| 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 04:57:56 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jun 2006 11:51:33 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150656693.731755.280770@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.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?
You are asking the impossible. Since they are incapable of
understanding how anyone can disagree with their religious opinions
they are equally unable to understand how or why they should support
their religious position in any way.
Their position cannot go beyond "Godsaidit. I believe it. So there!"
Anything else is incomprehensible.
What passes for their brain literally cannot interpret any such
concept into any meaningful process. You may as well ask them to
explain in detail a warp drive or a transporter.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 05:50:55 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?
I'd advise against holding your breath while you wait for any of those
idiots to answer. <G>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 06:56:19 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:50:55 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in
message <n8mb92ted08qgpgl24t4lti580s9q6rgr7@4ax.com>
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?
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
I'd advise against holding your breath while you wait for any of those
idiots to answer. <G>
.
|
|
|
| User: "matureopinions" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 07:29:01 PM |
|
|
Boy Toy wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:50:55 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in
message <n8mb92ted08qgpgl24t4lti580s9q6rgr7@4ax.com>
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?
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
I'd advise against holding your breath while you wait for any of those
idiots to answer. <G>
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 08:20:03 PM |
|
|
In article <1150676941.929286.234840@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
matureopinions <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:
Boy Toy wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:50:55 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in
message <n8mb92ted08qgpgl24t4lti580s9q6rgr7@4ax.com>
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?
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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. That's the nice thing about the bible. It can be found to
say anything one wants it to say.
For example,
In the Gospel of John, the disciple John often refers to himself in the
third person and as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Presumably, Jesus
loved all of his followers. Therefore, to identify Jesus' love for John
in this special way might indicate a sexual relationship. The disciple
was "the" beloved. He was in a class by himself.
During the Last Supper before Jesus' execution, the author(s) of the
Gospel of John describes how the "beloved" disciple laid himself on
Jesus' inner tunic -- his undergarment. - John 13:25 and 21:20
Jesus and this "beloved disciple" ... eat together, side by side.
What's being portrayed here is a pederastic relationship between an
older man and a younger man.
"When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by,
whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!" - John
19:26-28
Therefore, the bible says, Jesus Was Homosexual.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gospel Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 07:37:55 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jun 2006 17:29:01 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Boy Toy wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:50:55 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in
message <n8mb92ted08qgpgl24t4lti580s9q6rgr7@4ax.com>
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?
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
---
WTFWJD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 09:52:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:37:55 GMT, Gospel Bretts
<Hallelujah@JesusName.org> in alt.abortion with message-id
<5bsb9293thdt4hiuadeao7u14co3sekmed@4ax.com> wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 17:29:01 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Boy Toy wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:50:55 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in
message <n8mb92ted08qgpgl24t4lti580s9q6rgr7@4ax.com>
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?
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brother Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 10:03:15 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:37:55 GMT, Gospel Bretts
<Hallelujah@JesusName.org> in alt.abortion with message-id
<5bsb9293thdt4hiuadeao7u14co3sekmed@4ax.com> wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 17:29:01 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Boy Toy wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:50:55 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in
message <n8mb92ted08qgpgl24t4lti580s9q6rgr7@4ax.com>
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?
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 04:16:53 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jun 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686195.392045.226720@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
You quoted from a source. Prove that source is valid and not just a
myth. If that is too complicated for you - prove your bible is valid
before you quote from it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gospel Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 04:30:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:16:53 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686195.392045.226720@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
You quoted from a source. Prove that source is valid and not just a
myth. If that is too complicated for you - prove your bible is valid
before you quote from it.
Attila, I know it's a myth. I was quoting the verse in answer to
another's question regarding the Bible's content. I don't believe in
it at all. :)
------
WTFWJD
.
|
|
|
| User: "bobandcarole" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 05:16:01 PM |
|
|
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:16:53 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686195.392045.226720@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
You quoted from a source. Prove that source is valid and not just a
myth. If that is too complicated for you - prove your bible is valid
before you quote from it.
Attila, I know it's a myth. I was quoting the verse in answer to
another's question regarding the Bible's content. I don't believe in
it at all. :)
Your response proves that you are nothing but a sacreligous troll using
the name of God to terrorize usenet
------
WTFWJD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brother Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 06:55:04 PM |
|
|
bobandcarole wrote:
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:16:53 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686195.392045.226720@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
You quoted from a source. Prove that source is valid and not just a
myth. If that is too complicated for you - prove your bible is valid
before you quote from it.
