broadcast or download for later. The types and shadows pointing
to Jesus in Genesis are incredible considering it having been written so
many years earlier. It helps to have someone so familiar with the Bible to
point out how this verse ties to another verse and is fulfilled in somewhere
else. The verses of scripture are practically woven together they connect
in so many ways in so many places, but you'll never see it if you don't take
the time to look.

RogerN


In which Bible, Roger? You are aware that there, disregarding for a
moment the Jewish writings, are at least 8 "primary" versions and a
multitude of subsidiary versions many of which vary, of the Christian
Bible while the Jewish Tanach is a single version.

Take as an example the 6th commandment "Thou shall not kill":
In the original Jewish writings it is written "Thou shall not commit
murder". The modern Christian version, the Roman Catholic "New
American Bible" Bible has it "thou shall not Kill" while the Lutheran
"New International Version" says "You shall not murder".

As there are innumerable (some authorities have it as many as 50
different versions) of the Christian Bible, many of which vary in
content, which one is correct?

The basic Christian argument seems to be that if they vary then God
intend it which leaves the question of whether the god of the
Catholics is a different god the god of the Lutherans.

"john B." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:35:22 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:

snip
Learn from somebody that doesn't add the spin.

http://www.ttb.org

The 5 year journey through the Bible started again last April, you can
play
their daily broadcast or download for later. The types and shadows
pointing
to Jesus in Genesis are incredible considering it having been written so
many years earlier. It helps to have someone so familiar with the Bible
to
point out how this verse ties to another verse and is fulfilled in
somewhere
else. The verses of scripture are practically woven together they connect
in so many ways in so many places, but you'll never see it if you don't
take
the time to look.

RogerN


In which Bible, Roger? You are aware that there, disregarding for a
moment the Jewish writings, are at least 8 "primary" versions and a
multitude of subsidiary versions many of which vary, of the Christian
Bible while the Jewish Tanach is a single version.

Take as an example the 6th commandment "Thou shall not kill":
In the original Jewish writings it is written "Thou shall not commit
murder". The modern Christian version, the Roman Catholic "New
American Bible" Bible has it "thou shall not Kill" while the Lutheran
"New International Version" says "You shall not murder".

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more specific
than killing. If that were the only verse in the Bible I could see how it
would be a little more difficult to understand, but since there is specific
instances that call for the death penalty it should clear it up for all but
those who don't want to understand.

As there are innumerable (some authorities have it as many as 50
different versions) of the Christian Bible, many of which vary in
content, which one is correct?

Are their differences as huge as killing and murdering? Please feel free to
explain how one can murder without killing. I've compared passages in many
popular versions of the Bible and they say the same thing in a slightly
different way.

The basic Christian argument seems to be that if they vary then God
intend it which leaves the question of whether the god of the
Catholics is a different god the god of the Lutherans.

I've heard many claim that the New Testament writings were made up by the
Catholic Church Fathers to rule over the people. If that were the case then
why do the Protestants and Lutherans have scriptural grounds for believing
slightly different than the Catholics? After all, if the Catholics just
made it all up it should fully agree with their religious practices.

But I'm confident that you can take any version of the Christian Bible and
if you follow the teachings of Jesus, if there is something wrong with that
version then God will let you know. God's word is a lamp unto my feet and a
light unto my path, not high beams that illuminate everything all at once.
Walk in the light that you can see and more light will come. I have the
feeling you're not interested in walking in the light but just trying to
condemn the path.

RogerN

--
The science to which I pinned my faith is bankrupt. Its counsels, which
should have established the millennium, have led directly to the suicide of
Europe. I believed them once. In their name I helped to destroy the faith of
millions of worshipers in the temples of a thousand creeds, and now they
look at me and witness the great tragedy of an atheist who has lost his
faith.
George Bernard Shaw

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more specific
than killing.

Murder is unlawful killing. Pure and simple.

Its like saying Having Sex, (for Killing)..and ass ****ing a 3 yr old
(for murder.)

A very serious difference.

One may or may not be a good thing.

One is Always a bad thing.

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

High powered air rifle,
..22 + home made silencer (metalworking and home shop content)
Trap & long, long drive.

We had a problem once. I'd leave the back door cracked open, lights
off in the house, and a marshmallow stuck to the top of a pop can.
Coon would go after the treat and rattle the can alerting the hunter.
Hunter would resolve the issue with a 22 from inside the house. Quite
effective. The next generation figured that somewhere else was a much
safer place to be. After a while no more problem.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:17:32 -0700 (PDT), Bob wrote:

High powered air rifle,
.22 + home made silencer (metalworking and home shop content)
Trap & long, long drive.

