| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"matureopinions" |
| Date: |
18 Jun 2006 01:51:33 PM |
| Object: |
God and the law |
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey?
Gnet? Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
.
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 09:53:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:49:43 -0700, Teresita <teresita@mepis.org> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<mvsb92tptagbmm3souso53hlfci1aht970@4ax.com> wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 17:29:01 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I understand that the bible condemns homosexuality in more
or less the same breath as it condemns eating pork but where
does it condemn abortion?
It doesn't condemn abortion but God says go ahead and perform
infanticide:
Quote from unverified source removed.
Why is that source assumed to be valid when it is unproven?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brother Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 10:09:13 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:49:43 -0700, Teresita <teresita@mepis.org> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<mvsb92tptagbmm3souso53hlfci1aht970@4ax.com> wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 17:29:01 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I understand that the bible condemns homosexuality in more
or less the same breath as it condemns eating pork but where
does it condemn abortion?
It doesn't condemn abortion but God says go ahead and perform
infanticide:
Quote from unverified source removed.
Why is that source assumed to be valid when it is unproven?
Wtf do you mean, Attila? I'm not saying that the bible is valid, but
only answering a question about where it mentions abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 04:34:50 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jun 2006 20:09:13 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686553.767986.232780@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:49:43 -0700, Teresita <teresita@mepis.org> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<mvsb92tptagbmm3souso53hlfci1aht970@4ax.com> wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 17:29:01 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I understand that the bible condemns homosexuality in more
or less the same breath as it condemns eating pork but where
does it condemn abortion?
It doesn't condemn abortion but God says go ahead and perform
infanticide:
Quote from unverified source removed.
Why is that source assumed to be valid when it is unproven?
Wtf do you mean, Attila? I'm not saying that the bible is valid, but
only answering a question about where it mentions abortion.
Then you do not contend it says anything that is true but you are
simply saying it contains comments about certain subjects.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brother Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 06:54:11 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:09:13 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686553.767986.232780@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:49:43 -0700, Teresita <teresita@mepis.org> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<mvsb92tptagbmm3souso53hlfci1aht970@4ax.com> wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 17:29:01 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I understand that the bible condemns homosexuality in more
or less the same breath as it condemns eating pork but where
does it condemn abortion?
It doesn't condemn abortion but God says go ahead and perform
infanticide:
Quote from unverified source removed.
Why is that source assumed to be valid when it is unproven?
Wtf do you mean, Attila? I'm not saying that the bible is valid, but
only answering a question about where it mentions abortion.
Then you do not contend it says anything that is true but you are
simply saying it contains comments about certain subjects.
Yes, that's correct. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gospel Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 04:37:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:34:50 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:09:13 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686553.767986.232780@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:49:43 -0700, Teresita <teresita@mepis.org> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<mvsb92tptagbmm3souso53hlfci1aht970@4ax.com> wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 17:29:01 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I understand that the bible condemns homosexuality in more
or less the same breath as it condemns eating pork but where
does it condemn abortion?
It doesn't condemn abortion but God says go ahead and perform
infanticide:
Quote from unverified source removed.
Why is that source assumed to be valid when it is unproven?
Wtf do you mean, Attila? I'm not saying that the bible is valid, but
only answering a question about where it mentions abortion.
Then you do not contend it says anything that is true but you are
simply saying it contains comments about certain subjects.
Yeah. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :)
------
WTFWJD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Mayhar" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 08:05:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:49:43 -0700, Teresita wrote:
It doesn't condemn abortion but God says go ahead and perform
infanticide:
1Sam.15:[3] Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they
have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and *****.
It also declares open season on dukkke, Fred and the rest, apparently.
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 08:12:12 PM |
|
|
Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> writes:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:49:43 -0700, Teresita wrote:
It doesn't condemn abortion but God says go ahead and perform
infanticide:
1Sam.15:[3] Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they
have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and *****.
It also declares open season on dukkke, Fred and the rest, apparently.
Who would want to waste their ammo on Earl?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: October 2006, opponent/venue/time TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 08:49:26 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jun 2006 20:12:12 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> writes:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:49:43 -0700, Teresita wrote:
It doesn't condemn abortion but God says go ahead and perform
infanticide:
1Sam.15:[3] Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they
have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and *****.