Attila, I know it's a myth. I was quoting the verse in answer to
another's question regarding the Bible's content. I don't believe in
it at all. :)
Your response proves that you are nothing but a sacreligous troll using
the name of God to terrorize usenet
LOL. Bobandcarole, how am I terrorizing anything?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "matureopinions" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 07:27:10 PM |
|
|
bobandcarole wrote:
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:16:53 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686195.392045.226720@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
You quoted from a source. Prove that source is valid and not just a
myth. If that is too complicated for you - prove your bible is valid
before you quote from it.
Attila, I know it's a myth. I was quoting the verse in answer to
another's question regarding the Bible's content. I don't believe in
it at all. :)
Your response proves that you are nothing but a sacreligous troll using
the name of God to terrorize usenet
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
------
WTFWJD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dysperdis" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
19 Jun 2006 07:37:30 PM |
|
|
"matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150763229.945541.187130@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
bobandcarole wrote:
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:16:53 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686195.392045.226720@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit
possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a
fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
You quoted from a source. Prove that source is valid and not just a
myth. If that is too complicated for you - prove your bible is valid
before you quote from it.
Attila, I know it's a myth. I was quoting the verse in answer to
another's question regarding the Bible's content. I don't believe in
it at all. :)
Your response proves that you are nothing but a sacreligous troll using
the name of God to terrorize usenet
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
The irony of bob's statement is so strong it may as well come up and kick
you in the kidneys.
------
WTFWJD
.
|
|
|
| User: "matureopinions" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
20 Jun 2006 05:42:08 PM |
|
|
Dysperdis wrote:
"matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150763229.945541.187130@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
bobandcarole wrote:
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:16:53 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686195.392045.226720@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit
possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a
fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
You quoted from a source. Prove that source is valid and not just a
myth. If that is too complicated for you - prove your bible is valid
before you quote from it.
Attila, I know it's a myth. I was quoting the verse in answer to
another's question regarding the Bible's content. I don't believe in
it at all. :)
Your response proves that you are nothing but a sacreligous troll using
the name of God to terrorize usenet
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
The irony of bob's statement is so strong it may as well come up and kick
you in the kidneys.
There are some people who simply don't deserve to be taken seriously.
"bobandcarole" is a good example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tulle" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
21 Jun 2006 12:33:22 PM |
|
|
matureopinions wrote:
Dysperdis wrote:
"matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150763229.945541.187130@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
bobandcarole wrote:
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:16:53 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686195.392045.226720@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit
possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a
fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
You quoted from a source. Prove that source is valid and not just a
myth. If that is too complicated for you - prove your bible is valid
before you quote from it.
Attila, I know it's a myth. I was quoting the verse in answer to
another's question regarding the Bible's content. I don't believe in
it at all. :)
Your response proves that you are nothing but a sacreligous troll using
the name of God to terrorize usenet
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
The irony of bob's statement is so strong it may as well come up and kick
you in the kidneys.
There are some people who simply don't deserve to be taken seriously.
"bobandcarole" is a good example.
Isn't he the comic relief? I always thought so. I always get at least a
chuckle out of his posts. Sometimes I burst out laughing.
tulle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
20 Jun 2006 03:31:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:30:14 GMT, Gospel Bretts
<Hallelujah@InJesusName.amen> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1q5e925o6jacbcncfbv8k649bov77n3ohq@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:16:53 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686195.392045.226720@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
You quoted from a source. Prove that source is valid and not just a
myth. If that is too complicated for you - prove your bible is valid
before you quote from it.
Attila, I know it's a myth. I was quoting the verse in answer to
another's question regarding the Bible's content. I don't believe in
it at all. :)
Nor do I, but since I can't prove it I will not claim it is a myth. I
simply challenge posts that quote the bible or any other such source
without any disclaimer as to validity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
20 Jun 2006 04:29:46 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:30:14 GMT, Gospel Bretts
<Hallelujah@InJesusName.amen> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1q5e925o6jacbcncfbv8k649bov77n3ohq@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:16:53 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686195.392045.226720@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
You quoted from a source. Prove that source is valid and not just a
myth. If that is too complicated for you - prove your bible is valid
before you quote from it.