We had a problem once. I'd leave the back door cracked open, lights
off in the house, and a marshmallow stuck to the top of a pop can.
Coon would go after the treat and rattle the can alerting the hunter.
Hunter would resolve the issue with a 22 from inside the house. Quite
effective. The next generation figured that somewhere else was a much
safer place to be. After a while no more problem.

Its been said that simply slipping the barrel of a bolt action 22 into a
2 liter bottle and then being fired, produces very little noise. As
well as do baby bottle nipples to a slightly lesser degree.

So its been said anyways.


--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


"john B." wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:35:22 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:

snip
Learn from somebody that doesn't add the spin.

http://www.ttb.org

The 5 year journey through the Bible started again last April, you can
play
their daily broadcast or download for later. The types and shadows
pointing
to Jesus in Genesis are incredible considering it having been written so
many years earlier. It helps to have someone so familiar with the Bible
to
point out how this verse ties to another verse and is fulfilled in
somewhere
else. The verses of scripture are practically woven together they connect
in so many ways in so many places, but you'll never see it if you don't
take
the time to look.

RogerN


In which Bible, Roger? You are aware that there, disregarding for a
moment the Jewish writings, are at least 8 "primary" versions and a
multitude of subsidiary versions many of which vary, of the Christian
Bible while the Jewish Tanach is a single version.

Take as an example the 6th commandment "Thou shall not kill":
In the original Jewish writings it is written "Thou shall not commit
murder". The modern Christian version, the Roman Catholic "New
American Bible" Bible has it "thou shall not Kill" while the Lutheran
"New International Version" says "You shall not murder".

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more specific
than killing. If that were the only verse in the Bible I could see how it
would be a little more difficult to understand, but since there is specific
instances that call for the death penalty it should clear it up for all but
those who don't want to understand.

You are really grasping aren't you. Quite obviously there is a
difference between murder and killing. One being that your God
certainly sanctioned killing while condemning murder.

As there are innumerable (some authorities have it as many as 50
different versions) of the Christian Bible, many of which vary in
content, which one is correct?

Are their differences as huge as killing and murdering? Please feel free to
explain how one can murder without killing. I've compared passages in many
popular versions of the Bible and they say the same thing in a slightly
different way.


Do you really believe that or are you just hoping that I will? But
yes, both the Christian God and current US laws agree that there is a
difference between murder and killing. After all both have no
compunction in ordering their young men out to "kill" the enemy while
at the same time rewarding "murder" by execution.


The basic Christian argument seems to be that if they vary then God
intend it which leaves the question of whether the god of the
Catholics is a different god the god of the Lutherans.

I've heard many claim that the New Testament writings were made up by the
Catholic Church Fathers to rule over the people. If that were the case then
why do the Protestants and Lutherans have scriptural grounds for believing
slightly different than the Catholics? After all, if the Catholics just
made it all up it should fully agree with their religious practices.

Not only the Church Fathers but practically everyone who had a hand in
running things for the past 2,000 years or so, certainly starting with
St. Paul.. After all Christ stated specifically that he had not come
to change the law, and to a Jew of that time it could have only one
meaning - the Jewish law, which like Islam's Sharia law today,
governed both religious and secular life.

Take the time to read the church explanations for why they don't need
to be circumcised or can eat pork. Even for an extremely devout
individual it must be rather a strain to believe that.

But I'm confident that you can take any version of the Christian Bible and
if you follow the teachings of Jesus, if there is something wrong with that
version then God will let you know. God's word is a lamp unto my feet and a
light unto my path, not high beams that illuminate everything all at once.
Walk in the light that you can see and more light will come. I have the
feeling you're not interested in walking in the light but just trying to
condemn the path.

RogerN

You are undoubtedly correct, but y'all don't just read the New
Testament. I have no idea what denomination you follow but attend a
Southern Baptist meeting and you'll hear very little New Testament.
What you'll hear is right out of the Jewish Book :-)

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:18:09 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more specific
than killing.

Murder is unlawful killing. Pure and simple.

Its like saying Having Sex, (for Killing)..and ass ****ing a 3 yr old
(for murder.)

A very serious difference.

One may or may not be a good thing.

One is Always a bad thing.

Gunner


Errr.... the big Cull?

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:41:57 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:18:09 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more specific
than killing.

Murder is unlawful killing. Pure and simple.

Its like saying Having Sex, (for Killing)..and ass ****ing a 3 yr old
(for murder.)

A very serious difference.

One may or may not be a good thing.

One is Always a bad thing.

Gunner


Errr.... the big Cull?

From one aspect..it will be a very bad thing.

But from the aspect of saving our nation..it will be a very good thing.

So one has to ask oneself...should a low dispicable and vile creature be
killed, or should one allow our nation to die?

Shrug..from the world view of most Americans..its a no brainer.

