| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Slave to fashion" |
| Date: |
14 Dec 2003 11:21:55 AM |
| Object: |
Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:27:11 GMT, "Douglas D. Anderson"
<dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
<jj%Cb.12614$Ug6.12470@twister.nyroc.rr.com>:
"USA repossessed" <adolf@funnny-loving-gays.com> wrote
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:00:43 -0800, Larry Krzewinski
<Feerless_Freep@madmagazine.com> wrote in message
<6o3itvs6ivf06660v78fdf4k1f3vg31tcs@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:47:34 GMT, ElCaro <elcaro@home.com> wrote:
Gee, maybe you could tell us who claimed they had them
to store. The charge was they were working on them and
even that was not definitive so gee, maybe you could supply
the quote where anyone in the administration said otherwise
I seem to recall either Rumsfeld or Cheney stating that Iraq had them
and we knew exactly where they were before we invaded. Them
disappearing like that is a trick that would even make David
Copperfield proud.
So what you're saying is that we now need evidence of WMD's before we can go
in and do something about Insane Butchering Tyrant's.
Ever thought of a job at the UN? , most of e'm have the same outdated liberal
Idea's that you have.
Whether you like it or not the World changed on 9/11 , get
used to it.
Yeah, innocent until proven guilty still sounds pretty good to me. We
used to have a thing called the Constitution here in the US until the
administration supported Patriot Act came into existence and we also
used to abide by the Geneva Convention. I guess that has all changed
since 9/11 too. Those sure were the good ol' days.
I've got to wonder just how many people in the world consider George
W. Bush an "Insane Butchering Tyrant?"
The Republicans are destroying your country.
The Republicans in effect, created the country; the Democrats were
basically the Southern aristocratic slave owners who believed "Liberty"
meant they could do whatever the hell they wanted, including own
slaves. After the Republican Lincoln used armed force to pull them
back into the Union, the Democrats gave up the "slavery" thing to run
the labor unions, and their leaders continue to believe they can do
whatever the hell they want...
i don't think i will ever understand why the North decided to force the
South into giving up slavery before it was good and ready.
I also do not understand people who have an intellectual conception of life
that includes morality as part of that world view.
The ladies and gentleman of that era (1860s) had a very different outlook to
mine today. For starters they believed some weird version of religion that
dictated to them that God was on their side and had entrusted them with His
vision, truth and wisdom about what was right and what was wrong.
The Truth is that God is on nobody's side. He stands detached from us all.
He views us dispassionately. He answers no prayers. He hands no one Truth.
Truth is what we must discover for ourselves through experience.
Religious fueled arrogance is still a huge problem for this world.
Fact of the matter is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with having
slaves. There's pros and cons.
The biggest problem of this world, as I see it, is society's unbelievable
involvement in each others' affairs and its insistence that everybody
conform to "socially acceptable norms" which of course vary constantly over
the ages.
Essentially I am most definitely one of those people who want to do
"whatever the hell I want" in the privacy of my own space. And I see that as
essential to experiencing liberty.
--
Adolf Hitler
Der Fuhrer
*******************************
Read the Official ATJ FAQ at the resource site for ATJ:
http://www.atjfaq.com
*******************************
.
|
|
| User: "Relz" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
15 Dec 2003 10:34:36 AM |
|
|
"Slave to fashion" <pink.gay.handbags@loving-gays-need-perverted-sex.com>
wrote in message news:mc5ptvof2b8iefsmoq9sfjv5etlkie335v@4ax.com...
i don't think i will ever understand why the North decided to force the
South into giving up slavery before it was good and ready.
Abe Lincoln was a Christian therefore seeing slavery as a bad thing.
I also do not understand people who have an intellectual conception of
life
that includes morality as part of that world view.
You must believe in the Theory of Evolution. If that theory was true, then
morality would have nothing to do with life. For us that are Christians, we
believe that life was created by God and with that life came his rules and
regulations, i.e. morality.
The ladies and gentleman of that era (1860s) had a very different outlook
to
mine today. For starters they believed some weird version of religion that
dictated to them that God was on their side and had entrusted them with
His
vision, truth and wisdom about what was right and what was wrong.
"His vision, truth and wisdom about what was right and what was wrong" is
all contained in the Bible.
The Truth is that God is on nobody's side.
God wants everyone to come to him.
He stands detached from us all.
Jesus bridged the gap for us.
He views us dispassionately.
He loves us.
He answers no prayers.
"You do not receive because you do not ask"
He hands no one Truth.
He gave us Jesus.
Truth is what we must discover for ourselves through experience.
Jesus is the Truth...
Essentially I am most definitely one of those people who want to do
"whatever the hell I want" in the privacy of my own space. And I see that
as
essential to experiencing liberty.
