HeyBub wrote:
NoOne N Particular wrote:
Today, it seems like we have two factions fighting for control. On
one side we have the Christian religion, and on the other we have
Islam.

You're not even close. In the past (say few decades), Muslims have killed
many more of their fellow religionists than any inter-religion feuding.

Lybia vs Egypt
Lebanon vs Syria
Iraq vs Iran
Iraq vs Kuwait
Turkey vs Iraq
Sudan vs everybody
Somalia vs everybody
Iraq vs Iraq
Palestinians vs Palestinians

I'm not exaggerating: millions dead.

About the only Muslim country that hasn't been a war with somebody is
Minnesota.

Of the 50-odd countries that are predominately Muslim only TWO are nominal
democracies (Turky and Malaysia). The rest are Theocracies (Iran),
Monarchies (Jordan, Morocco), Oligarchies (Egypt), or out-and-out anarchies
(Somalia, Sudan).


Oh .. and in all the wars between Israel and their Muslim neighbors a grand total of
about 100,000 dead - vs. the 3 million or so Muslims killing each other in that same period of time...

Doug Miller wrote:
SNIPPAGE

Fox News *does* refer to them as "homicide bombers".

True, but it doesn't seem to have the same impact to me.

Wayne

On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit wrote:
Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
BillinDetroit wrote:
Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually rebut
this clown?
It's all religious bull****, the biggest scam on the planet.
Lew
You are entitled to your opinion.

It's also divisive.

Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?

The author of the religious bull****, for making more than
one flavor.

SNIPPAGE

Ahem ... this is war. The object is to murder 'the enemy' (whoever the
people in power point at) and to demoralize them. They almost always
make at least a one for one exchange ... sometimes bumping the ratio to
40:1 or so. On 9/11, they were able to bump that to about 500:1 -and-
suck the US economy down. Oh ... and they used US jets to do it with,
too.* That's a pretty good battlefield return. If (when) they repeat
that performance on US soil, DHS is gonna have a whole lot of egg on its
face.


Bill

I agree that this is war. Probably even WW III because their poison will
spread. But the bottom line is that this is an idealogical war and not
necessarily a military war. I'm certainly not saying that our military isn't
needed. It absolutely is. But our military, as good as it is, and as necessary
as it is will never win this war. What we have to do is to convince them that
we are not their enemy, they are. They are their own worst enemy. They seem to
think that we are attacking Islam but all we really want is for them to live
peacefully in this world. If they can't do that, then by all means we should
help them to the next.

And I wonder what the real battlefield return is for them overall. 9/11 was
closer to 150:1, but in the long run we are probably ahead in that respect by
probably 200:1 or 300:1. It's very hard to tell because our side doesn't say
how many of their side is killed. It could be that no one really knows. Our
propaganda machine (that would be our so called press) would never report
anything like that because that might be considered favorable to the US. just
tell us how bad the USA is.

One last thing. I don't think blowing up some poor people going to the market
to buy some food to keep their families from starving should be considered valid
targets. If you are in a war, you should be attacking the ones that you think
are responsible for . . .whatever it is that you are fighting. I don't think
even the muslims think that ordinary people in the US are their enemy. But that
is the people that they are really attacking. That kind of attack isn't
demoralizing. It is uniting. If they keep it up, more and more people will be
united against them. If (and I agree that it is a matter of when) there is
another 9/11 type of attack, even the democrats may have to acknowledge that.

Wayne

You keep hearing them say ". . .if it Allah's will . . ." Well more often than
not Allah is saying "It is NOT my will!"

"Father Haskell" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit wrote:
Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
BillinDetroit wrote:
Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
rebut
this clown?
It's all religious bull****, the biggest scam on the planet.
Lew
You are entitled to your opinion.

It's also divisive.

Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?

The author of the religious bull****, for making more than
one flavor.

I blame Richard Catto. eg
--

"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
balls to get old!"

On Jul 9, 2:00 pm, BillinDetroit wrote:

Snipperage

I'm a vegetabletarian now, but I've got a recipe for skinny's that you
can cut with a spoon.


Bill... I am always ready to up my ecumenical knowledge. How are you
fixing them so that you can cut them with a spoon?

BTW... Impervo is a great product and I think you will find it easy to
use.

Robert

BillinDetroit writes:

cross-breeding,

As shown below, the prohibition was against interbreeding "of two
sorts". That is, no matching up a camel with a bull, a chicken with a
goose and so on. To the best of my knowledge, only horses and asses
can breed like that and produce offspring, but even then, the
offspring (a mule) is sterile.
etc.

Wolves and dogs crossbreed.
liger - lion and tiger

Sounds like instead of sending troups over there we should cut out the
middle man and just ship small arms.
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:
NoOne N Particular wrote:
Today, it seems like we have two factions fighting for control. On
one side we have the Christian religion, and on the other we have
Islam.

You're not even close. In the past (say few decades), Muslims have killed
many more of their fellow religionists than any inter-religion feuding.

Lybia vs Egypt
Lebanon vs Syria
Iraq vs Iran
Iraq vs Kuwait
Turkey vs Iraq
Sudan vs everybody
Somalia vs everybody
Iraq vs Iraq
Palestinians vs Palestinians

I'm not exaggerating: millions dead.

About the only Muslim country that hasn't been a war with somebody is
Minnesota.

Of the 50-odd countries that are predominately Muslim only TWO are
nominal
democracies (Turky and Malaysia). The rest are Theocracies (Iran),
Monarchies (Jordan, Morocco), Oligarchies (Egypt), or out-and-out
anarchies
(Somalia, Sudan).


Oh .. and in all the wars between Israel and their Muslim neighbors a
grand total of
about 100,000 dead - vs. the 3 million or so Muslims killing each other in
that same period of time...