Attila, I know it's a myth. I was quoting the verse in answer to
another's question regarding the Bible's content. I don't believe in
it at all. :)
Nor do I, but since I can't prove it I will not claim it is a myth. I
simply challenge posts that quote the bible or any other such source
without any disclaimer as to validity.
What exactly have you done to look into the validity of the bible? How
much work have you personally put into it? All I see you doing is
asking others to tell you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
20 Jun 2006 09:13:36 PM |
|
|
On 20 Jun 2006 14:29:46 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1150838986.608533.30590@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Nor do I, but since I can't prove it I will not claim it is a myth. I
simply challenge posts that quote the bible or any other such source
without any disclaimer as to validity.
What exactly have you done to look into the validity of the bible? How
much work have you personally put into it?
None. I am not trained to delve into antiquities.
I do find it interesting that no one has ever been able to verify any
important part of it despite a lot of trying.
All I see you doing is
asking others to tell you.
Nope. I challenge others to back up what they say.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gospel Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
20 Jun 2006 04:40:53 PM |
|
|
On 20 Jun 2006 14:29:46 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:30:14 GMT, Gospel Bretts
<Hallelujah@InJesusName.amen> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1q5e925o6jacbcncfbv8k649bov77n3ohq@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:16:53 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686195.392045.226720@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
You quoted from a source. Prove that source is valid and not just a
myth. If that is too complicated for you - prove your bible is valid
before you quote from it.
Attila, I know it's a myth. I was quoting the verse in answer to
another's question regarding the Bible's content. I don't believe in
it at all. :)
Nor do I, but since I can't prove it I will not claim it is a myth. I
simply challenge posts that quote the bible or any other such source
without any disclaimer as to validity.
What exactly have you done to look into the validity of the bible? How
much work have you personally put into it? All I see you doing is
asking others to tell you.
It could be that he doesn't feel it's worthwhile to put any "work"
into researching the validity of the bible, just as it isn't
worthwhile to put any "work" into researching the validity of the book
of mormon or of the koran or of the egyptian book of the dead or of
any other fucking book that some lying ignoramuses just pulled out of
their asses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
20 Jun 2006 04:56:04 PM |
|
|
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On 20 Jun 2006 14:29:46 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:30:14 GMT, Gospel Bretts
<Hallelujah@InJesusName.amen> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1q5e925o6jacbcncfbv8k649bov77n3ohq@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:16:53 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686195.392045.226720@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
You quoted from a source. Prove that source is valid and not just a
myth. If that is too complicated for you - prove your bible is valid
before you quote from it.
Attila, I know it's a myth. I was quoting the verse in answer to
another's question regarding the Bible's content. I don't believe in
it at all. :)
Nor do I, but since I can't prove it I will not claim it is a myth. I
simply challenge posts that quote the bible or any other such source
without any disclaimer as to validity.
What exactly have you done to look into the validity of the bible? How
much work have you personally put into it? All I see you doing is
asking others to tell you.
It could be that he doesn't feel it's worthwhile to put any "work"
into researching the validity of the bible, just as it isn't
worthwhile to put any "work" into researching the validity of the book
of mormon or of the koran or of the egyptian book of the dead or of
any other fucking book that some lying ignoramuses just pulled out of
their asses.
Just as an addendum to this, there are some religious works that are
worthwhile to research. Such as the Kama Sutra. :-) Remember, sutras
are religious works in their own right as part of the Hindu Religion.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
20 Jun 2006 05:24:11 PM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On 20 Jun 2006 14:29:46 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:30:14 GMT, Gospel Bretts
<Hallelujah@InJesusName.amen> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1q5e925o6jacbcncfbv8k649bov77n3ohq@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:16:53 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686195.392045.226720@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
You quoted from a source. Prove that source is valid and not just a
myth. If that is too complicated for you - prove your bible is valid
before you quote from it.
Attila, I know it's a myth. I was quoting the verse in answer to
another's question regarding the Bible's content. I don't believe in
it at all. :)
Nor do I, but since I can't prove it I will not claim it is a myth. I
simply challenge posts that quote the bible or any other such source
without any disclaimer as to validity.