God believes that you should be able to do what you want too. It's called
Free Will. He's not going to force you to accept Him. He'll let you
choose.
--
Adolf Hitler
Der Fuhrer
*******************************
Read the Official ATJ FAQ at the resource site for ATJ:
http://www.atjfaq.com
*******************************
What's up with the Adolf thing? And why do you keep changing your "From"
name?
Relz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
15 Dec 2003 11:39:57 AM |
|
|
"Relz" <skippy@hotmail.com> wrote:
You must believe in the Theory of Evolution. If that theory
was true,
then morality would have nothing to do with life.
On the contrary, we are what we are precisely *because* morality
is part of our evolutionary heritage. That's blindingly
obvious - Our technologically advanced and comfortable society
could not have developed if humans hadn't evolved to be moral
creatures.
For us that are Christians, we believe that life was created by
God
and with that life came his rules and regulations, i.e.
morality.
Whereas in fact, both gods and morality come from us.
"His vision, truth and wisdom about what was right and what
was wrong" is all contained in the Bible.
Which was presumably written by the same people who invented your
particular god.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Relz" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
15 Dec 2003 12:10:41 PM |
|
|
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:brkrgo$4eid4$1@ID-165613.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Relz" <skippy@hotmail.com> wrote:
You must believe in the Theory of Evolution. If that theory
was true,
then morality would have nothing to do with life.
On the contrary, we are what we are precisely *because* morality
is part of our evolutionary heritage. That's blindingly
obvious - Our technologically advanced and comfortable society
could not have developed if humans hadn't evolved to be moral
creatures.
For us that are Christians, we believe that life was created by
God
and with that life came his rules and regulations, i.e.
morality.
Whereas in fact, both gods and morality come from us.
Humans aren't moral creatures. Let's observe a child for a moment.
Innocent, yes, but doesn't have to be taught to behave badly. They must be
taught right because it doesn't come naturally, or evolutionary as you would
put it.
"His vision, truth and wisdom about what was right and what
was wrong" is all contained in the Bible.
Which was presumably written by the same people who invented your
particular god.
Christians believe the writings are by God through man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
15 Dec 2003 12:52:02 PM |
|
|
"Relz" <skippy@hotmail.com> wrote:
Humans aren't moral creatures. Let's observe a
child for a moment. Innocent, yes, but doesn't have
to be taught to behave badly.
Children don't *need* to be moral, to start with. They just need to
live. There's no evolutionary advantage to a baby in being generous
and saying "here, you have this food, I'll go hungry and die". Babies
and young children are selfish and inconsiderate because that's how
they survive. However, we *do* need morality as we grow up if we're
to co-exist with other individuals in the kind of complex,
co-operative society which has made us such a phenomenally successful
species. Both observations are entirely consistent with the
evolutionary origins of us and of our morality.
Christians believe the writings are by God through man.
I know, but they're obviously wrong. Gods are made by humans, not the
other way round.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Relz" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
15 Dec 2003 01:29:18 PM |
|
|
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:brkvv9$4gn54$1@ID-165613.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Relz" <skippy@hotmail.com> wrote:
Humans aren't moral creatures. Let's observe a
child for a moment. Innocent, yes, but doesn't have
to be taught to behave badly.
Children don't *need* to be moral, to start with. They just need to
live. There's no evolutionary advantage to a baby in being generous
and saying "here, you have this food, I'll go hungry and die". Babies
and young children are selfish and inconsiderate because that's how
they survive.
They survive because their parents care for them. Otherwise they would just
die, generous or not.
However, we *do* need morality as we grow up if we're
to co-exist with other individuals in the kind of complex,
co-operative society which has made us such a phenomenally successful
species. Both observations are entirely consistent with the
evolutionary origins of us and of our morality.
Without morals, humans would just be intelligent animals that take what they
want, when they want it and just avoid others that may try to hinder them.
There would be no government to set up laws because government was invoked
to help people. Immoral people wouldn't care about helping anyone else.
Morals are empty without God because God demands an accounting of our
actions. You don't need morals to survive.
Christians believe the writings are by God through man.
I know, but they're obviously wrong. Gods are made by humans, not the
other way round.
The Bible is authenticated by its prophecy. If you were to study the
prophecies of the Bible you would find that the ones that have been
fulfilled are completely accurate. Humans can't prophesy without spiritual
influence. These Biblical prophecies are confirmed outside of the Bible
which means that it doesn't authenticate itself; it is authenticated by
Secular sources. Once you believe the Bible is authentic, you can get into
the rest of it, which covers morality.
Grace be to you, Icarus
Relz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tommy" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
15 Dec 2003 02:09:58 PM |
|
|
"Relz" <.
Without morals, humans would just be intelligent animals that take what
they
want, when they want it and just avoid others that may try to hinder them.
