| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
19 Mar 2005 05:32:42 AM |
| Object: |
Schiavo Case and the food issue |
Since fanatic fundy theocrats insist that they care so much about Terry
Schiavo, I wanted to remind them of a few things their own bible says.
In 2nd Thessalonians 3:10 Paul charmingly tells us, "if any would not
work, neither should he eat". Since many theists assert that the
masculine pronoun [he] generically refers to both genders in such
passages, there's no reason to assume that this does not apply to Terry.
She doesn't work, so, as per the biblical standards, she doesn't eat.
It's notable as well, that since many fundy obstructionists in this case
also happen to be repugs (gee, who would have thunk it?), that these
same theocrats believe that foodstamps and AFDC are an unnecessary
entitlement that needs to be cut back or eliminated. Many repugs are
effectively saying that they don't care if healthy people starve to
death if they don't have a job or otherwise can't afford food. Yet
they're willing to go against their principles and their bible to make
an exception for Terry. So, is being given enough food to stay alive a
right or isn't it? If it truly is a right, then anyone who doesn't want
to work is entitled to be fed at government expense. If it is not a
right, then how do they decide that people like Terry are entitled to
it? I don't recall the constitution or the bill of rights listing the
"right to be fed", nor does the bible establish such a thing.
Here's another bible quote, straight from the horse's *****, aka Jesus
himself, in Mat 6:32 :
"Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall
we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?"
Jebus seems to be advising that one not even worry about where one's own
meals are going to come from, much less worrying about the meals that
have been force squirted into Terry's stomach for the last 15 years.
--
____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Case and the food issue |
19 Mar 2005 12:06:27 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:32:42 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Since fanatic fundy theocrats insist that they care so much about Terry
Schiavo, I wanted to remind them of a few things their own bible says.
In 2nd Thessalonians 3:10 Paul charmingly tells us, "if any would not
work, neither should he eat".
Now that's about as weak as you can get in a comment, quib. Hasn't it even
began to cross your mind...........oops, sorry, that one is beyond you. That
applies to those that won't out of desire, not won't because they are physically
unable to.
Good grief - you should register you mind as a deadly weapon, but empty of ammo.
It's you atheists that demand the food tube be removed. It's you liberal wackos
that demand the tube be removed. Were is NOW? Where is Ted "who was driving"
Kennedy? Where is your buddy botox? Why aren't they championing the needy?
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Case and the food issue |
19 Mar 2005 06:21:43 PM |
|
|
In article <255o31lh90dfd7g0bbb4h2v1c6hv2douh5@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:32:42 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Since fanatic fundy theocrats insist that they care so much about Terry
Schiavo, I wanted to remind them of a few things their own bible says.
In 2nd Thessalonians 3:10 Paul charmingly tells us, "if any would not
work, neither should he eat".
Now that's about as weak as you can get in a comment, quib.
Yes, I agree that Saint Paul's comment is weak, you fucking moron.
Hasn't it even
began to cross your mind...........oops, sorry, that one is beyond you.
Considering that you didn't finish your question, your statement is
meaningless, as usual.
That
applies to those that won't out of desire,
Oh, it's very "pro-life" of you to say that these people deserve to die
just for being lazy. So your great "pro-life" position only applies to
brain-dead morons, like yourself, who are in a persistent vegetative
state. If they weren't in a vegetative state then you'd have no problem
starving them to death just like Paul ordered. You are such a clueless
fucktard.
not won't because they are physically
unable to.
He didn't explicitly state that those unable to work were exempted. In
fact, he talked about not being a burden to others. By that standard,
paul may have quite readily regarded invalids as a burden as well. So
paul and your bible still condone what it being done to Terry.
Good grief - you should register you mind as a deadly weapon, but empty of ammo.
Not that you know what the ***** you're talking about, but one doesn't
even need ammo to defeat a dumbfuck like yourself.
It's you atheists that demand the food tube be removed.
Apparently you're calling Saint Paul an atheist too then, because he had
no problem starving live and healthy people if they wouldn't do what he
wanted them to.
It's you liberal wackos
that demand the tube be removed.