BillinDetroit wrote:

wrote:
Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK


Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually rebut
this clown?

(Acts 10:9-16) 9 The next day as they were pursuing their journey and
were approaching the city, Peter went up to the housetop about the sixth
hour to pray. 10 But he became very hungry and wanted to eat. While they
were preparing, he fell into a trance 11 and beheld heaven opened and
some sort of vessel descending like a great linen sheet being let down
by its four extremities upon the earth; 12 and in it there were all
sorts of four-footed creatures and creeping things of the earth and
birds of heaven. 13 And a voice came to him: €œRise, Peter, slaughter and
eat!€� 14 But Peter said: €œNot at all, Lord, because never have I eaten
anything defiled and unclean.€� 15 And the voice [spoke] again to him,
the second time: €œYou stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed.€�
16 This occurred a third time, and immediately the vessel was taken up
into heaven.


(Matthew 15:10-11) . . .With that he called the crowd near and said to
them: €œListen and get the sense of it: 11 Not what enters into [his]
mouth defiles a man; but it is what proceeds out of [his] mouth that
defiles a man.€�

Do not let a Muslim teach you the Bible.

Bill




Very good response Bill. Succinct, to the point, and clearly exposes the
error of the OP.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Jul 8, 5:48 pm, Phisherman wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:25:29 -0700, wrote:
Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT WOOD

I havn't found anywhere in the bible where it says you can't eat wood.
But, since most of us are not termites, our digestive tracts are not
designed for digesting wood. Do not eat wood.

Don't distill it and drink it, either, although you _can_
cut it into chunks and use it for smoking hams.

Maxwell Lol wrote:
BillinDetroit writes:

cross-breeding,

As shown below, the prohibition was against interbreeding "of two
sorts". That is, no matching up a camel with a bull, a chicken with a
goose and so on. To the best of my knowledge, only horses and asses
can breed like that and produce offspring, but even then, the
offspring (a mule) is sterile.
etc.

Wolves and dogs crossbreed.
liger - lion and tiger


"Male tigons are sterile while the females are generally fertile.
Because only female ligers and tigons are fertile, ligers and tigons
cannot reproduce with each other." (wikipedia article on tigons, see
similar in article about ligers)

Wikipedia has this to say about the relationship between wolves and
domestic breeds of dogs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid

I don't want to make a major thread out of this. The original assertion
was that the Christian scriptures put cross-breeding of any sort off
limits, when the truth of the matter is that interbreeding of closely
related species was actually permitted. You CAN try to improve your
dairy herd.

These rules were delivered to people who lived a lot closer to the land
than most of us do and, without any need of DNA tests, knew not to
crossbreed sheep with dogs to to make certain that their best rams got
close to their best ewes.

Even if you COULD cross-breed oh, say, Bacillus Thuringensis with corn
.... you weren't to do it.

(ducking for cover!)

Bill
--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-0, 07/12/2007
Tested on: 7/12/2007 12:18:30 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 8, 5:48 pm, Phisherman wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:25:29 -0700, wrote:
Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT WOOD
I havn't found anywhere in the bible where it says you can't eat wood.
But, since most of us are not termites, our digestive tracts are not
designed for digesting wood. Do not eat wood.

Don't distill it and drink it, either, although you _can_
cut it into chunks and use it for smoking hams.



Wood is a good source of fiber ... if you use a wooden spoon to stir the
food in the blender.


--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-0, 07/12/2007
Tested on: 7/12/2007 12:20:19 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Father Haskell wrote:

It's also divisive.
Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?

The author of the religious bull****, for making more than
one flavor.


This is where things get truly interesting - because the founders of
each of the major religions contend that there is actually only one flavor.

And I agree.


--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-0, 07/12/2007
Tested on: 7/12/2007 12:23:32 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

wrote:
On Jul 9, 2:00 pm, BillinDetroit wrote:

Snipperage

I'm a vegetabletarian now, but I've got a recipe for skinny's that you
can cut with a spoon.


Bill... I am always ready to up my ecumenical knowledge. How are you
fixing them so that you can cut them with a spoon?

BTW... Impervo is a great product and I think you will find it easy to
use.

Robert

Liking the Impervo ... got a good first coat on today. That little
Wagner HVLP is actually working pretty nice. PROPERLY THINNED, I can
keep a wet edge just about as fast as I can move my arm. (no mercy for
those who hesitate!) My guess is that I am saving about 4 hrs. per coat
simply by spraying instead of brushing. And I am probably getting a LOT
better finish skin!

------------happy camper, will buy a 'real' HVLP when I get a few more
nickles together.

Oh, BTW, I got an order for two more before I could get the color on
these! ;-)

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

Skinny chops

trim fat from six
render fat in skillet
brown chops in fat over high heat
---
boil medium egg noodles (al dente)
layer in glass baking dish
put chops over noodles, overlapping chops slightly
cover with canned tomato halves, including liquid
zip with favorite spices (I use 'cheat' Italian mix and add extra thyme)
seal baking dish with foil
--------
Bake (memory don't fail me now!) @ 375 for about 60-75 mins.

The precise time & temp are lost to musty memory, but I do recall that
the liquid will be boiled nearly (but not completely) away when they are
done. The bottom of the baking disk will have liquid, but not much.
Better a little extra liquid than to scorch the noodles, I would think.

place dish on wooden trivet (just to get back on topic!)

serve with choice of green things and a decent lager, if so inclined.

Bon apetit!