What exactly have you done to look into the validity of the bible? How
much work have you personally put into it? All I see you doing is
asking others to tell you.
It could be that he doesn't feel it's worthwhile to put any "work"
into researching the validity of the bible, just as it isn't
worthwhile to put any "work" into researching the validity of the book
of mormon or of the koran or of the egyptian book of the dead or of
any other fucking book that some lying ignoramuses just pulled out of
their asses.
Just as an addendum to this, there are some religious works that are
worthwhile to research. Such as the Kama Sutra. :-) Remember, sutras
are religious works in their own right as part of the Hindu Religion.
Personally, I think it's worthwhile to research all types of religions.
I think it gives us a broader understanding of why we believe in God
or don't believe in God. It also gives us a broader understanding on
the ways and whys of how people think and do the things they do. I
personally don't care if a person doesn't believe in God or not, that's
their choice. Just as it is my choice that I do believe in God. We
all have our reasons, and I am not saying that some atheist don't have
good arguments. What I am saying though is it's rather pathetic for
people to badger people and asking them to prove something if they
don't think it's worthwhile. Why even bother asking if you have your
mind made up? If they don't think the bible has any validity, fine,
that's their choice.
That's why I asked, what exactly have they done to actually research
the bible. Have they studied it? If so, through what methods? There
are many ways to study the bible and there are many wrong ways as well.
To study the bible, it takes years and it takes people who are very
knowledgable on the bible, it's history, the language, and how to
translate greek and hebrew. I know that when I started biblical
studies, I was totally lost with the bible. So much of it made
absolutely no sense to me at all. Many parts still don't today.
But, with the help of some scholars in my area, I have a little bit of
a better understanding and I know why now, so many people have a
difficult time understanding the bible. The biggest reason is the
translation of greek and hebrew to modern day English. If you can't do
that, or you don't know someone who can help you...you are going to be
lost. So many words in the bible, didn't mean the same thing that the
words mean today.
For example, there is a verse from Christ...something like..those who
have seen me have seen the father.
Now, there is also another verse in the bible that says no man has ever
seen God.
The way that the verse was written, what Christ was saying and what he
meant was to take heed, to listen to what he is saying, that he is the
way to God. Not to mean that they have physically seen God. It's very
confusing.
I don't mind biblical discussions with people, but let's keep things in
perspective and show a little respect. People like Attila and Gospel
Bretts have demonstrated that they will NOT respect other peoples view
points and their intentions are soley to attack and ridicule. That's
neither productive nor a learning experience. They have already shown
they will not actually do the research, so I have automatically casted
them aside because it would be a waste of time. However, for those who
can actually show a little respect, and I am not saying we have to
agree, let's discuss some of the issues. Who said either one had to be
right???
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
20 Jun 2006 09:23:02 PM |
|
|
On 20 Jun 2006 15:24:11 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1150842251.189512.45760@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Personally, I think it's worthwhile to research all types of religions.
I think it gives us a broader understanding of why we believe in God
or don't believe in God. It also gives us a broader understanding on
the ways and whys of how people think and do the things they do. I
personally don't care if a person doesn't believe in God or not, that's
their choice. Just as it is my choice that I do believe in God. We
all have our reasons, and I am not saying that some atheist don't have
good arguments. What I am saying though is it's rather pathetic for
people to badger people and asking them to prove something if they
don't think it's worthwhile. Why even bother asking if you have your
mind made up? If they don't think the bible has any validity, fine,
that's their choice.
I ask people to support what they present as fact. If someone
presents any religious point as fact they should be able to prove it.
That's why I asked, what exactly have they done to actually research
the bible. Have they studied it?
That is not researching something. If any verification exists it must
by definition be completely separate from and independent of what is
being verified.
Would you study "Gone With The Wind" to verify whether or not it is
accurate or would you study independent history sources to apply
against the details of the book?
If so, through what methods? There
are many ways to study the bible and there are many wrong ways as well.
Trying to use your bible to prove itself is among the worst.