There would be no government to set up laws because government was invoked
to help people. Immoral people wouldn't care about helping anyone else.
Morals are empty without God because God demands an accounting of our
actions. You don't need morals to survive.
Sounds like Amerika :-))
Cheers
Tommy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pamela Anderson, Sunday School teacher - true story" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
17 Dec 2003 08:29:54 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:45:48 GMT, "Craig S."
<cspurlocktakethisout@takethisoutmtneer.net> wrote in message
<wQqDb.6576$mC1.2627@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
"Relz" <skippy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
The Bible is authenticated by its prophecy. If you were to study the
prophecies of the Bible you would find that the ones that have been
fulfilled are completely accurate. Humans can't prophesy without
spiritual
influence. These Biblical prophecies are confirmed outside of the Bible
which means that it doesn't authenticate itself; it is authenticated by
Secular sources. Once you believe the Bible is authentic, you can get
into
the rest of it, which covers morality.
This may not be tasteless, but it's pretty damn funny.
just pretend yer 10 years old and Relz is yer Sunday School teacher.
the only thing that interested me was peeking down my Sunday School
teacher's blouse.
Unfortunately I wasn't lucky enough to have Pamela Anderson as my teacher.
--
Adderleystreet.co.za - first class web hosting
www.adderleystreet.co.za
Sign up online today!
(021) 683-6219
084-778-9160 - not currently working
083-471-4795 - please use this cell instead
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
15 Dec 2003 02:54:05 PM |
|
|
Relz wrote:
Humans aren't moral creatures. Let's observe a
child for a moment. Innocent, yes, but doesn't have
to be taught to behave badly.
Children don't *need* to be moral, to start with. They just
need to live. There's no evolutionary advantage to a baby in
being generous and saying "here, you have this food, I'll go
hungry and die". Babies and young children are selfish and
inconsiderate because that's how they survive.
They survive because their parents care for them. Otherwise
they would just die, generous or not.
Exactly; they don't need to be moral, so you have just demonstrated
why your argument in the first paragraph doesn't work. Young children
aren't moral, because they don't need to be. Thank you.
However, we *do* need morality as we grow up if we're
to co-exist with other individuals in the kind of complex,
co-operative society which has made us such a phenomenally
successful species. Both observations are entirely
consistent with the evolutionary origins of us and of our
morality.
Without morals, humans would just be intelligent animals that
take what they want, when they want it and just avoid others
that may try to hinder them. There would be no government to
set up laws because government was invoked to help people.
Immoral people wouldn't care about helping anyone else.
Once again, you have proved my point. Without this sense of morality
that has been bestowed upon us by evolution, the society we live in
could not exist.
Morals are empty without God because God demands
an accounting of our actions.
There are no such things as gods, and there is no 'accounting' in the
sense that you mean.
You don't need morals to survive.
Indeed not, but we do need morals to live in the kind of society that
we currently enjoy.
Christians believe the writings are by God through man.
I know, but they're obviously wrong. Gods are made by
humans, not the other way round.
The Bible is authenticated by its prophecy. If you were to
study the prophecies of the Bible you would find that the ones
that have been fulfilled are completely accurate. Humans
can't prophesy without spiritual influence. These Biblical
prophecies are confirmed outside of the Bible which means that
it doesn't authenticate itself; it is authenticated by Secular
sources. Once you believe the Bible is authentic, you can get
into the rest of it, which covers morality.
Nothing in the Bible makes any verifiable predictions about the
future. It's purely the work of human imagination, just like every
other religion ever invented.
All the best...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Relz" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
15 Dec 2003 03:52:45 PM |
|
|
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:brl75b$4meau$1@ID-165613.news.uni-berlin.de...
Relz wrote:
Humans aren't moral creatures. Let's observe a
child for a moment. Innocent, yes, but doesn't have
to be taught to behave badly.
Children don't *need* to be moral, to start with. They just
need to live. There's no evolutionary advantage to a baby in
being generous and saying "here, you have this food, I'll go
hungry and die". Babies and young children are selfish and
inconsiderate because that's how they survive.
They survive because their parents care for them. Otherwise
they would just die, generous or not.
Exactly; they don't need to be moral, so you have just demonstrated
why your argument in the first paragraph doesn't work. Young children
aren't moral, because they don't need to be. Thank you.
My point is that we don't inherit morals. Evolution indicates that we
inherit through our genes everything we need to make it through life.
Now, we both agree that children aren't moral and that they're not born with
morals. We both agree that morals are necessary in society. Where we
differ is where the morals come from. I believe morals are from God because
it doesn't seem logical to me that evolution would have anything to do with
it. You're saying we're moral because of evolutionary necessity. If you
travel back down the evolutionary chain towards where monkeys developed into
man, I ask myself why monkeys didn't need morals to survive. I believe God
gave us morals to peacefully live our lives. If everyone followed the 11
Commandments we'd all be just fine.