Afterall..the accepted Oath states..."..to protect and defend the
Constituion, from all enemies, foreign AND domestic"


Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

Roger, that describes many people. Well said.

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


"RogerN" wrote in message
m...


But I'm confident that you can take any version of the
Christian Bible and
if you follow the teachings of Jesus, if there is something
wrong with that
version then God will let you know. God's word is a lamp
unto my feet and a
light unto my path, not high beams that illuminate
everything all at once.
Walk in the light that you can see and more light will come.
I have the
feeling you're not interested in walking in the light but
just trying to
condemn the path.

RogerN

"john B." wrote

SNIP
Take the time to read the church explanations for why they don't
need
to be circumcised or can eat pork. Even for an extremely devout
individual it must be rather a strain to believe that.
SNIP

That may be interesting to read. Could you let me know How I can find
that.

Titles, links, whatever..

"john B." wrote in message
news
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


"john B." wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:35:22 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:

snip
Learn from somebody that doesn't add the spin.

http://www.ttb.org

The 5 year journey through the Bible started again last April, you can
play
their daily broadcast or download for later. The types and shadows
pointing
to Jesus in Genesis are incredible considering it having been written so
many years earlier. It helps to have someone so familiar with the Bible
to
point out how this verse ties to another verse and is fulfilled in
somewhere
else. The verses of scripture are practically woven together they
connect
in so many ways in so many places, but you'll never see it if you don't
take
the time to look.

RogerN


In which Bible, Roger? You are aware that there, disregarding for a
moment the Jewish writings, are at least 8 "primary" versions and a
multitude of subsidiary versions many of which vary, of the Christian
Bible while the Jewish Tanach is a single version.

Take as an example the 6th commandment "Thou shall not kill":
In the original Jewish writings it is written "Thou shall not commit
murder". The modern Christian version, the Roman Catholic "New
American Bible" Bible has it "thou shall not Kill" while the Lutheran
"New International Version" says "You shall not murder".

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not
realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more specific
than killing. If that were the only verse in the Bible I could see how it
would be a little more difficult to understand, but since there is
specific
instances that call for the death penalty it should clear it up for all
but
those who don't want to understand.

You are really grasping aren't you. Quite obviously there is a
difference between murder and killing. One being that your God
certainly sanctioned killing while condemning murder.

For easy example with abortion versus capitol punishment. Liberals are for
killing innocent babies and for protecting criminals. God if for protecting
the innocent babies and punishing the criminals. TMT is for protecting
criminals and raccoons and killing innocent babies.

As there are innumerable (some authorities have it as many as 50
different versions) of the Christian Bible, many of which vary in
content, which one is correct?

Are their differences as huge as killing and murdering? Please feel free
to
explain how one can murder without killing. I've compared passages in
many
popular versions of the Bible and they say the same thing in a slightly
different way.


Do you really believe that or are you just hoping that I will? But
yes, both the Christian God and current US laws agree that there is a
difference between murder and killing. After all both have no
compunction in ordering their young men out to "kill" the enemy while
at the same time rewarding "murder" by execution.

Just a Gunner said, murder is illegal killing. But since the 6th
commandment was establishing law for those at that time, calling it illegal
killing would have been a circular reference, like the law is "don't break
the law". That would explain why some interpretations say don't kill and
others say don't murder. Chances are that if you don't kill you won't
murder, but if you go on to read more detail you can understand that killing
for a reason wasn't illegal but murdering without sufficient reason was
illegal. Learn more and get the bigger picture, all would get the death
penalty under God's law, no human measures up, that is why God himself paid
the price.

The basic Christian argument seems to be that if they vary then God
intend it which leaves the question of whether the god of the
Catholics is a different god the god of the Lutherans.

I've heard many claim that the New Testament writings were made up by the
Catholic Church Fathers to rule over the people. If that were the case
then
why do the Protestants and Lutherans have scriptural grounds for believing
slightly different than the Catholics? After all, if the Catholics just
made it all up it should fully agree with their religious practices.

Not only the Church Fathers but practically everyone who had a hand in
running things for the past 2,000 years or so, certainly starting with
St. Paul.. After all Christ stated specifically that he had not come
to change the law, and to a Jew of that time it could have only one
meaning - the Jewish law, which like Islam's Sharia law today,
governed both religious and secular life.

Take the time to read the church explanations for why they don't need
to be circumcised or can eat pork. Even for an extremely devout
individual it must be rather a strain to believe that.

But I'm confident that you can take any version of the Christian Bible and
if you follow the teachings of Jesus, if there is something wrong with
that
version then God will let you know. God's word is a lamp unto my feet and
a
light unto my path, not high beams that illuminate everything all at once.
Walk in the light that you can see and more light will come. I have the
feeling you're not interested in walking in the light but just trying to
condemn the path.