To study the bible, it takes years and it takes people who are very
knowledgable on the bible, it's history, the language, and how to
translate greek and hebrew. I know that when I started biblical
studies, I was totally lost with the bible. So much of it made
absolutely no sense to me at all. Many parts still don't today.
But, with the help of some scholars in my area, I have a little bit of
a better understanding and I know why now, so many people have a
difficult time understanding the bible. The biggest reason is the
translation of greek and hebrew to modern day English. If you can't do
that, or you don't know someone who can help you...you are going to be
lost. So many words in the bible, didn't mean the same thing that the
words mean today.
None of that is relevant until you are able to prove it is not simply
myth.
For example, there is a verse from Christ...something like..those who
have seen me have seen the father.
Prove any such person ever existed.
Now, there is also another verse in the bible that says no man has ever
seen God.
The way that the verse was written, what Christ was saying and what he
meant was to take heed, to listen to what he is saying, that he is the
way to God. Not to mean that they have physically seen God. It's very
confusing.
I don't mind biblical discussions with people, but let's keep things in
perspective and show a little respect. People like Attila and Gospel
Bretts have demonstrated that they will NOT respect other peoples view
points and their intentions are soley to attack and ridicule.
I will not respect anyone who presents unproven items as if they are
fact. There is no reality check involved with religion that anyone
has ever been able to prove yet people still insist on presenting
religious points as if they are fact.
That's
neither productive nor a learning experience. They have already shown
they will not actually do the research, so I have automatically casted
them aside because it would be a waste of time. However, for those who
can actually show a little respect, and I am not saying we have to
agree, let's discuss some of the issues. Who said either one had to be
right???
Do you think there is any chance of actually discussing facts?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "matureopinions" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
20 Jun 2006 06:58:31 PM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
Personally, I think it's worthwhile to research all types of religions.
I think it gives us a broader understanding of why we believe in God
or don't believe in God.
Possibly but I don't have a clue how to best help me understand the
nature of God* by studying a religion. For example, what the Bible
tells us about God has little meaning if we don't accept the Bible as
an authority in the first place and it is hard to accept the bible as
an
authority without some sort of external evidence. I have encountered
some but not sufficient to breach my natural credulity.
It also gives us a broader understanding on
the ways and whys of how people think and do the things they do. I
personally don't care if a person doesn't believe in God or not, that's
their choice. Just as it is my choice that I do believe in God. We
all have our reasons, and I am not saying that some atheist don't have
good arguments. What I am saying though is it's rather pathetic for
people to badger people and asking them to prove something if they
don't think it's worthwhile. Why even bother asking if you have your
mind made up? If they don't think the bible has any validity, fine,
that's their choice.
That's why I asked, what exactly have they done to actually research
the bible. Have they studied it? If so, through what methods?
Personally, I tried to read the Bible (King James edition) but I didn't
get very far. I don't think the old language helped but basically it
was just too boring and I couldn't appreciate the relevance of it.
[snip]
*Assuming there is such a thing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
20 Jun 2006 04:56:38 PM |
|
|
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On 20 Jun 2006 14:29:46 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:30:14 GMT, Gospel Bretts
<Hallelujah@InJesusName.amen> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1q5e925o6jacbcncfbv8k649bov77n3ohq@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:16:53 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686195.392045.226720@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
You quoted from a source. Prove that source is valid and not just a
myth. If that is too complicated for you - prove your bible is valid
before you quote from it.
Attila, I know it's a myth. I was quoting the verse in answer to
another's question regarding the Bible's content. I don't believe in
it at all. :)
Nor do I, but since I can't prove it I will not claim it is a myth. I
simply challenge posts that quote the bible or any other such source
without any disclaimer as to validity.
What exactly have you done to look into the validity of the bible? How
much work have you personally put into it? All I see you doing is
asking others to tell you.
It could be that he doesn't feel it's worthwhile to put any "work"
into researching the validity of the bible, just as it isn't
worthwhile to put any "work" into researching the validity of the book
of mormon or of the koran or of the egyptian book of the dead or of
any other fucking book that some lying ignoramuses just pulled out of
their asses.
So if it isn't worthwhile, sitting in a newsgroup and badgering people
to answer his questions is???? That makes absolutely no sense at all.