Bill
--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-0, 07/12/2007
Tested on: 7/12/2007 12:45:13 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

On Jul 12, 12:20 am, BillinDetroit wrote:
Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 8, 5:48 pm, Phisherman wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:25:29 -0700, wrote:
Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT WOOD
I havn't found anywhere in the bible where it says you can't eat wood.
But, since most of us are not termites, our digestive tracts are not
designed for digesting wood. Do not eat wood.

Don't distill it and drink it, either, although you _can_
cut it into chunks and use it for smoking hams.

Wood is a good source of fiber ... if you use a wooden spoon to stir the
food in the blender.

Laugh, but it's sometimes used as an additive in cereals and breads
for just that reason.

Odd that an omnipotent god would choose to communicate
with only one or two humans and instruct them to "pass it
along" when said god could easily communicate with each
living being on this planet as well as all the others (I'm
assuming that there are other life forms somewhere out
in the Huge Out There), clearly and concisely and avoid data
loss through retransmission - and the occassional human
additions and interpretations.

In our judicial system, "hear say" (he told me she told him
that he told her . . .) is not admissable evidence. Yet many
place great credence to "he said he said, he said ( continue
on for 500 to 2000 years)" god quotes.

Even when the message is short and to the point "Thou
Shall Not Kill", somebody either didn't get the message,
or dropped the addendums until needed when it was
convenient to mention, for earthly reasons.

Would be a better world if there was just god - with no
religion in between.

As for popes being inflammable, is that why they're never
cremated?

charlie b

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Do not let a Muslim teach you the Bible.

Bill




Very good response Bill. Succinct, to the point, and clearly exposes the
error of the OP.


Thank you, Mark.

That final point was the more important one. I am more concerned about
those who claim to be Christian but do not know what the Bible DOES
teach than I am about a dozen radical Muslims running around waving a
Koran in one hand and an AK-47 in another. You can shoot the radical,
but there doesn't seem to be any end to ignorance.

The particular Muslim above was not even well versed on the Koran
(others here have refuted him from the Sura) -- and knows less about the
Bible. Like many... he's been 'told' what the Bible says and is gullible
enough to believe the lie without checking it. He is zealous, but
without accurate knowledge.

Yeah ... that's mentioned in the scriptures:
(Romans 10:2) . . .For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for
God; but not according to accurate knowledge;

The full thought is found at Romans 10:1-4.

SO, what DOES the Bible have to say about taking things on faith where
there is the means of easily checking them?

(Acts 17:10-12) 10 Immediately by night the brothers sent both Paul and
Silas out to Be·roe€²a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue
of the Jews. 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in
Thes·sa·lo·ni€²ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness
of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these
things were so. (n.b. they did NOT take Paul at his word!) 12 Therefore
many of them became believers, and so did not a few of the reputable
Greek women and of the men.

About an hour a day for a single year is enough to read it completely.

Bill
--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-0, 07/12/2007
Tested on: 7/12/2007 1:37:17 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

sweet sawdust wrote:
Sounds like instead of sending troups over there we should cut out the
middle man and just ship small arms.

The US does a little of both.

ISTR that the US is a very large player in the small arms field.

Bill
--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-0, 07/12/2007
Tested on: 7/12/2007 2:04:50 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

BillinDetroit wrote:

.... snip
(Acts 17:10-12) 10 Immediately by night the brothers sent both Paul and
Silas out to Be·roe€²a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue
of the Jews. 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in
Thes·sa·lo·ni€²ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness
of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these

Just as an interesting point of information regarding this verse. In the
original Greek (No, I don't read Greek, however, it is one of the
requirements for ministers in our denomination (WELS Lutheran)), those
words in the context of the time literally meant to "ransack" or "tear
apart". I.e, the Bereans did more than just a casual read, they were very
thorough in their readings and evaluations.

things were so. (n.b. they did NOT take Paul at his word!) 12 Therefore
many of them became believers, and so did not a few of the reputable
Greek women and of the men.

About an hour a day for a single year is enough to read it completely.

Bill

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 12, 12:20 am, BillinDetroit wrote:
Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 8, 5:48 pm, Phisherman wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:25:29 -0700, wrote:
Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT WOOD
I havn't found anywhere in the bible where it says you can't eat wood.
But, since most of us are not termites, our digestive tracts are not
designed for digesting wood. Do not eat wood.
Don't distill it and drink it, either, although you _can_
cut it into chunks and use it for smoking hams.
Wood is a good source of fiber ... if you use a wooden spoon to stir the
food in the blender.

Laugh, but it's sometimes used as an additive in cereals and breads
for just that reason.


I've never seen that. Got a specific product in mind?

Bill
--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-0, 07/12/2007
Tested on: 7/12/2007 11:42:52 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

charlieb wrote:
Odd that an omnipotent god would choose to communicate
with only one or two humans and instruct them to "pass it
along" when said god could easily communicate with each
living being on this planet as well as all the others (I'm
assuming that there are other life forms somewhere out
in the Huge Out There), clearly and concisely and avoid data
loss through retransmission - and the occassional human
additions and interpretations.



You're right Charlie. Or, you would be if that is how things happened.
There are roughly a million copies of the Bible distributed -each week-
and it is available in roughly 2,300 languages. "Oral histories" came to
an end with Moses.

This isn't the parlor game of 'pass it on' played by a bunch of giggly
kids ... this is "pass it on" played for keeps by serious-minded adults
with their eye on the ball

It is one thing to declare that the scriptures were adulterated. Knowing
humans, it seems almost certain that they were. It is quite another to
prove it.

Bill

--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-0, 07/12/2007
Tested on: 7/13/2007 12:29:41 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 2:35pm (EDT-3)
(Father*Haskell) doth sayeth:
Don't distill it and drink it, either, although you _can_ cut it into
chunks and use it for smoking hams.