It also declares open season on dukkke, Fred and the rest, apparently.
Who would want to waste their ammo on Earl?
People who think that shooting fish in a bucket is too suspenseful?
---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 09:41:21 PM |
|
|
Adam H <adam@mailinator.com> writes:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:12:12 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> writes:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:49:43 -0700, Teresita wrote:
It doesn't condemn abortion but God says go ahead and perform
infanticide:
1Sam.15:[3] Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they
have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and *****.
It also declares open season on dukkke, Fred and the rest, apparently.
Who would want to waste their ammo on Earl?
People who think that shooting fish in a bucket is too suspenseful?
Either that, or a frustrated sharpshooter. ;-)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: October 2006, opponent/venue/time TBA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 02:11:23 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jun 2006 11:51:33 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey?
Gnet? Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Well, osprey has this idea that refusing his religious convictions is
a violation of his 1st Amendment rights.
Don't bother asking for an explanation. He doesn't seem to have one.
---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 09:08:38 PM |
|
|
Adam H wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 11:51:33 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey?
Gnet? Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Well, osprey has this idea that refusing his religious convictions is
a violation of his 1st Amendment rights.
Don't bother asking for an explanation. He doesn't seem to have one.
Or don't bother asking Adam H. for the truth. He doesn't know how to
tell the truth.
His statement above is nothing more than a fabrication, of course this
is nothing new for Adam.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 09:43:32 PM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
Adam H wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 11:51:33 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey? Gnet?
Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Well, osprey has this idea that refusing his religious convictions is
a violation of his 1st Amendment rights.
Don't bother asking for an explanation. He doesn't seem to have one.
Or don't bother asking Adam H. for the truth. He doesn't know how to
tell the truth.
You obviously can't bother denying the statement, if nothing else.
His statement above is nothing more than a fabrication, of course this
is nothing new for Adam.
....and, as usual, you try to steer the discussion somewhere where you dictate
it. What's got you so spooked this time (aside from a couple of web pages
that evidently drive you just a little closer to crazy)?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: October 2006, opponent/venue/time TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 10:51:01 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jun 2006 21:43:32 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
Adam H wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 11:51:33 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey? Gnet?
Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Well, osprey has this idea that refusing his religious convictions is
a violation of his 1st Amendment rights.
Don't bother asking for an explanation. He doesn't seem to have one.
Or don't bother asking Adam H. for the truth. He doesn't know how to
tell the truth.
You obviously can't bother denying the statement, if nothing else.
'Cause he can't.
His statement above is nothing more than a fabrication, of course this
is nothing new for Adam.
...and, as usual, you try to steer the discussion somewhere where you dictate
it. What's got you so spooked this time (aside from a couple of web pages
that evidently drive you just a little closer to crazy)?
See my other reply. bobby hasn't yet come up with a reason how my
telling him his religious beliefs suck is a violation of his 1st
Amendment rights.
---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 04:52:19 AM |
|
|
Adam H <adam@mailinator.com> writes:
On 18 Jun 2006 21:43:32 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
Adam H wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 11:51:33 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing
legal restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey? Gnet?
Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Well, osprey has this idea that refusing his religious convictions is
a violation of his 1st Amendment rights.
Don't bother asking for an explanation. He doesn't seem to have one.
Or don't bother asking Adam H. for the truth. He doesn't know how to
tell the truth.
You obviously can't bother denying the statement, if nothing else.
'Cause he can't.
That's not stopped him from trying it, in past cases. (He's not what I'd call
a fast thinker.)
His statement above is nothing more than a fabrication, of course this
is nothing new for Adam.
...and, as usual, you try to steer the discussion somewhere where you dictate
it. What's got you so spooked this time (aside from a couple of web pages
that evidently drive you just a little closer to crazy)?
See my other reply. bobby hasn't yet come up with a reason how my
telling him his religious beliefs suck is a violation of his 1st
Amendment rights.
This is just not Bobby's year, is it? ;-)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: October 2006, opponent/venue/time TBA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 09:11:07 PM |
|
|
In article <1150682918.611168.311260@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 11:51:33 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey?
Gnet? Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Well, osprey has this idea that refusing his religious convictions is
a violation of his 1st Amendment rights.
Don't bother asking for an explanation. He doesn't seem to have one.