RogerN

You are undoubtedly correct, but y'all don't just read the New
Testament. I have no idea what denomination you follow but attend a
Southern Baptist meeting and you'll hear very little New Testament.
What you'll hear is right out of the Jewish Book :-)

Moses represented the law in the Old Testament, the law was given to Moses.
No one was able to enter the promised land through Moses leadership, no one
can enter Heaven through keeping the law. But Joshua, the Greek name Jesus
is the Hebrew name Joshua, was able to deliver on God's promise through
faith. Abraham received God's promise through faith, Abraham's seed of the
promise are not those who were born of his lineage but those who receive
God's promises by faith, just as he did.

The book of Esther also is a great story of God's plan of salvation. The
law was that Jews would be killed, but the head honcho, who's wife was
Esther, a Jewish woman, decided to make another law to protect the Jewish
people. This lines up perfectly with "the soul that sins will die" and God
himself, through Jesus Christ, justifies those who believe in him.

As Jesus said, the Old Testament writers wrote of him. I didn't see it at
first but the more I learn the more I find out there is to learn.

RogerN

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:19:19 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:

Chances are that if you don't kill you won't
murder, but if you go on to read more detail you can understand that killing
for a reason wasn't illegal but murdering without sufficient reason was
illegal.

killing without sufficent reason is murder.
killing with sufficient reason is not.

All killing is considered Homicide.

The definitions of Sufficent Reason vary from state to state.

There are a number of legal forms of homicide..most under the cap of
Justifyable Homicide, such as self defense, defense of others, etc etc

Then we have Murder 1 and 2, manslaughter, negligent homicide and so
forth and so on. All of which are covered by individual state laws.

But all are indeed Homicide.

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:33:57 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:19:19 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:

Chances are that if you don't kill you won't
murder, but if you go on to read more detail you can understand that killing
for a reason wasn't illegal but murdering without sufficient reason was
illegal.

killing without sufficent reason is murder.
killing with sufficient reason is not.

All killing is considered Homicide.

The definitions of Sufficent Reason vary from state to state.

There are a number of legal forms of homicide..most under the cap of
Justifyable Homicide, such as self defense, defense of others, etc etc

Then we have Murder 1 and 2, manslaughter, negligent homicide and so
forth and so on. All of which are covered by individual state laws.

But all are indeed Homicide.

Gunner

HOMICIDE, n. The slaying of one human being by another. There are four
kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and
praiseworthy, but it makes no great difference to the person slain
whether he fell by one kind or another — the classification is for
advantage of the lawyers. - Ambrose Bierce

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:25:20 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:41:57 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:18:09 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more specific
than killing.

Murder is unlawful killing. Pure and simple.

Its like saying Having Sex, (for Killing)..and ass ****ing a 3 yr old
(for murder.)

A very serious difference.

One may or may not be a good thing.

One is Always a bad thing.

Gunner


Errr.... the big Cull?

From one aspect..it will be a very bad thing.

But from the aspect of saving our nation..it will be a very good thing.

So one has to ask oneself...should a low dispicable and vile creature be
killed, or should one allow our nation to die?

Shrug..from the world view of most Americans..its a no brainer.

Afterall..the accepted Oath states..."..to protect and defend the
Constituion, from all enemies, foreign AND domestic"

Gunner

Before you advocate a "cull" too fervently you should study history.

I lived in Indonesia for some years and knew and talked to people
involved in the aborted communist coup of 1965 and the resulting
massacre. Estimates of those killed range from a 200,000 to 3,000,000,
although even Indonesian authorities have no idea of how many lost
their lives it was possibly that 5% of the population of Java were
killed, usually with knives or swords, and the bodies thrown into a
river. City officials complained to the Army that all the rivers
running into the city of Surabaya, the second largest city in Java,
were clogged with bodies..

As a result the Indonesian Communist Party was eliminated as a
political force but the turmoil also provided an excuse for the
resolving of personal animosities, eliminating out stand debts by
killing money lenders, looting the assets of individuals perceived to
be excessively wealthy and any others who had incurred anyone's hatred
or jealousy. Christians were slaughtered by Moslems and Moslems were
hacked in pieces by Christians. In short an opportunity to settle
anything with anyone.

The "Indonesian Cull", to phrase it one way, resulted in the
ascendancy of Soeharto to the head of the Indonesian Army and
subsequently being appointed as temporary president, which turned out
to be effectively president for life.

The Indonesian Constitution was not changed and the President ruled by
decree.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:29:03 -0400, "Stephen B."
wrote:

"john B." wrote

SNIP
Take the time to read the church explanations for why they don't
need
to be circumcised or can eat pork. Even for an extremely devout
individual it must be rather a strain to believe that.
SNIP

That may be interesting to read. Could you let me know How I can find
that.