Do you suppose gopher wood got its name, because that's what they
used it for, smoking gophers?



JOAT
I do things I don't know how to do, so that I might learn how to do
them.
- Picasso

On Jul 9, 3:26?am, BillinDetroit wrote:
wrote:
Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK

Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually rebut
this clown?



The best way is to demonstrate the absurdity of "literal"
interpretation of the Bible.

Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice and
usually scoldings to people who call in to her radio show. Recently,
she said that to an Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination
according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any
circumstance.


The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident
and also posted on the internet:


Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the
specific laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours.
They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Can I still eat at
Red Lobster as long as I only order the Salisbury steak?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev.
20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.


FoggyTown

On Jul 9, 7:48 pm, BillinDetroit wrote:
Maxwell Lol wrote:
Barry Lennox writes:

The same bible says my neighbour must die as I saw him picking up
sticks on a Sunday, So that's that, we know that cannot be negotiated.

And don't forget Leviticus 19:19 - NIV --
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

There are more, like women talking in church,

The 'talking' was a calling out to their husbands (seated on opposite
sides of the room) making it difficult, if not impossible, for any to
learn what was being taught. They were instructed, if you will read that
passage all the way through, to speak with their husbands privately. So,
let me ask you this ... why were they at the meeting to start with? To
learn or to yak?

marrying a woman who is divorced,

The only place I recall that prohibition is in forbidding a man to
remarry his previous wife after she had married another man. There was a
scheme afoot where the woman would become 'the (temporary) wife' of
another man and the second man would pay money to the first man. Later,
the original husband would remarry her. Lather, rinse, repeat. In
effect, he was pimping her out. If the prohibition is mentioned
somewhere else, please provide a citation. In ALL circumstances,
remarriage is prohibited if the divorce was for any reason other than
adultery. But that limitation should not be understood as applying to
the woman only. The man is a gigged frog if he dumps his missus for
trivial reason, too.

eating shellfish,

I covered that yesterday. Read the 10th chapter of Acts. Slowly.

wearing gold jewelry,

Nope ... not forbidden. Ever. Peter warned against relying upon it as
adornment:
(1 Peter 3:1-6) 3 In like manner, YOU wives, be in subjection to YOUR
own husbands, in order that, if any are not obedient to the word, they
may be won without a word through the conduct of [their] wives,
2 because of having been eyewitnesses of YOUR chaste conduct together
with deep respect. 3 And do not let YOUR adornment be that of the
external braiding of the hair and of the putting on of gold ornaments or
the wearing of outer garments, 4 but let it be the secret person of the
heart in the incorruptible [apparel] of the quiet and mild spirit, which
is of great value in the eyes of God. 5 For so, too, formerly the holy
women who were hoping in God used to adorn themselves, subjecting
themselves to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah used to obey Abraham,
calling him "lord." And YOU have become her children, provided YOU keep
on doing good and not fearing any cause for terror.

This is a portion of a counsel regarding attitude and conduct. To quote
it out of context is to automatically twist it. The qualities to be
valued were spiritual in nature, not the ability to secure a wealthy
husband who could procure the external trappings of prosperity.

exercise,
Nope, Paul warned against concentrating on physical strength to the
exclusion of spiritual strength. Here, with supporting scriptures, is a
fuller explanation of the Bible's view of such exertion:

Proper Use of One's Body. The Christian should appreciate the body God
has given him and should love himself to the extent of caring properly
for his body so that he may be able to present it in acceptable, sacred
service to God. (Ro 12:1) This requires the use of reason and the
maintaining of the body with food and other necessities, as well as
physical cleanliness, but other types of care are even more important.
These involve spirituality, seeking God's Kingdom and his righteousness,
and practicing moral uprightness. (Mt 6:25, 31-33; Col 2:20-23; 3:5) The
apostle counsels: "Bodily training is beneficial for a little; but godly
devotion is beneficial for all things, as it holds promise of the life
now and that which is to come."-1Ti 4:8.

charging interest,
Nope. Interest was restricted in the case of a fellow Jew who needed
money for the necessities of life. Beyond that, interest less than usury
was permitted. This reply is getting long in the tooth already. If you
want scripture citations, just say so.

cross-breeding,

As shown below, the prohibition was against interbreeding "of two
sorts". That is, no matching up a camel with a bull, a chicken with a
goose and so on. To the best of my knowledge, only horses and asses can
breed like that and produce offspring, but even then, the offspring (a
mule) is sterile.
etc.



Makes sense to me. Here's another translation and a full quote (not the
cherry picking sort):

(Leviticus 19:19) 19 "'YOU people should keep my statutes: You must not
interbreed your domestic animals of two sorts. You must not sow your
field with seeds of two sorts, and you must not put upon yourself a
garment of two sorts of thread, mixed together."

Let's see now, what sorts of thread did the Israelites have available?
Linen, wool .. cotton? (guessing here).

These all have different care requirements. Mixing them would have
resulted in a garment that couldn't have been kept clean and the hygiene
laws in Leviticus are a major part of the reason why the Israelites
prospered and became populous. Moreover such a garment, shrinking
unevenly, would be a poor design. Additionally, this can be seen as a
comparison to intermingling religions. Modern day 'interfaith' has a
LONG history of failure. It wasn't approved way back then and nothing in
the Bible has changed to show approval for it now.

The covenant of Moses was fulfilled in Jesus and, like a paid off
mortgage, set aside.

(Matthew 5:17-18) 17 "Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the
Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; 18 for truly I say to
YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest
letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any
means and not all things take place.

The Quran is not the problem. The Bible is not the problem. Ignorance is
the problem.