Or don't bother asking Adam H. for the truth. He doesn't know how to
tell the truth.
His statement above is nothing more than a fabrication, of course this
is nothing new for Adam.
Once again Osprey runs off with his tail between his legs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 03:54:24 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in news:180620061911074866%
dbarnes@aol.com:
In article <1150682918.611168.311260@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 11:51:33 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing
legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey?
Gnet? Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Well, osprey has this idea that refusing his religious convictions is
a violation of his 1st Amendment rights.
Don't bother asking for an explanation. He doesn't seem to have one.
Or don't bother asking Adam H. for the truth. He doesn't know how to
tell the truth.
His statement above is nothing more than a fabrication, of course this
is nothing new for Adam.
Once again Osprey runs off with his tail between his legs.
It's the only exercise he gets...........;)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 09:10:45 PM |
|
|
matureopinions wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey?
Gnet? Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Speaking for myself, I don't expect anyone to accept my religious
belief. You are capable of believing what ever you wish to. And no, I
don't expect my belief in God to be just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on anyones behavior.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 09:45:48 PM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
matureopinions wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey? Gnet?
Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Speaking for myself, I don't expect anyone to accept my religious
belief. You are capable of believing what ever you wish to. And no, I
don't expect my belief in God to be just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on anyones behavior.
I hope you really believe that. You just might be able to pass yourself off
as a moderate, yet. (Of course, you'd have to share some of that territory
with me, but I'm not exactly losing sleep over that possibility.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: October 2006, opponent/venue/time TBA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 10:50:17 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jun 2006 21:45:48 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
matureopinions wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey? Gnet?
Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Speaking for myself, I don't expect anyone to accept my religious
belief. You are capable of believing what ever you wish to. And no, I
don't expect my belief in God to be just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on anyones behavior.
I hope you really believe that. You just might be able to pass yourself off
as a moderate, yet. (Of course, you'd have to share some of that territory
with me, but I'm not exactly losing sleep over that possibility.)
He doesn't believe that. He tried to tell me that disagreeing with his
'religious' opinion was tantamount to a violation of the 1st Amendment
- but never explained how, of course.
---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 04:43:44 AM |
|
|
Adam H <adam@mailinator.com> writes:
On 18 Jun 2006 21:45:48 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
matureopinions wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey? Gnet?
Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Speaking for myself, I don't expect anyone to accept my religious
belief. You are capable of believing what ever you wish to. And no, I
don't expect my belief in God to be just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on anyones behavior.
I hope you really believe that. You just might be able to pass yourself off
as a moderate, yet. (Of course, you'd have to share some of that territory
with me, but I'm not exactly losing sleep over that possibility.)
He doesn't believe that. He tried to tell me that disagreeing with his
'religious' opinion was tantamount to a violation of the 1st Amendment
- but never explained how, of course.
His response to your observation pretty much confirms it's the same old
Spud...but then, I wasn't planning on taking -that- page down. ;-)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: October 2006, opponent/venue/time TBA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 11:01:50 PM |
|
|
Adam H wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 21:45:48 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
matureopinions wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey? Gnet?
Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Speaking for myself, I don't expect anyone to accept my religious
belief. You are capable of believing what ever you wish to. And no, I
don't expect my belief in God to be just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on anyones behavior.
I hope you really believe that. You just might be able to pass yourself off
as a moderate, yet. (Of course, you'd have to share some of that territory
with me, but I'm not exactly losing sleep over that possibility.)
He doesn't believe that. He tried to tell me that disagreeing with his
'religious' opinion was tantamount to a violation of the 1st Amendment
- but never explained how, of course.
That's nothing more than a lie on your part Adam. I never said that and
you know it.
If there is anything to be explained, it's why you chose to lie about
me like that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 12:15:04 AM |
|
|
In article <1150689710.038250.38910@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 21:45:48 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
matureopinions wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey? Gnet?
Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Speaking for myself, I don't expect anyone to accept my religious
belief. You are capable of believing what ever you wish to. And no, I
don't expect my belief in God to be just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on anyones behavior.
I hope you really believe that. You just might be able to pass yourself
off
as a moderate, yet. (Of course, you'd have to share some of that territory
with me, but I'm not exactly losing sleep over that possibility.)