Saint Paul is apparently a liberal "wacko" then, because he endorsed the
same type of treatment.
Were is NOW?
They are advocating the rights of women who are still alive, as opposed
to those, like yourself and Terry, who are essentially braindead and in
a persistent vegetative state.
Where is Ted "who was driving"
Kennedy? Where is your buddy botox? Why aren't they championing the needy?
They do champion the needy, you fucking moron. Unlike the hypocritical
repug morons, Kennedy and Kerry spend their time helping people who
aren't braindead and in an irreversible vegetative state. Since many
repugs are irreversibly braindead and vegetative, I can see why you feel
slighted by the fact that other people have realistic priorities and
won't waste their time on losers like you and Terry. You prefer to
waste your time on nothing but nonsense, while not giving a ***** about
people who are actually alive.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
And the Holy Spirit's name is santa claus and he will wrap up these
"gifts" and put them under your xmas tree if you leave him milk and
cookies. You are a total retard, in servitude to the infantile
religious myth of xianity.
--
____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Case and the food issue |
20 Mar 2005 02:18:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:21:43 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In 2nd Thessalonians 3:10 Paul charmingly tells us, "if any would not
work, neither should he eat".
Now that's about as weak as you can get in a comment, quib.
Yes, I agree that Saint Paul's comment is weak, you fucking moron.
Ok, so you are beyond comprehension.
Hasn't it even
began to cross your mind...........oops, sorry, that one is beyond you.
Considering that you didn't finish your question, your statement is
meaningless, as usual.
Gotcha.
Oh, it's very "pro-life" of you to say that these people deserve to die
just for being lazy. So your great "pro-life" position only applies to
brain-dead morons, like yourself, who are in a persistent vegetative
state. If they weren't in a vegetative state then you'd have no problem
starving them to death just like Paul ordered. You are such a clueless
fucktard.
Paul ordered? Speaking of clueless.
not won't because they are physically
unable to.
He didn't explicitly state that those unable to work were exempted. In
fact, he talked about not being a burden to others. By that standard,
paul may have quite readily regarded invalids as a burden as well. So
paul and your bible still condone what it being done to Terry.
Who is this girl a burden to. Her family loves her and is fighting to keep her
alive. Where is the burden?
Now her "pull the tube and give me the money" husband is another issue.
Good grief - you should register you mind as a deadly weapon, but empty of ammo.
Not that you know what the ***** you're talking about, but one doesn't
even need ammo to defeat a dumbfuck like yourself.
Gotcha, quib.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Case and the food issue |
20 Mar 2005 04:45:41 PM |
|
|
In article <4b1r315i6v9fv4njpasjrtpnsm8485f0ig@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:21:43 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrot=
e:
=20
In 2nd Thessalonians 3:10 Paul charmingly tells us, "if any would not=
=20
work, neither should he eat".
Now that's about as weak as you can get in a comment, quib.=20
Yes, I agree that Saint Paul's comment is weak, you fucking moron.
=20
Ok, so you are beyond comprehension.
Everything is beyond your comprehension, fool.
=20
Hasn't it even
began to cross your mind...........oops, sorry, that one is beyond you=
..
=20
Considering that you didn't finish your question, your statement is=20
meaningless, as usual.
=20
Gotcha.
NOT! You made a meaningless statement, as usual. It doesn't become any=20
more meaningful because you embellish it with moronic commentary like=20
"Gotcha", when in fact you've got nothing. Most especially, you lack a=20
a functional brain in your head. =20
=20
Oh, it's very "pro-life" of you to say that these people deserve to die=
=20
just for being lazy. So your great "pro-life" position only applies to=
=20
brain-dead morons, like yourself, who are in a persistent vegetative=20
state. If they weren't in a vegetative state then you'd have no problem=
=20
starving them to death just like Paul ordered. You are such a clueless=
=20
fucktard.