--
I'm not not at the above address.http://nmwoodworks.com

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000755-0, 07/09/2007
Tested on: 7/9/2007 2:48:40 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.http://www.avast.com

Bill, your biblical erudition is very impressive but I'd say that the
main consideration here is that the Bible makes MANY representations
which, although practical in BC and early AD, are totally unnecessary
or inappropriate in the 21st century. There is no longer any
significant health hazard in eating pork or shellfish. My Maytag and
Oxydol will handle ANY combination of fabrics. Most religions no
longer separate men and women, etc., etc. (Not to mention the fact
that I would actually find offendensive any religion that suggested
that God would be ****ed off if he saw me wearing my woolen overcoat
with the fake fur collar.) With all the millenia of tinkering by man,
it is difficult to know what is truly the Word of God and what is a
commercial fillip for medieval fishmongers.

FoggyTown

On Jul 13, 1:56 pm, (J T) wrote:
Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 2:35pm (EDT-3)
(Father Haskell) doth sayeth:
Don't distill it and drink it, either, although you _can_ cut it into
chunks and use it for smoking hams.

Do you suppose gopher wood got its name, because that's what they
used it for, smoking gophers?

Does a gopher have cloven feet and chew its own cud? I guess so,
then.

FoggyTown wrote:

snip

With all the millenia of tinkering by man,
it is difficult to know what is truly the Word of God and what is a
commercial fillip for medieval fishmongers.

Not difficult at all - if you think about it -without
all the spin humans add for their own benefit.

Be good to each other.

Lend a helping hand when you can.

Try to leave the place in no worse shape
than when you found it. And maybe try
and leave it a little better than you found?

Oh - and use your brain. When possible,
engage it - before opening your mouth.

charlie b

charlieb wrote:
FoggyTown wrote:

snip

With all the millenia of tinkering by man,
it is difficult to know what is truly the Word of God and what is a
commercial fillip for medieval fishmongers.

Not difficult at all - if you think about it -without
all the spin humans add for their own benefit.

Threadjack Alert


Be good to each other.


By and large, I find that most people do try to do this except in
two places: cars and airplanes. Why you get to dispense with good
manners when traveling remains a mystery to me. I travel 4 days
a week on average and I am constantly astounded by the moronic
level of personal behavior otherwise nice people manage to
permit themselves.


Lend a helping hand when you can.

Again, mostly I think people do this on the whole. What has changed
(and for the better in my view) is that most of us have lost our
patience for lending "a helping hand" when the recipient is someone
who repeatedly induces self-inflicted wounds (by means of their
bad personal choices) and expects everyone else to get them out
of their own messes. There are too many people whose problems
are not their own fault for me to pay much, if any, attention to
those who live in a sewer and then complain they smell bad.


Try to leave the place in no worse shape
than when you found it. And maybe try
and leave it a little better than you found?

It's a good idea, but the devil is in the details. In a pluralistic
society, "better" cannot be universally defined to everyone's common
satisfaction. I think the very best you can do is "Do whatever you
do in a manner so as not to cause harm to others, present or future,
unless they inflict harm upon you first." "Harm" is pretty easy to
define - it is always some expression of either fraud, force, or threat.

You can actually implement this model (though we don't - lot's of
activity that is claimed to be for "the common good" is actually
fraud, force, or, more usually, both).


Oh - and use your brain. When possible,
engage it - before opening your mouth.


Aye, and there's the rub. "Using your brain" is only useful if it's
been trained to think crisply. This is the Achilles Heel of free
societies. The more "free" we become, the more prosperous we become
with relatively less effort - a hard working neurosurgeon today
expends a whole lot fewer hours and labor than a farmer, say, a
hundred years ago. This means that a good part of society can get by,
living reasonably well, without too much effort - *especially* mental
effort. That's how you get successful "musicians" who can't read music,
"teachers" who can't spell or perform basic arithmetic, "art critics"
that don't understand art, political "leaders" entirely ignorant
of the history and principles of our legal system ... When untrained
brains are engaged you get disastrous results, and we see them every
day.

Then there are those cases of highly trained brains that "use" them in
malfeasant ways: corrupt politicians, dishonest business leaders,
oppressive union leaders, and so forth.

The Enlightenment thinkers and their heirs were quick to point out that
their ideas about political theory only worked so long as you had
a well educated and thinking population. In parallel ways, you can't
have "good" results when bad thinking dominates corners of science,
religion, culture, the arts, literature, philosophy, medicine,
and business.

For just one example of how awful things can be, read Roger Kimball's
"Rape Of The Masters" where he takes you through the modern insane
asylum that is the world of art criticism. He doesn't have to actually
write much commentary to make you want to hurl lunch all over the floor.
He just has to quote some of these "distinguished" professors and
the kind of intellectual sewage they are peddling to our young minds
for $20-$60K a year per student, no less). It's just plain horrifying:

http://tinyurl.com/28kywr


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

J T wrote:
Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 2:35pm (EDT-3)
(Father Haskell) doth sayeth:
Don't distill it and drink it, either, although you _can_ cut it into
chunks and use it for smoking hams.

Do you suppose gopher wood got its name, because that's what they
used it for, smoking gophers?



JOAT
I do things I don't know how to do, so that I might learn how to do
them.
- Picasso

Nah, smoking gophers is out. Too hard to keep them lit.
(Old joke alert!!!)
sorry about that,
jo4hn

p.s. not really...