He doesn't believe that. He tried to tell me that disagreeing with his
'religious' opinion was tantamount to a violation of the 1st Amendment
- but never explained how, of course.
That's nothing more than a lie on your part Adam. I never said that and
you know it.
If there is anything to be explained, it's why you chose to lie about
me like that.
Same old ***** with Osprey. EVERYONE lies about him, and all he is
trying to do is just tell the truth. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 01:26:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 05:15:04 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1150689710.038250.38910@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 21:45:48 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
matureopinions wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey? Gnet?
Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Speaking for myself, I don't expect anyone to accept my religious
belief. You are capable of believing what ever you wish to. And no, I
don't expect my belief in God to be just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on anyones behavior.
I hope you really believe that. You just might be able to pass yourself
off
as a moderate, yet. (Of course, you'd have to share some of that territory
with me, but I'm not exactly losing sleep over that possibility.)
He doesn't believe that. He tried to tell me that disagreeing with his
'religious' opinion was tantamount to a violation of the 1st Amendment
- but never explained how, of course.
That's nothing more than a lie on your part Adam. I never said that and
you know it.
If there is anything to be explained, it's why you chose to lie about
me like that.
Same old ***** with Osprey. EVERYONE lies about him, and all he is
trying to do is just tell the truth. :-)
Of course, when I can produce just one of several messages where he
claims I'm violating his 1st Amendment rights, it just makes him look
stupider.
Inasmuch as that's possible, anyway.
http://tinyurl.com/oubxw
---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 09:13:31 AM |
|
|
Adam H wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 05:15:04 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1150689710.038250.38910@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 21:45:48 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
matureopinions wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey? Gnet?
Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Speaking for myself, I don't expect anyone to accept my religious
belief. You are capable of believing what ever you wish to. And no, I
don't expect my belief in God to be just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on anyones behavior.
I hope you really believe that. You just might be able to pass yourself
off
as a moderate, yet. (Of course, you'd have to share some of that territory
with me, but I'm not exactly losing sleep over that possibility.)
He doesn't believe that. He tried to tell me that disagreeing with his
'religious' opinion was tantamount to a violation of the 1st Amendment
- but never explained how, of course.
That's nothing more than a lie on your part Adam. I never said that and
you know it.
If there is anything to be explained, it's why you chose to lie about
me like that.
Same old ***** with Osprey. EVERYONE lies about him, and all he is
trying to do is just tell the truth. :-)
Of course, when I can produce just one of several messages where he
claims I'm violating his 1st Amendment rights, it just makes him look
stupider.
Inasmuch as that's possible, anyway.
http://tinyurl.com/oubxw
No Adam, once again even the post you provided helps show you lied.
First I didn't say you are violating anyone's 1st amendment rights.
I said YOU WOULD WANT TO
Second, what I was saying was that you would want to control a persons
thoughts, beliefs, and opinions to match what YOU thought was right.
On that particular issue, I did say that due to my religious beliefs I
would not support that issue; however, I also did say that I would be
willing to compramise on the issue and look for alternative answers.
That wasn't good enough for you. Instead, you would wish to step on my
or anyone elses religious view point and want us to completely
disregard them and go alone with YOUR opinion.
That was when I said you would WANT to violate a persons 1st amendment,
which is freedom of religion and the freedom to choose our religion.
I never said you were violating my 1st amendment rights and I never
said that you would be violating anyones 1st amendment rights simply
based on you disagreeing with anyones beliefs.
Now, you can choose to lie some more or you could try to be honest.
Lying isn't working for you, it's only getting your fellow moron's
excited because they like to lie as well. Which you support by the
way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 10:09:46 AM |
|
|
In article <1150726411.225576.256320@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 05:15:04 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1150689710.038250.38910@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 21:45:48 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
matureopinions wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear
to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing
legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey?
Gnet?
Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Speaking for myself, I don't expect anyone to accept my religious
belief. You are capable of believing what ever you wish to. And no, I
don't expect my belief in God to be just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on anyones behavior.
I hope you really believe that. You just might be able to pass
yourself
off
as a moderate, yet. (Of course, you'd have to share some of that
territory
with me, but I'm not exactly losing sleep over that possibility.)
He doesn't believe that. He tried to tell me that disagreeing with his
'religious' opinion was tantamount to a violation of the 1st Amendment
- but never explained how, of course.