=20
Paul ordered? =20
Yes, you stupid *****, as in the statement "For even when we were with=20
you, this WE **COMMANDED** YOU, that if ANY would not work, neither=20
should he eat." It was a command and the statement did not make=20
exceptions. That's why it used the word "ANY". I know that you're not=20
smart enough to figure out that a statement with the word "COMMANDED" in=20
it is a command, or that a statement with the word "ANY" in it refers to=20
ANYBODY, including those such as invalids. =20
Speaking of clueless.
You've amply demonstrated your cluelessness directly above by disputing=20
the obvious and failing bigtime. =20
not won't because they are physically
unable to.
=20
He didn't explicitly state that those unable to work were exempted. In=
=20
fact, he talked about not being a burden to others. By that standard,=
=20
paul may have quite readily regarded invalids as a burden as well. So=
=20
paul and your bible still condone what it being done to Terry. =20
=20
Who is this girl a burden to.
She is a burden not only to the medical hospice care system because she=20
can never get better, but she is also a burden to the state and federal=20
court system due to frivolous lawsuits by repugs. =20
Her family loves her
That's irrelevant to whether she is a burden. I know that in xian=20
illogic they think that sentimental nonsense will alter reality. But=20
they are wrong. =20
and is fighting to keep her
alive.
Her brain is already dead for all practical purposes, just like yours. =20
Her body is still there, but like you, it lacks the brainpower to make=20
it operate in any significant way. She is alive in approximately the=20
same way that a vegetable is alive and keeping her in this state for 15=20
years is an expensive waste of resources which could be better used upon=20
those who can actually be helped to recover. =20
Where is the burden?
As I've shown, the burden is both to the medical system and the court=20
system. There is a burden to her husband and/or other family members. =20
Regardless of their sentiments, that doesn't change the fact that she is=20
an invalid, completely incapable of caring for herself independently. =20
Therefore her care is a burden which must be met by others. She is a=20
burden to the legal system because even now, after a decade of bitter=20
legal fighting we still have obstructionist morons like yourself=20
demanding that her husband be held in permanent financial servitude to=20
care for her, even if she lives to be a hundred and ten. =20
Since you're obviously too clueless to look it up yourself. =20
bur=B7den (b=FBrdn) n.=20
1. Something that is carried.=20
2a. Something that is emotionally difficult to bear.=20
2b. A source of great worry or stress; weight: The burden of economic=20
sacrifice rests on the workers of the plant.=20
3. A responsibility or duty: The burden of organizing the campaign fell=20
to me.=20
Clearly she qualifies as a burden in on several dimensions here.
Now her "pull the tube and give me the money" husband is another issue. =
=20
People have offered him up to ten million dollars to keep her alive and=20
he has turned it down. =20
Good grief - you should register you mind as a deadly weapon, but empt=
y of ammo.
Not that you know what the ***** you're talking about, but one doesn't=20
even need ammo to defeat a dumbfuck like yourself.
=20
Gotcha, quib.
You got your ***** kicked by me and that's all you got. You've just made=20
more moronic comments on top of your already ridiculous assertions and=20
therefore dug the hole deeper for yourself. It really is too easy to=20
always kick your *****, every time you open your mouth and make feeble,=20
idiotic comments. You should really try to get an education so that you=20
don't constantly embarrass yourself by spouting all the informed=20
nonsense you always do. =20
=20
=20
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
How about a few verses later in Acts 2:44, when it says, "All the=20
believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their=20
possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. " That=20
sounds kinda like socialism, right there in your bible. Naturally, you=20
had no clue it was there because you're too stupid to read a few verses=20
down.
--=20
____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the=20
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be=20
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,=20
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to=20
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Case and the food issue |
20 Mar 2005 02:54:23 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:32:42 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Since fanatic fundy theocrats insist that they care so much about Terry
Schiavo, I wanted to remind them of a few things their own bible says.
In 2nd Thessalonians 3:10 Paul charmingly tells us, "if any would not
work, neither should he eat".
Now that's about as weak as you can get in a comment, quib. Hasn't it even
began to cross your mind...........oops, sorry, that one is beyond you. That
applies to those that won't out of desire, not won't because they are physically
unable to.
Good grief - you should register you mind as a deadly weapon, but empty of ammo.