FoggyTown wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:48 pm, BillinDetroit wrote:
Maxwell Lol wrote:
Barry Lennox writes:
The same bible says my neighbour must die as I saw him picking up
sticks on a Sunday, So that's that, we know that cannot be negotiated.
And don't forget Leviticus 19:19 - NIV --
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
There are more, like women talking in church,
The 'talking' was a calling out to their husbands (seated on opposite
sides of the room) making it difficult, if not impossible, for any to
learn what was being taught. They were instructed, if you will read that
passage all the way through, to speak with their husbands privately. So,
let me ask you this ... why were they at the meeting to start with? To
learn or to yak?

marrying a woman who is divorced,

The only place I recall that prohibition is in forbidding a man to
remarry his previous wife after she had married another man. There was a
scheme afoot where the woman would become 'the (temporary) wife' of
another man and the second man would pay money to the first man. Later,
the original husband would remarry her. Lather, rinse, repeat. In
effect, he was pimping her out. If the prohibition is mentioned
somewhere else, please provide a citation. In ALL circumstances,
remarriage is prohibited if the divorce was for any reason other than
adultery. But that limitation should not be understood as applying to
the woman only. The man is a gigged frog if he dumps his missus for
trivial reason, too.

eating shellfish,

I covered that yesterday. Read the 10th chapter of Acts. Slowly.

wearing gold jewelry,

Nope ... not forbidden. Ever. Peter warned against relying upon it as
adornment:
(1 Peter 3:1-6) 3 In like manner, YOU wives, be in subjection to YOUR
own husbands, in order that, if any are not obedient to the word, they
may be won without a word through the conduct of [their] wives,
2 because of having been eyewitnesses of YOUR chaste conduct together
with deep respect. 3 And do not let YOUR adornment be that of the
external braiding of the hair and of the putting on of gold ornaments or
the wearing of outer garments, 4 but let it be the secret person of the
heart in the incorruptible [apparel] of the quiet and mild spirit, which
is of great value in the eyes of God. 5 For so, too, formerly the holy
women who were hoping in God used to adorn themselves, subjecting
themselves to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah used to obey Abraham,
calling him "lord." And YOU have become her children, provided YOU keep
on doing good and not fearing any cause for terror.

This is a portion of a counsel regarding attitude and conduct. To quote
it out of context is to automatically twist it. The qualities to be
valued were spiritual in nature, not the ability to secure a wealthy
husband who could procure the external trappings of prosperity.

exercise,
Nope, Paul warned against concentrating on physical strength to the
exclusion of spiritual strength. Here, with supporting scriptures, is a
fuller explanation of the Bible's view of such exertion:

Proper Use of One's Body. The Christian should appreciate the body God
has given him and should love himself to the extent of caring properly
for his body so that he may be able to present it in acceptable, sacred
service to God. (Ro 12:1) This requires the use of reason and the
maintaining of the body with food and other necessities, as well as
physical cleanliness, but other types of care are even more important.
These involve spirituality, seeking God's Kingdom and his righteousness,
and practicing moral uprightness. (Mt 6:25, 31-33; Col 2:20-23; 3:5) The
apostle counsels: "Bodily training is beneficial for a little; but godly
devotion is beneficial for all things, as it holds promise of the life
now and that which is to come."-1Ti 4:8.

charging interest,
Nope. Interest was restricted in the case of a fellow Jew who needed
money for the necessities of life. Beyond that, interest less than usury
was permitted. This reply is getting long in the tooth already. If you
want scripture citations, just say so.

cross-breeding,

As shown below, the prohibition was against interbreeding "of two
sorts". That is, no matching up a camel with a bull, a chicken with a
goose and so on. To the best of my knowledge, only horses and asses can
breed like that and produce offspring, but even then, the offspring (a
mule) is sterile.
etc.



Makes sense to me. Here's another translation and a full quote (not the
cherry picking sort):

(Leviticus 19:19) 19 "'YOU people should keep my statutes: You must not
interbreed your domestic animals of two sorts. You must not sow your
field with seeds of two sorts, and you must not put upon yourself a
garment of two sorts of thread, mixed together."

Let's see now, what sorts of thread did the Israelites have available?
Linen, wool .. cotton? (guessing here).

These all have different care requirements. Mixing them would have
resulted in a garment that couldn't have been kept clean and the hygiene
laws in Leviticus are a major part of the reason why the Israelites
prospered and became populous. Moreover such a garment, shrinking
unevenly, would be a poor design. Additionally, this can be seen as a
comparison to intermingling religions. Modern day 'interfaith' has a
LONG history of failure. It wasn't approved way back then and nothing in
the Bible has changed to show approval for it now.

The covenant of Moses was fulfilled in Jesus and, like a paid off
mortgage, set aside.

(Matthew 5:17-18) 17 "Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the
Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; 18 for truly I say to
YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest
letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any
means and not all things take place.

The Quran is not the problem. The Bible is not the problem. Ignorance is
the problem.

--
I'm not not at the above address.http://nmwoodworks.com

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000755-0, 07/09/2007
Tested on: 7/9/2007 2:48:40 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.http://www.avast.com

Bill, your biblical erudition is very impressive but I'd say that the
main consideration here is that the Bible makes MANY representations
which, although practical in BC and early AD, are totally unnecessary
or inappropriate in the 21st century.


There is no longer any
significant health hazard in eating pork or shellfish.

Actually, the hazard remains. Trichomoniasis from pork still kills and
shellfish still can harbor toxins / invoke severe allergic reactions.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/cit...fishermen.html

Note the dateline on this article. Thursday, July 12, 2007.

This is the reason that most hams come to you fully cooked. However, if
you read the 10th chapter of Acts, you'll realize that there is no
longer any restriction on their consumption. The laws, after all, were
imposed to shelter natural Israel, as Gods chosen people, from harm. The
book of Acts was written after the murder of Jesus. The relationship
between Jehovah and the Jews had changed. Those laws are still available
to read ... and they will still afford the same level of protection from
a danger that still exists. But we are no longer under compulsion to
obey them. Obedience, and its rewards, are now entirely voluntary.