That's nothing more than a lie on your part Adam. I never said that and
you know it.
If there is anything to be explained, it's why you chose to lie about
me like that.
Same old ***** with Osprey. EVERYONE lies about him, and all he is
trying to do is just tell the truth. :-)
Of course, when I can produce just one of several messages where he
claims I'm violating his 1st Amendment rights, it just makes him look
stupider.
Inasmuch as that's possible, anyway.
http://tinyurl.com/oubxw
No Adam, once again even the post you provided helps show you lied.
First I didn't say you are violating anyone's 1st amendment rights.
I said YOU WOULD WANT TO
The kind of distinction you'd expect from someone proven wrong and
backed into a corner.
Second, what I was saying was that you would want to control a persons
thoughts, beliefs, and opinions to match what YOU thought was right.
Your "thoughts, beliefs, and opinions" are not covered by the 1st
amendment.
<SNIP>
Osprey is grasping at straws.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 09:29:22 AM |
|
|
On 19 Jun 2006 07:13:31 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 05:15:04 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1150689710.038250.38910@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 21:45:48 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
matureopinions wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey? Gnet?
Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Speaking for myself, I don't expect anyone to accept my religious
belief. You are capable of believing what ever you wish to. And no, I
don't expect my belief in God to be just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on anyones behavior.
I hope you really believe that. You just might be able to pass yourself
off
as a moderate, yet. (Of course, you'd have to share some of that territory
with me, but I'm not exactly losing sleep over that possibility.)
He doesn't believe that. He tried to tell me that disagreeing with his
'religious' opinion was tantamount to a violation of the 1st Amendment
- but never explained how, of course.
That's nothing more than a lie on your part Adam. I never said that and
you know it.
If there is anything to be explained, it's why you chose to lie about
me like that.
Same old ***** with Osprey. EVERYONE lies about him, and all he is
trying to do is just tell the truth. :-)
Of course, when I can produce just one of several messages where he
claims I'm violating his 1st Amendment rights, it just makes him look
stupider.
Inasmuch as that's possible, anyway.
http://tinyurl.com/oubxw
No Adam, once again even the post you provided helps show you lied.
First I didn't say you are violating anyone's 1st amendment rights.
I said YOU WOULD WANT TO
Let's see, that's a lie.
Second, what I was saying was that you would want to control a persons
thoughts, beliefs, and opinions to match what YOU thought was right.
And so is that.
On that particular issue, I did say that due to my religious beliefs I
would not support that issue; however, I also did say that I would be
willing to compramise on the issue and look for alternative answers.
Ah, we're back to you wanting the UNconstitutional 'separate but
equal'. Non starter.
That wasn't good enough for you. Instead, you would wish to step on my
or anyone elses religious view point and want us to completely
disregard them and go alone with YOUR opinion.
When your 'religious views' mandate denying rights then they are not
to be considered. Period.
Of course, I never said you couldn't hold them (that was another lie
by you). You just can't enforce them.
That was when I said you would WANT to violate a persons 1st amendment,
which is freedom of religion and the freedom to choose our religion.
And I told you that saying your religion is full of ***** is IN NO WAY
a violation of your 1st Amendment rights.
I never said you were violating my 1st amendment rights
You did when you contradicted my statement above.
and I never
said that you would be violating anyones 1st amendment rights simply
based on you disagreeing with anyones beliefs.
Now, you can choose to lie some more or you could try to be honest.
Lying isn't working for you, it's only getting your fellow moron's
excited because they like to lie as well. Which you support by the
way.
Let's see, sentence fragments and an inability to pluralize in any
basic fashion - and you say I'm the moron...
---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 10:16:03 AM |
|
|
Adam H wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 07:13:31 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 05:15:04 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1150689710.038250.38910@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 21:45:48 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
matureopinions wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey? Gnet?
Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Speaking for myself, I don't expect anyone to accept my religious
belief. You are capable of believing what ever you wish to. And no, I
don't expect my belief in God to be just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on anyones behavior.
I hope you really believe that. You just might be able to pass yourself
off
as a moderate, yet. (Of course, you'd have to share some of that territory
with me, but I'm not exactly losing sleep over that possibility.)