Titles, links, whatever..

Steven, I'm sure that you can find it. Try googling "+Jesus +I have
not come to change the law"

You'll find enough web sites to keep you happy for an evening.

And, you'll find many of the mealy mouth arguments for why you don't
need to get your foreskin snipped, generally preceded by the words
like "Jesus' ministry caused many changes in the law, changes so
dramatic that laws were "set aside" or declared "obsolete". A good
argument except that I can find no reference to God having made this
statement or any other that might be interpreted to mean this.

Of course Paul, if memory doesn't fail, used essentially this argument
to recruit the gentiles, but you don't profess to be a Paulest.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:47:28 -0700, Bob wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:33:57 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:19:19 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:

Chances are that if you don't kill you won't
murder, but if you go on to read more detail you can understand that killing
for a reason wasn't illegal but murdering without sufficient reason was
illegal.

killing without sufficent reason is murder.
killing with sufficient reason is not.

All killing is considered Homicide.

The definitions of Sufficent Reason vary from state to state.

There are a number of legal forms of homicide..most under the cap of
Justifyable Homicide, such as self defense, defense of others, etc etc

Then we have Murder 1 and 2, manslaughter, negligent homicide and so
forth and so on. All of which are covered by individual state laws.

But all are indeed Homicide.

Gunner

HOMICIDE, n. The slaying of one human being by another. There are four
kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and
praiseworthy, but it makes no great difference to the person slain
whether he fell by one kind or another — the classification is for
advantage of the lawyers. - Ambrose Bierce

Well stated. but that should be changed to..."the advantage or
disadvantage of the person committing the act"


--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:00:55 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:25:20 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:41:57 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:18:09 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more specific
than killing.

Murder is unlawful killing. Pure and simple.

Its like saying Having Sex, (for Killing)..and ass ****ing a 3 yr old
(for murder.)

A very serious difference.

One may or may not be a good thing.

One is Always a bad thing.

Gunner


Errr.... the big Cull?

From one aspect..it will be a very bad thing.

But from the aspect of saving our nation..it will be a very good thing.

So one has to ask oneself...should a low dispicable and vile creature be
killed, or should one allow our nation to die?

Shrug..from the world view of most Americans..its a no brainer.

Afterall..the accepted Oath states..."..to protect and defend the
Constituion, from all enemies, foreign AND domestic"

Gunner

Before you advocate a "cull" too fervently you should study history.

I lived in Indonesia for some years and knew and talked to people
involved in the aborted communist coup of 1965 and the resulting
massacre. Estimates of those killed range from a 200,000 to 3,000,000,
although even Indonesian authorities have no idea of how many lost
their lives it was possibly that 5% of the population of Java were
killed, usually with knives or swords, and the bodies thrown into a
river. City officials complained to the Army that all the rivers
running into the city of Surabaya, the second largest city in Java,
were clogged with bodies..

As a result the Indonesian Communist Party was eliminated as a
political force but the turmoil also provided an excuse for the
resolving of personal animosities, eliminating out stand debts by
killing money lenders, looting the assets of individuals perceived to
be excessively wealthy and any others who had incurred anyone's hatred
or jealousy. Christians were slaughtered by Moslems and Moslems were
hacked in pieces by Christians. In short an opportunity to settle
anything with anyone.

The "Indonesian Cull", to phrase it one way, resulted in the
ascendancy of Soeharto to the head of the Indonesian Army and
subsequently being appointed as temporary president, which turned out
to be effectively president for life.

The Indonesian Constitution was not changed and the President ruled by
decree.

Indeed. And I fully believe such will happen here..with the exception
of a dictator rising to the top.

Keep in mind..that in a nation where superior firearms are in every
closet..the ability of a military to overcome is much smaller than that
of a nation armed with knives and swords......


Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:19:19 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:

"john B." wrote in message
news
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


"john B." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:35:22 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:

snip
Learn from somebody that doesn't add the spin.

http://www.ttb.org

The 5 year journey through the Bible started again last April, you can
play
their daily broadcast or download for later. The types and shadows
pointing
to Jesus in Genesis are incredible considering it having been written so
many years earlier. It helps to have someone so familiar with the Bible
to
point out how this verse ties to another verse and is fulfilled in
somewhere
else. The verses of scripture are practically woven together they
connect
in so many ways in so many places, but you'll never see it if you don't
take
the time to look.

RogerN


In which Bible, Roger? You are aware that there, disregarding for a
moment the Jewish writings, are at least 8 "primary" versions and a
multitude of subsidiary versions many of which vary, of the Christian
Bible while the Jewish Tanach is a single version.