It's you atheists that demand the food tube be removed. It's you liberal wackos
that demand the tube be removed. Were is NOW? Where is Ted "who was driving"
Kennedy? Where is your buddy botox? Why aren't they championing the needy?
We are championing the needy. We are looking for Terri's best
interests. She said that she didn't want to live as a vegetable. It is
you Christians that demand the feeding tube remain. Why do you all want
to keep Terri from God like that? She's obviously, by Chrisians'
accounts, unable to survive without the technology provided her, so why
not remove the feeding tube and let God do with her as He will? Are you
so presumptuous as to profess God's plan for Terri?
NOW is championing for Terri to end her suffering.
What does Ted Kennedy have to do with this, except that he's not
supposed to be involved in this matter any more than Jeb Bush should be.
WTF does Botox have to do with ANYTHING?
Perhaps you're letting your political opinion cloud your judgement,
duke. Step back, take a breath, and realize that Terri's husband has
sole legal guardianship over Terri. If you disagree with Terri's
husband, that's your problem, not Terri's husband's. He is the sole
person that can say what happens, not Ted Kennedy, not NOW, not "botox"
(however that has to do with it?).
If you don't like that, change the law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Case and the food issue |
20 Mar 2005 02:21:40 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:54:23 -0800, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Good grief - you should register you mind as a deadly weapon, but empty of ammo.
It's you atheists that demand the food tube be removed. It's you liberal wackos
that demand the tube be removed. Were is NOW? Where is Ted "who was driving"
Kennedy? Where is your buddy botox? Why aren't they championing the needy?
We are championing the needy. We are looking for Terri's best
interests. She said that she didn't want to live as a vegetable.
How do you know? Her parents don't know that?
NOW is championing for Terri to end her suffering.
What does Ted Kennedy have to do with this, except that he's not
supposed to be involved in this matter any more than Jeb Bush should be.
WTF does Botox have to do with ANYTHING?
Oh, he's the champion of the downtrodden, the **HELPLESS**, the **NEEDY". Don't
you get it yet? Where is Ted "who was driving?" Kennedy?
Perhaps you're letting your political opinion cloud your judgement,
duke. Step back, take a breath, and realize that Terri's husband has
sole legal guardianship over Terri. If you disagree with Terri's
husband, that's your problem, not Terri's husband's. He is the sole
person that can say what happens, not Ted Kennedy, not NOW, not "botox"
(however that has to do with it?).
If you don't like that, change the law.
The law is clear. If she had said "pull the tube", it would be a simple issue.
duke
*****
Acts 2
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit".
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Case and the food issue |
21 Mar 2005 01:14:32 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:54:23 -0800, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Good grief - you should register you mind as a deadly weapon, but empty of ammo.
It's you atheists that demand the food tube be removed. It's you liberal wackos
that demand the tube be removed. Were is NOW? Where is Ted "who was driving"
Kennedy? Where is your buddy botox? Why aren't they championing the needy?
We are championing the needy. We are looking for Terri's best
interests. She said that she didn't want to live as a vegetable.
How do you know? Her parents don't know that?
Michael knows that. She told him. He's her _LEGAL_ guardian. That's
good enough for me.
NOW is championing for Terri to end her suffering.
What does Ted Kennedy have to do with this, except that he's not
supposed to be involved in this matter any more than Jeb Bush should be.
WTF does Botox have to do with ANYTHING?
Oh, he's the champion of the downtrodden, the **HELPLESS**, the **NEEDY". Don't
you get it yet? Where is Ted "who was driving?" Kennedy?
What the heck do you mean "Who was driving?"
Perhaps you're letting your political opinion cloud your judgement,
duke. Step back, take a breath, and realize that Terri's husband has
sole legal guardianship over Terri. If you disagree with Terri's
husband, that's your problem, not Terri's husband's. He is the sole
person that can say what happens, not Ted Kennedy, not NOW, not "botox"
(however that has to do with it?).
If you don't like that, change the law.
The law is clear. If she had said "pull the tube", it would be a simple issue.
And she did. It is a simple issue, but activist politicians are getting
involved in matters that don't concer them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