He doesn't believe that. He tried to tell me that disagreeing with his
'religious' opinion was tantamount to a violation of the 1st Amendment
- but never explained how, of course.
That's nothing more than a lie on your part Adam. I never said that and
you know it.
If there is anything to be explained, it's why you chose to lie about
me like that.
Same old ***** with Osprey. EVERYONE lies about him, and all he is
trying to do is just tell the truth. :-)
Of course, when I can produce just one of several messages where he
claims I'm violating his 1st Amendment rights, it just makes him look
stupider.
Inasmuch as that's possible, anyway.
http://tinyurl.com/oubxw
No Adam, once again even the post you provided helps show you lied.
First I didn't say you are violating anyone's 1st amendment rights.
I said YOU WOULD WANT TO
Let's see, that's a lie.
Look at the posting you used as an example Adam.
"Explain why you want to violate my first amendment rights Adam"
Read the statement carefully Adam.
"YOU WANT TO"
I never said you were or you did.
Second, what I was saying was that you would want to control a persons
thoughts, beliefs, and opinions to match what YOU thought was right.
And so is that.
On that particular issue, I did say that due to my religious beliefs I
would not support that issue; however, I also did say that I would be
willing to compramise on the issue and look for alternative answers.
Ah, we're back to you wanting the UNconstitutional 'separate but
equal'. Non starter.
That wasn't good enough for you. Instead, you would wish to step on my
or anyone elses religious view point and want us to completely
disregard them and go alone with YOUR opinion.
When your 'religious views' mandate denying rights then they are not
to be considered. Period.
I never said my religious views should mandate anything. I said why
"I" personally didn't support it. I never once said that just because
I believe that it's wrong due to my own religious values, that it
shouldn't be legal because of that.
Of course, I never said you couldn't hold them (that was another lie
by you). You just can't enforce them.
I never said they should be enforced. Learn to read Adam.
That was when I said you would WANT to violate a persons 1st amendment,
which is freedom of religion and the freedom to choose our religion.
And I told you that saying your religion is full of ***** is IN NO WAY
a violation of your 1st Amendment rights.
I never said it was.
I never said you were violating my 1st amendment rights
You did when you contradicted my statement above.
You know what Adam, when are you EVER going to be honest about
anything? I can just as easily put you on the kill file like I have
many others and be done with you. Then that would disturb you too much
like it is some others.
and I never
said that you would be violating anyones 1st amendment rights simply
based on you disagreeing with anyones beliefs.
Now, you can choose to lie some more or you could try to be honest.
Lying isn't working for you, it's only getting your fellow moron's
excited because they like to lie as well. Which you support by the
way.
Let's see, sentence fragments and an inability to pluralize in any
basic fashion - and you say I'm the moron...
I said you are the liar, and yes, you are a moron.
---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 10:18:57 AM |
|
|
On 19 Jun 2006 08:16:03 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 07:13:31 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 05:15:04 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1150689710.038250.38910@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 21:45:48 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
matureopinions wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey? Gnet?
Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Speaking for myself, I don't expect anyone to accept my religious
belief. You are capable of believing what ever you wish to. And no, I
don't expect my belief in God to be just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on anyones behavior.
I hope you really believe that. You just might be able to pass yourself
off
as a moderate, yet. (Of course, you'd have to share some of that territory
with me, but I'm not exactly losing sleep over that possibility.)
He doesn't believe that. He tried to tell me that disagreeing with his
'religious' opinion was tantamount to a violation of the 1st Amendment
- but never explained how, of course.
That's nothing more than a lie on your part Adam. I never said that and
you know it.
If there is anything to be explained, it's why you chose to lie about
me like that.
Same old ***** with Osprey. EVERYONE lies about him, and all he is
trying to do is just tell the truth. :-)
Of course, when I can produce just one of several messages where he
claims I'm violating his 1st Amendment rights, it just makes him look
stupider.
Inasmuch as that's possible, anyway.
http://tinyurl.com/oubxw
No Adam, once again even the post you provided helps show you lied.
First I didn't say you are violating anyone's 1st amendment rights.
I said YOU WOULD WANT TO
Let's see, that's a lie.
Look at the posting you used as an example Adam.
"Explain why you want to violate my first amendment rights Adam"
Read the statement carefully Adam.
"YOU WANT TO"
I never said you were or you did.