Take as an example the 6th commandment "Thou shall not kill":
In the original Jewish writings it is written "Thou shall not commit
murder". The modern Christian version, the Roman Catholic "New
American Bible" Bible has it "thou shall not Kill" while the Lutheran
"New International Version" says "You shall not murder".

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not
realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more specific
than killing. If that were the only verse in the Bible I could see how it
would be a little more difficult to understand, but since there is
specific
instances that call for the death penalty it should clear it up for all
but
those who don't want to understand.

You are really grasping aren't you. Quite obviously there is a
difference between murder and killing. One being that your God
certainly sanctioned killing while condemning murder.

For easy example with abortion versus capitol punishment. Liberals are for
killing innocent babies and for protecting criminals. God if for protecting
the innocent babies and punishing the criminals. TMT is for protecting
criminals and raccoons and killing innocent babies.

Who is talking about abortion? I thought we were discussing the roots
of the bible.
But if you want to then I think that you first must define exactly
what a baby is since for some period it is essentially a parasite in
the mother.


As there are innumerable (some authorities have it as many as 50
different versions) of the Christian Bible, many of which vary in
content, which one is correct?

Are their differences as huge as killing and murdering? Please feel free
to
explain how one can murder without killing. I've compared passages in
many
popular versions of the Bible and they say the same thing in a slightly
different way.


Do you really believe that or are you just hoping that I will? But
yes, both the Christian God and current US laws agree that there is a
difference between murder and killing. After all both have no
compunction in ordering their young men out to "kill" the enemy while
at the same time rewarding "murder" by execution.

Just a Gunner said, murder is illegal killing. But since the 6th
commandment was establishing law for those at that time, calling it illegal
killing would have been a circular reference, like the law is "don't break
the law". That would explain why some interpretations say don't kill and
others say don't murder. Chances are that if you don't kill you won't
murder, but if you go on to read more detail you can understand that killing
for a reason wasn't illegal but murdering without sufficient reason was
illegal. Learn more and get the bigger picture, all would get the death
penalty under God's law, no human measures up, that is why God himself paid
the price.

Yes, yes I understand the difference between murder and kill. which
doesn't answer the question why the Jewish books say "Murder" which is
undoubtedly the most likely meaning of what was carved on the stone,
given that it wasn't translated nor have "improved" versions been
published. Various versions of the Christian Bible use the word
"Kill", in fact I believe that there is a U.S. policy, perhaps law,
that if you declare that you can't kill because of God's word you
won't be sent into combat; based on a faulty translation of the holy
book.

So, how do you justify changing the wording of God's first legal code?
Isn't that blasphemy? To put false words into God's mouth?

A great deal snipped


RogerN

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:08:44 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:00:55 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:25:20 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:41:57 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:18:09 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more specific
than killing.

Murder is unlawful killing. Pure and simple.

Its like saying Having Sex, (for Killing)..and ass ****ing a 3 yr old
(for murder.)

A very serious difference.

One may or may not be a good thing.

One is Always a bad thing.

Gunner


Errr.... the big Cull?

From one aspect..it will be a very bad thing.

But from the aspect of saving our nation..it will be a very good thing.

So one has to ask oneself...should a low dispicable and vile creature be
killed, or should one allow our nation to die?

Shrug..from the world view of most Americans..its a no brainer.

Afterall..the accepted Oath states..."..to protect and defend the
Constituion, from all enemies, foreign AND domestic"

Gunner

Before you advocate a "cull" too fervently you should study history.

I lived in Indonesia for some years and knew and talked to people
involved in the aborted communist coup of 1965 and the resulting
massacre. Estimates of those killed range from a 200,000 to 3,000,000,
although even Indonesian authorities have no idea of how many lost
their lives it was possibly that 5% of the population of Java were
killed, usually with knives or swords, and the bodies thrown into a
river. City officials complained to the Army that all the rivers
running into the city of Surabaya, the second largest city in Java,
were clogged with bodies..

As a result the Indonesian Communist Party was eliminated as a
political force but the turmoil also provided an excuse for the
resolving of personal animosities, eliminating out stand debts by
killing money lenders, looting the assets of individuals perceived to
be excessively wealthy and any others who had incurred anyone's hatred
or jealousy. Christians were slaughtered by Moslems and Moslems were
hacked in pieces by Christians. In short an opportunity to settle
anything with anyone.

The "Indonesian Cull", to phrase it one way, resulted in the
ascendancy of Soeharto to the head of the Indonesian Army and
subsequently being appointed as temporary president, which turned out
to be effectively president for life.

The Indonesian Constitution was not changed and the President ruled by
decree.

Indeed. And I fully believe such will happen here..with the exception
of a dictator rising to the top.