I really feel sorry for people like yourself, you are just plain out
lazy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
20 Jun 2006 05:06:55 PM |
|
|
On 20 Jun 2006 14:56:38 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On 20 Jun 2006 14:29:46 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:30:14 GMT, Gospel Bretts
<Hallelujah@InJesusName.amen> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1q5e925o6jacbcncfbv8k649bov77n3ohq@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:16:53 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686195.392045.226720@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
You quoted from a source. Prove that source is valid and not just a
myth. If that is too complicated for you - prove your bible is valid
before you quote from it.
Attila, I know it's a myth. I was quoting the verse in answer to
another's question regarding the Bible's content. I don't believe in
it at all. :)
Nor do I, but since I can't prove it I will not claim it is a myth. I
simply challenge posts that quote the bible or any other such source
without any disclaimer as to validity.
What exactly have you done to look into the validity of the bible? How
much work have you personally put into it? All I see you doing is
asking others to tell you.
It could be that he doesn't feel it's worthwhile to put any "work"
into researching the validity of the bible, just as it isn't
worthwhile to put any "work" into researching the validity of the book
of mormon or of the koran or of the egyptian book of the dead or of
any other fucking book that some lying ignoramuses just pulled out of
their asses.
So if it isn't worthwhile, sitting in a newsgroup and badgering people
to answer his questions is???? That makes absolutely no sense at all.
I really feel sorry for people like yourself, you are just plain out
lazy.
A typical response from the guard who can't be arsed to back up any
claims he makes.
---
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: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
21 Jun 2006 08:23:39 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jun 2006 14:56:38 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On 20 Jun 2006 14:29:46 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
snip
It could be that he doesn't feel it's worthwhile to put any "work"
into researching the validity of the bible, just as it isn't
worthwhile to put any "work" into researching the validity of the book
of mormon or of the koran or of the egyptian book of the dead or of
any other fucking book that some lying ignoramuses just pulled out of
their asses.
So if it isn't worthwhile, sitting in a newsgroup and badgering people
to answer his questions is????
Who is being badgered? People post to alt.atheism, one would assume,
because they want to. If they make claims, rhey can expect others to
challenge them. They are always free to stop reading alt.atheism or
to stop posting to it. I don't see where the badgering comes in.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
20 Jun 2006 05:06:11 PM |
|
|
On 20 Jun 2006 14:29:46 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:30:14 GMT, Gospel Bretts
<Hallelujah@InJesusName.amen> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1q5e925o6jacbcncfbv8k649bov77n3ohq@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:16:53 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now>
wrote:
On 18 Jun 2006 20:03:15 -0700, "Brother Bretts"
<bretts1967@hotmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1150686195.392045.226720@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
In fact, the Bible draws a clear distinction between harm to a fetus
and harm to a human being. (Exodus 21:22-23)
Where is that source proven to be valid?
I don't understand your question, sorry.
You quoted from a source. Prove that source is valid and not just a
myth. If that is too complicated for you - prove your bible is valid
before you quote from it.
Attila, I know it's a myth. I was quoting the verse in answer to
another's question regarding the Bible's content. I don't believe in
it at all. :)
Nor do I, but since I can't prove it I will not claim it is a myth. I
simply challenge posts that quote the bible or any other such source
without any disclaimer as to validity.
What exactly have you done to look into the validity of the bible? How
much work have you personally put into it? All I see you doing is
asking others to tell you.
Why do you think that Attila should do somebody else's work, bobby? If
they want to quote the bible as authority in medical matters then they
get to prove that it IS an authority.
---
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 |
18 Jun 2006 08:48:55 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jun 2006 17:29:01 -0700, "matureopinions" <prplbn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Boy Toy wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:50:55 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in
message <n8mb92ted08qgpgl24t4lti580s9q6rgr7@4ax.com>
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?
Because the bible says so! That's all you'll get, albeit possibly
wrapped in layers of obfuscatory, self-contradictory BS.
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?
Oooh! Oooooh! I know!
Nowhere, right?
I'd advise against holding your breath while you wait for any of those
idiots to answer. <G>
---
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: "Teresita" |
|
| Title: Re: God and the law |
18 Jun 2006 07:49:43 PM |
|
|
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:
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 *****.
--
Encyclopedia Teresita
http://home.comcast.net/~rubyredinger
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