Yes, you have. Not in that post I linked to, mind you. But your
statement is a lie.
Second, what I was saying was that you would want to control a persons
thoughts, beliefs, and opinions to match what YOU thought was right.
And so is that.
On that particular issue, I did say that due to my religious beliefs I
would not support that issue; however, I also did say that I would be
willing to compramise on the issue and look for alternative answers.
Ah, we're back to you wanting the UNconstitutional 'separate but
equal'. Non starter.
That wasn't good enough for you. Instead, you would wish to step on my
or anyone elses religious view point and want us to completely
disregard them and go alone with YOUR opinion.
When your 'religious views' mandate denying rights then they are not
to be considered. Period.
I never said my religious views should mandate anything.
You wish to deny others rights based on your religious views.
I said why
"I" personally didn't support it. I never once said that just because
I believe that it's wrong due to my own religious values, that it
shouldn't be legal because of that.
Yet you think gay marriage shouldn't be legal out of religious
conviction. Another lie.
Of course, I never said you couldn't hold them (that was another lie
by you). You just can't enforce them.
I never said they should be enforced. Learn to read Adam.
You wish to deny others rights based on your religious views.
That was when I said you would WANT to violate a persons 1st amendment,
which is freedom of religion and the freedom to choose our religion.
And I told you that saying your religion is full of ***** is IN NO WAY
a violation of your 1st Amendment rights.
I never said it was.
A lie.
I never said you were violating my 1st amendment rights
You did when you contradicted my statement above.
You know what Adam, when are you EVER going to be honest about
anything? I can just as easily put you on the kill file like I have
many others and be done with you. Then that would disturb you too much
like it is some others.
*snicker* Yeah, right.
and I never
said that you would be violating anyones 1st amendment rights simply
based on you disagreeing with anyones beliefs.
Now, you can choose to lie some more or you could try to be honest.
Lying isn't working for you, it's only getting your fellow moron's
excited because they like to lie as well. Which you support by the
way.
Let's see, sentence fragments and an inability to pluralize in any
basic fashion - and you say I'm the moron...
I said you are the liar, and yes, you are a moron.
And yet I'm the one capable of using basic English, and you are not...
---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 10:22:55 AM |
|
|
Adam H wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 08:16:03 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 07:13:31 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 05:15:04 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1150689710.038250.38910@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 21:45:48 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
matureopinions wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey? Gnet?
Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Speaking for myself, I don't expect anyone to accept my religious
belief. You are capable of believing what ever you wish to. And no, I
don't expect my belief in God to be just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on anyones behavior.
I hope you really believe that. You just might be able to pass yourself
off
as a moderate, yet. (Of course, you'd have to share some of that territory
with me, but I'm not exactly losing sleep over that possibility.)
He doesn't believe that. He tried to tell me that disagreeing with his
'religious' opinion was tantamount to a violation of the 1st Amendment
- but never explained how, of course.
That's nothing more than a lie on your part Adam. I never said that and
you know it.
If there is anything to be explained, it's why you chose to lie about
me like that.
Same old ***** with Osprey. EVERYONE lies about him, and all he is
trying to do is just tell the truth. :-)
Of course, when I can produce just one of several messages where he
claims I'm violating his 1st Amendment rights, it just makes him look
stupider.
Inasmuch as that's possible, anyway.
http://tinyurl.com/oubxw
No Adam, once again even the post you provided helps show you lied.
First I didn't say you are violating anyone's 1st amendment rights.
I said YOU WOULD WANT TO
Let's see, that's a lie.
Look at the posting you used as an example Adam.
"Explain why you want to violate my first amendment rights Adam"
Read the statement carefully Adam.
"YOU WANT TO"
I never said you were or you did.
Yes, you have. Not in that post I linked to, mind you. But your
statement is a lie.
We're done Adam. Go on with your fellow moron's and claim victory. But
if you are going to continue to lie and want to push your lie, I have
better things to do. So for now, you are on kill-file and you and the
other moron's in here can posts hundreds of postings all about me. It
doesn't matter. Because nothing you say means anything and nothing any
of you say has any effect on myself or my family. You and a few others
are nothing more than just a few desperate moron's looking for
attention.