Keep in mind..that in a nation where superior firearms are in every
closet..the ability of a military to overcome is much smaller than that
of a nation armed with knives and swords......


Gunner


Unless the U.S. is different, and I don't think it is, if chaos
reaches the level that it did in Java in 1965-6 I cannot see how a
"Strong man" cold fail to take advantage of it.

Exactly what happened, by the way. Soeharto was third ranking in the
Army and commanded an elite unit stationed close to Jakarta
essentially to control the capital in an emergency. The emergency
occurred and Soeharto did put down the resurrection in Jakarta and
controlled the capitol. the picture then gets a bit murky but either
the remaining senior military convinced Soeharto to take over as
Temporary President, or with control of the only active military in
the area he forced them to appoint him is a matter of conjecture but
once Temporary he found ways to become more permanent.

A typically American act, practiced from the very beginning. Get a
toe in the door, kill enough of the Others to weaken then and cclaim
it all for your own.

You don't think it will happen again?

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:34:46 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Keep in mind..that in a nation where superior firearms are in every
closet..the ability of a military to overcome is much smaller than that
of a nation armed with knives and swords......


Gunner


Unless the U.S. is different, and I don't think it is, if chaos
reaches the level that it did in Java in 1965-6 I cannot see how a
"Strong man" cold fail to take advantage of it.

Exactly what happened, by the way. Soeharto was third ranking in the
Army and commanded an elite unit stationed close to Jakarta
essentially to control the capital in an emergency. The emergency
occurred and Soeharto did put down the resurrection in Jakarta and
controlled the capitol. the picture then gets a bit murky but either
the remaining senior military convinced Soeharto to take over as
Temporary President, or with control of the only active military in
the area he forced them to appoint him is a matter of conjecture but
once Temporary he found ways to become more permanent.

A typically American act, practiced from the very beginning. Get a
toe in the door, kill enough of the Others to weaken then and cclaim
it all for your own.

You don't think it will happen again?

Perhaps in a small area..say..San Francisco..but the rest of America?
No. Said warlord would be killed in short order by the People.

Or do you think that the US military is composed of droids who do not
believe in Freedom?

A single example among many many...

http://www.mikenew.com/index.html#

http://www.mikenew.com/CSP_Act_2011.html

Now claiming that its a "typically American act" is very much of a lie.
Why did you try to use it on everyone here? Doing so..simply makes you
look stupid.

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

john B. on Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:41:57 +0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:18:09 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more specific
than killing.

Murder is unlawful killing. Pure and simple.

Its like saying Having Sex, (for Killing)..and ass ****ing a 3 yr old
(for murder.)

A very serious difference.

One may or may not be a good thing.

One is Always a bad thing.

Gunner


Errr.... the big Cull?

One death is a tragedy. A million is merely a statistic to
footnote in future histories.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

"RogerN" on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

The 5 year journey through the Bible started again last April, you can play
their daily broadcast or download for later. The types and shadows pointing
to Jesus in Genesis are incredible considering it having been written so
many years earlier. It helps to have someone so familiar with the Bible to
point out how this verse ties to another verse and is fulfilled in somewhere
else. The verses of scripture are practically woven together they connect
in so many ways in so many places, but you'll never see it if you don't take
the time to look.

RogerN

In which Bible, Roger? You are aware that there, disregarding for a
moment the Jewish writings, are at least 8 "primary" versions and a
multitude of subsidiary versions many of which vary, of the Christian
Bible while the Jewish Tanach is a single version.

The Christian bible is a single version. The problem comes with
the translations into English. More often than not, each translation
chooses the English words which best fits the theology of the
translator. Hence one edition translates 'opiskapoi' as "bishop while
another as "overseer". Or English words fall out of favor, such as
"dogma'" and "doctrine", or the meaning changes. "Perfect" used to
mean "complete" - as in "A lawyer will perfect his briefs" (which does
not condone what Rep Wiener did.)

Take as an example the 6th commandment "Thou shall not kill":
In the original Jewish writings it is written "Thou shall not commit
murder". The modern Christian version, the Roman Catholic "New
American Bible" Bible has it "thou shall not Kill" while the Lutheran
"New International Version" says "You shall not murder".

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more specific
than killing. If that were the only verse in the Bible I could see how it
would be a little more difficult to understand, but since there is specific
instances that call for the death penalty it should clear it up for all but
those who don't want to understand.

The detail is that ra'tash means "murder" (the illegitimate taking
of human life), and is first used in Torah in this command "Do no
Murder". It is not used in connection with combat, capital
punishment, or self defense. (It is also not used in connection with
the actions of God or his agents.)
The problem is that the translators in the late 16th century
picked a very fine equivalent in "kill" - as there was an
understanding that "killing" is not the same as "executing" or
"justifiable homicide".
Just because the modern progressives can't tell the difference
between "murder" and "execute" is evidence of their moral confusion.