This from our friends at wikipedia:

"Red tide" is also commonly used on the northern east coast of the
United States, and particularly in the Gulf of Maine. This type of bloom
is caused by a species of dinoflagellate known as Karenia brevis. These
blooms of organisms cause severe disruptions in fisheries of these
waters as the toxins in these organism cause filter-feeding shellfish in
affected waters to become poisonous for human consumption due to saxitoxin.

My Maytag and
Oxydol will handle ANY combination of fabrics.

Most religions no
longer separate men and women, etc., etc.

The separation was a holdover from the way things were done in the
synagogues of the day. Issues such as this and circumcision were carried
over and had to be shed. And were. My own religion not only does not
separate the men and women, we also don't shunt the kids off. We expect
them to sit with Mom & Dad and to begin learning. And, surprise,
surprise ... that is exactly what happens when kids sit with their
parents. There is a "mothers room" in the womens restroom for
breastfeeding / diaper changing -- but we don't isolate the kids in some
sound proof nursery under a quasi-professional caretaker. Nope ... the
kids, and their behavior, are the responsibility of the parents.

(Not to mention the fact
that I would actually find offendensive any religion that suggested
that God would be ****ed off if he saw me wearing my woolen overcoat
with the fake fur collar.)

As would I ... but the warning not to mix, say cotton and wool in the
same weaving (for instance, to use one in the warp and the other in the
woof) is sound ... they shrink at different rates. Just as we account
for shrinkage differences between woods, so must they be accounted for
in weaving. It's probably also not a good idea for you to toss that wool
coat with the fake fur trim collar in the Maytag, either.

Leviticus included laws for both religious reasons (avoiding idolatry,
intermarriage with unbelievers, provisions for others to convert,
tolerance of those who did not choose to convert) and for practical
purposes ... such as disposal of manure, washing of hands and eating
utensils and so on. Following the laws in Leviticus (expanded upon in
Deuteronomy) enabled the Jews to be healthier and more prosperous than
those nations around them. (Take the manure out of the camp where it
fosters diseases, bury it in the field where it increases fertility.
Win-win.)

Short version? -- the true God was taking care of his people while the
false gods could do no such thing.

With all the millenia of tinkering by man,
it is difficult to know what is truly the Word of God and what is a
commercial fillip for medieval fishmongers.

Actually, no, it isn't all that hard. We now have access to far earlier
manuscripts than the earlier translators. That has enabled the tossing
of MANY marginal notations that had worked their way into the body of
the text. (Consider the 8th chapter of John in your own Bible)

We also have access to a lot of secular records (and the ability to read
them) that they did not and we have the findings of relatively modern
science of archeology that all come together to establish which accounts
are / are not reliable.

Moreover ... would any of these so-called objections that I have been
addressing be sufficient cause for turning ones back on God or are they,
instead, good reasons to dig deeper to KNOW what the Bible really
teaches? If I, a decidedly amateur woodworker, am addressing
misconceptions here, on Usenet, how much more insight could be gained by
an orderly study?

Bill

--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-1, 07/13/2007
Tested on: 7/14/2007 1:04:01 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

FoggyTown wrote:
On Jul 9, 3:26?am, BillinDetroit wrote:
wrote:
Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK
Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually rebut
this clown?



The best way is to demonstrate the absurdity of "literal"
interpretation of the Bible.


Good point. Context means a whole lot as does recognizing which
scriptures are literally intended (Mt 22:34-40) and which are figurative
(Re 17:9-11).

A haphazard knowledge of the scriptures will, I think, cause you to
doubt them. But, from my experience, the more you know about them, the
more likely it is you will believe them.

And no, that hooker isn't actually sitting on 7 mountains jolting along
on the back of a wild beast that is about to grow an 8th head.

Bill

--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-1, 07/13/2007
Tested on: 7/14/2007 1:15:37 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 10:11pm (EDT-3) (charlieb)
doth sayeth:
Odd that an omnipotent god would choose to communicate with only one or
two humans and instruct them to "pass it along" snip
Even when the message is short and to the point "Thou Shall Not Kill",
snip
Would be a better world if there was just god snip

You ever hear a preacher up there saying, "God told me to tell
you..."? Then you go down to the next church and hear that preacher
saying the same thing. One of a numbr of reasons organized religion is
not for me. The Woodworking Gods are about as dis-organized as I am.
Suits me.

Actually, apparently that was either translated wrong, or smeone
just arbitrarily changed it. Started uut as, "Thou shal not murder"
Same with, "Thou shal not suffer a witch to live". Should be, "Thou
shall not suffer a murder to live" ust shows it IS important to say
exactly what is meant...

There IS only one God. If you don't believe me, just ask the
Woodworking Gods.



JOAT
I do things I don't know how to do, so that I might learn how to do
them.
- Picasso

Mike M wrote:
"Father Haskell" wrote in message
On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit wrote:
Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
BillinDetroit wrote:
Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
rebut
this clown?
It's all religious bull****, the biggest scam on the planet.
Lew
You are entitled to your opinion.
It's also divisive.
Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?
The author of the religious bull****, for making more than
one flavor.
I blame Richard Catto. eg
--
"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
balls to get old!"

Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!

Goodbye, Mr. Bond!

LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a ****ing faggot you are!

Richard Catto wrote:

Mike M wrote:

"Father Haskell" wrote in message

On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit wrote:

Father Haskell wrote:

On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:

BillinDetroit wrote:
Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
rebut
this clown?
It's all religious bull****, the biggest scam on the planet.
Lew

You are entitled to your opinion.

It's also divisive.

Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?