If you wish to discuss this without lying, let someone know who isn't
on my kill file to take you off and I might possibly consider it. So
for now, you get the boot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 10:31:01 AM |
|
|
On 19 Jun 2006 08:22:55 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 08:16:03 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 07:13:31 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 05:15:04 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <1150689710.038250.38910@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Adam H wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 21:45:48 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
matureopinions wrote:
I notice that there are many people on these newsgroups who appear to
support laws that have no secular justification. Since these people
expect
us to accept their religious beliefs as a just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on our behaviour perhaps they'd like to justify their
religious convictions to us. J. Young? Bitchin Bonney? Osprey? Gnet?
Robert Winn? bobandcarole? Alfred Newman? Anybody?
Speaking for myself, I don't expect anyone to accept my religious
belief. You are capable of believing what ever you wish to. And no, I
don't expect my belief in God to be just cause for imposing legal
restrictions on anyones behavior.
I hope you really believe that. You just might be able to pass yourself
off
as a moderate, yet. (Of course, you'd have to share some of that territory
with me, but I'm not exactly losing sleep over that possibility.)
He doesn't believe that. He tried to tell me that disagreeing with his
'religious' opinion was tantamount to a violation of the 1st Amendment
- but never explained how, of course.
That's nothing more than a lie on your part Adam. I never said that and
you know it.
If there is anything to be explained, it's why you chose to lie about
me like that.
Same old ***** with Osprey. EVERYONE lies about him, and all he is
trying to do is just tell the truth. :-)
Of course, when I can produce just one of several messages where he
claims I'm violating his 1st Amendment rights, it just makes him look
stupider.
Inasmuch as that's possible, anyway.
http://tinyurl.com/oubxw
No Adam, once again even the post you provided helps show you lied.
First I didn't say you are violating anyone's 1st amendment rights.
I said YOU WOULD WANT TO
Let's see, that's a lie.
Look at the posting you used as an example Adam.
"Explain why you want to violate my first amendment rights Adam"
Read the statement carefully Adam.
"YOU WANT TO"
I never said you were or you did.
Yes, you have. Not in that post I linked to, mind you. But your
statement is a lie.
We're done Adam. Go on with your fellow moron's and claim victory. But
if you are going to continue to lie and want to push your lie, I have
better things to do. So for now, you are on kill-file and you and the
other moron's in here can posts hundreds of postings all about me. It
doesn't matter. Because nothing you say means anything and nothing any
of you say has any effect on myself or my family. You and a few others
are nothing more than just a few desperate moron's looking for
attention.
If you wish to discuss this without lying, let someone know who isn't
on my kill file to take you off and I might possibly consider it. So
for now, you get the boot.
I see that when bobby can't back up his claims, he runs like a
chicken.
As usual. Guess I really got to him that time. One might think that he
would have learned not to make dumb-***** claims by now.
---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Aborted Babies Are Already Praising And Serving God. If You're The Parent Of One Or More, Join Them!
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no one can come to the Father(God)(in Heaven), but by me." (John 14:6) This means that if you die without trusting in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour you will die in your sins and be forever se
Happy 4th of July, GOD BLESS AMERICA and BUSH
All Females Are Superiour To All Males Of The Same Species And They Will Always Be Superiour, GOd
GOD BLESSES AND SANCTIONS ALL ABORTIONS, KILL ALL YOU WANT, WE'LL MAKE MORE
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no one can come to the Father(God)(in Heaven), but by me." (John 14:6) This means that if you die without trusting in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour you will die in your sins and be forever se
God and Katrina
Guide to God, part 18/41: Multiplication And Overpopulation
| I Am GOD and I Claim This Planet As My Own - You Are All Trespassing.
Re: Why do inbred freaks get to decide who the "terrorists" are and who are "God's chosen ones?" BUNK THAT ! LET ME DECIDE !!!
I Am GOD and I Claim This Planet As My Own - You Are All Trespassing.
Army Of God: Time To Kill Birth Control Suppliers and Adulterers
Guide to God, part 16/41: Male And Female
Re: FOCUS: "WE DON'T DO GOD, WE DO PALESTINE AND IRAQ"
Re: For those of you who have deluded yourselves into thinking that the story of Sodom isn't really talking about homosexuals, read the following: the people of Sodom and Gomorrah had completely turned away from God, and whenever that happens, homose
|
|
|