Do we not maintain this distinction when it comes to homicide? Are
there not four kinds - accidental, felonious, justifiable and
laudable? Do we not distinguish between the premeditated murder, the
crime of passion, and manslaughter?

As there are innumerable (some authorities have it as many as 50
different versions) of the Christian Bible, many of which vary in
content, which one is correct?

As my friend Petros says "The Greek".

Are their differences as huge as killing and murdering? Please feel free to
explain how one can murder without killing. I've compared passages in many
popular versions of the Bible and they say the same thing in a slightly
different way.

Considering that Jesus himself is on the record as saying that
murder will get you just up before the council, but calling your
brother "idiot" will get you up before the fires of Ghenna ...


The basic Christian argument seems to be that if they vary then God
intend it which leaves the question of whether the god of the
Catholics is a different god the god of the Lutherans.

I've heard many claim that the New Testament writings were made up by the
Catholic Church Fathers to rule over the people.

Usually protestants, or ex-protestants, or those who want the
benefits of living in a world formed by the Judeo-Christian ethic,
without being bound by that ethic.

If that were the case then
why do the Protestants and Lutherans have scriptural grounds for believing
slightly different than the Catholics? After all, if the Catholics just
made it all up it should fully agree with their religious practices.

Good question, and one that I'd like to know myself. It seems to
boil down to this. If you don't like Christianity, then any little
thing will serve to dismiss it. "I don't like this verse" or "I don't
like what the preacher said", or "The scandals just prove it is full
of hypocrites." (To which my Dad would say "Come on anyway, there is
always room for one more."
If you do like Christianity, then those same issue will cause you
to "dig deeper".
--
pyotr filipivich
"As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for
Socialism is its adherents." George Orwell

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:56:22 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

john B. on Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:41:57 +0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:18:09 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:16:06 -0500, "RogerN" wrote:

Does that trip you up? Can you murder without killing? Do you not realize
that murdering and killing are related, murder is a little more specific
than killing.

Murder is unlawful killing. Pure and simple.

Its like saying Having Sex, (for Killing)..and ass ****ing a 3 yr old
(for murder.)

A very serious difference.

One may or may not be a good thing.

One is Always a bad thing.

Gunner


Errr.... the big Cull?

One death is a tragedy. A million is merely a statistic to
footnote in future histories.

Correct, to quote a favorte of the Left. Indeed.

That came from Unca Joe Stalin as I recall.


--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 05:27:09 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:34:46 +0700, john B.
wrote:


Keep in mind..that in a nation where superior firearms are in every
closet..the ability of a military to overcome is much smaller than that
of a nation armed with knives and swords......


Gunner


Unless the U.S. is different, and I don't think it is, if chaos
reaches the level that it did in Java in 1965-6 I cannot see how a
"Strong man" cold fail to take advantage of it.

Exactly what happened, by the way. Soeharto was third ranking in the
Army and commanded an elite unit stationed close to Jakarta
essentially to control the capital in an emergency. The emergency
occurred and Soeharto did put down the resurrection in Jakarta and
controlled the capitol. the picture then gets a bit murky but either
the remaining senior military convinced Soeharto to take over as
Temporary President, or with control of the only active military in
the area he forced them to appoint him is a matter of conjecture but
once Temporary he found ways to become more permanent.

A typically American act, practiced from the very beginning. Get a
toe in the door, kill enough of the Others to weaken then and cclaim
it all for your own.

You don't think it will happen again?

Perhaps in a small area..say..San Francisco..but the rest of America?
No. Said warlord would be killed in short order by the People.

Or do you think that the US military is composed of droids who do not
believe in Freedom?

A single example among many many...

http://www.mikenew.com/index.html#

http://www.mikenew.com/CSP_Act_2011.html

Now claiming that its a "typically American act" is very much of a lie.
Why did you try to use it on everyone here? Doing so..simply makes you
look stupid.

Gunner

You rather prove my argument. 549 guys followed orders (rather
blindly) and one rebelled. the vast majority simply follow and a tiny
minority are actually leaders, just exactly as has happened in
military units have done through-out history. In fact the military has
always worked that way. Identify the leaders and promote them.

Take the Mi-Lai incident for example. Apparently all the troops either
took part, or fired into the air. Not one actually argued that Calley
shouldn't, couldn't, legally make such an order, although, if I
remember correctly, the Services had all been made aware for years
that "I just followed orders, Sir" was not a valid defense.

Nope Gunner, the vast bulk of any population is content to follow
orders and take the hand-outs. Bread and circus, as the Romans said
and it hasn't changed.

Cheers,

John B.