The author of the religious bull****, for making more than
one flavor.

I blame Richard Catto. eg
--
"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
balls to get old!"


Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!

Goodbye, Mr. Bond!

LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a ****ing faggot you are!



rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.

peachy ashie passion wrote:
Richard Catto wrote:
Mike M wrote:
"Father Haskell" wrote in message
On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit wrote:
Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
BillinDetroit wrote:
Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
rebut this clown?
It's all religious bull****, the biggest scam on the planet.
Lew
You are entitled to your opinion.
It's also divisive.
Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?
The author of the religious bull****, for making more than
one flavor.
I blame Richard Catto. eg
--
"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
balls to get old!"
Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a ****ing faggot you are!
rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.

This isn't about you. It's about me and Mike. If I want to x-post it
to rec.humor, I will.

You seem to have a marked reticence to responding to me in rec.humor.

This is no doubt due to Larry not liking that.

That makes me strongly suspect that you are pwned.

"Richard Catto" wrote in message
oups.com...
peachy ashie passion wrote:
Richard Catto wrote:
Mike M wrote:
"Father Haskell" wrote in message
On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit wrote:
Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
BillinDetroit wrote:
Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
rebut this clown?
It's all religious bull****, the biggest scam on the planet.
Lew
You are entitled to your opinion.
It's also divisive.
Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?
The author of the religious bull****, for making more than
one flavor.
I blame Richard Catto. eg
--
"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
balls to get old!"
Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a ****ing faggot you are!
rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.

This isn't about you. It's about me and Mike. If I want to x-post it
to rec.humor, I will.

You seem to have a marked reticence to responding to me in rec.humor.

This is no doubt due to Larry not liking that.

That makes me strongly suspect that you are pwned.

Just like normal, you're trashing all the groups you can.

Parsons wrote:
"Richard Catto" wrote in message
peachy ashie passion wrote:
Richard Catto wrote:
Mike M wrote:
"Father Haskell" wrote in message
On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit wrote:
Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
BillinDetroit wrote:
Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
rebut this clown?
It's all religious bull****, the biggest scam on the planet.
Lew
You are entitled to your opinion.
It's also divisive.
Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?
The author of the religious bull****, for making more than
one flavor.
I blame Richard Catto. eg
--
"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
balls to get old!"
Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a ****ing faggot you are!
rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.
This isn't about you. It's about me and Mike. If I want to x-post it
to rec.humor, I will.
You seem to have a marked reticence to responding to me in rec.humor.
This is no doubt due to Larry not liking that.
That makes me strongly suspect that you are pwned.
Just like normal, you're trashing all the groups you can.

Prove it, Quasimodo.

"Richard Catto" wrote in message
ps.com...
Parsons wrote:
"Richard Catto" wrote in message
peachy ashie passion wrote:
Richard Catto wrote:
Mike M wrote:
"Father Haskell" wrote in message
On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit wrote:
Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
BillinDetroit wrote:
Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to
actually
rebut this clown?
It's all religious bull****, the biggest scam on the planet.
Lew
You are entitled to your opinion.
It's also divisive.
Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that
divisiveness?
The author of the religious bull****, for making more than
one flavor.
I blame Richard Catto. eg
--
"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
balls to get old!"
Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a ****ing faggot you are!
rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.
This isn't about you. It's about me and Mike. If I want to x-post it
to rec.humor, I will.
You seem to have a marked reticence to responding to me in rec.humor.
This is no doubt due to Larry not liking that.
That makes me strongly suspect that you are pwned.
Just like normal, you're trashing all the groups you can.

Prove it, Quasimodo.

I already did turd breath.

Subject

OH ****!

Lew

Richard Catto wrote:

peachy ashie passion wrote:

Richard Catto wrote:

Mike M wrote:

"Father Haskell" wrote in message

On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit wrote:

Father Haskell wrote:

On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:

BillinDetroit wrote:

Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
rebut this clown?

It's all religious bull****, the biggest scam on the planet.
Lew

You are entitled to your opinion.

It's also divisive.

Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?

The author of the religious bull****, for making more than
one flavor.

I blame Richard Catto. eg
--
"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
balls to get old!"

Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a ****ing faggot you are!

rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.


This isn't about you. It's about me and Mike. If I want to x-post it
to rec.humor, I will.

You seem to have a marked reticence to responding to me in rec.humor.

This is no doubt due to Larry not liking that.

That makes me strongly suspect that you are pwned.


No, I see no reason why I should read the same threads in multiple
groups. I go to rh for a certain thing, I go to alt.flame for another.
I'd prefer to keep things separate, like I don't drop a country
music song in the middle of a R&B CD when I make it.

I don't pretend I don't like your crap sometimes, but I like it
outside rh.

Parsons wrote:
"Richard Catto" wrote in message
Parsons wrote:
"Richard Catto" wrote in message
peachy ashie passion wrote:
Richard Catto wrote:
Mike M wrote:
"Father Haskell" wrote in message
On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit wrote:
Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
BillinDetroit wrote:
Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to
actually
rebut this clown?
It's all religious bull****, the biggest scam on the planet.
Lew
You are entitled to your opinion.
It's also divisive.
Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that
divisiveness?
The author of the religious bull****, for making more than
one flavor.
I blame Richard Catto. eg
--
"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
balls to get old!"
Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a ****ing faggot you are!
rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.
This isn't about you. It's about me and Mike. If I want to x-post it
to rec.humor, I will.
You seem to have a marked reticence to responding to me in rec.humor.
This is no doubt due to Larry not liking that.
That makes me strongly suspect that you are pwned.
Just like normal, you're trashing all the groups you can.
Prove it, Quasimodo.
I already did turd breath.

So far you've proven that you have a **** fetish.

What else you got, Amerikaner?