However, we *do* need morality as we grow up if we're
to co-exist with other individuals in the kind of complex,
co-operative society which has made us such a phenomenally
successful species. Both observations are entirely
consistent with the evolutionary origins of us and of our
morality.
Without morals, humans would just be intelligent animals that
take what they want, when they want it and just avoid others
that may try to hinder them. There would be no government to
set up laws because government was invoked to help people.
Immoral people wouldn't care about helping anyone else.
Once again, you have proved my point. Without this sense of morality
that has been bestowed upon us by evolution, the society we live in
could not exist.
Morals are empty without God because God demands
an accounting of our actions.
There are no such things as gods, and there is no 'accounting' in the
sense that you mean.
You don't need morals to survive.
Indeed not, but we do need morals to live in the kind of society that
we currently enjoy.
Christians believe the writings are by God through man.
I know, but they're obviously wrong. Gods are made by
humans, not the other way round.
The Bible is authenticated by its prophecy. If you were to
study the prophecies of the Bible you would find that the ones
that have been fulfilled are completely accurate. Humans
can't prophesy without spiritual influence. These Biblical
prophecies are confirmed outside of the Bible which means that
it doesn't authenticate itself; it is authenticated by Secular
sources. Once you believe the Bible is authentic, you can get
into the rest of it, which covers morality.
Nothing in the Bible makes any verifiable predictions about the
future. It's purely the work of human imagination, just like every
other religion ever invented.
All the best...
If you give me some time, I can give you examples of prophecies that have
been fulfilled from the Bible, thus authenticating it. One that comes to
mind is that the Jews were to get their land back after they had been
scattered abroad. There are many examples of peoples that were scattered
and never became a nation again. However, Israel became a nation again in
1948. There are other prophecies related to this because after Israel
becomes a nation the Bible says the generation that sees this happen will
not pass before the Second Coming of Christ. I was told the Bible defines a
generation as 70 or so years. If we are interpreting those prophecies
correctly, then by 2018ish we should see the Anti-Christ, the False Prophet,
and the start of the War at Armegeddon, which brings about the Second Coming
of Christ.
I know you think these are just stories and Christians are fools. Hey,
that's what free will is all about. Unless you're old, I'm willing to bet
you will be alive in 2018. Since you've read this, when it starts to
happen, you'll recognize it and then maybe you'll change your mind.
Remember this: man was created by God to give Him glory. The only question
is, where will you be doing it from? There are only two choices.
Relz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Evil Ortho" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
16 Dec 2003 03:01:15 AM |
|
|
Now, we both agree that children aren't moral and that they're not born with
morals. We both agree that morals are necessary in society. Where we
differ is where the morals come from. I believe morals are from God because
it doesn't seem logical to me that evolution would have anything to do with
it. You're saying we're moral because of evolutionary necessity. If you
travel back down the evolutionary chain towards where monkeys developed into
man, I ask myself why monkeys didn't need morals to survive. I believe God
gave us morals to peacefully live our lives. If everyone followed the 11
Commandments we'd all be just fine.
You argue as if "morals" were an ironclad thing, and they're not.
They're an abstraction. Just because someone says they're moral
doesn't necessarily mean they are. They might think they are, and be
totally, hypocritically wrong. I've seen that a lot, from Christians
and non-Christians alike.
There actually is a way to measure morals - well, ethics, rather
(ethics is morals without the god thrown in). It's called the logical
system. Study philosophy and ethical inquiry. It's an entire school of
thought based on mathematics.
You say evolution doesn't allow for morality. I say the law of the
universe is mathematical. Logic - the only serious attempt to actually
measure the abstraction of ethical thinking - is rooted in
mathematics, so it IS part of the universe, and therefore evolution,
after all.
Now, if you want to say that god is somehow behind all this
mathematical business, fine. But don't say the Bible is a serious
attempt to measure ethics. It isn't. It's a work of subconscious
symbolism, along the lines of folktales. At no point does the Bible
give us any real working theory on how to measure morality. It just
says: "don't do this or that" without qualifying conditions, attention
paid to degree, or even definitive statements as to what certain
things are (i.e., "murder." The Ten Commandments say: "Thou Shalt Not
Murder," as opposed to kill. What's the distinction? There are
characters in the Bible - good, saintly folk, killing all the time.
Aren't they breaking the rules?).
You get twenty Catholics (or Lutherans, or Methodists, or Mormons,
etc) in a room and have them just physically describe Jesus -what his
voice sounds like, the color of his hair and eyes, his shoe size, his
height and weight - and you'll get twenty different descriptions. Then
you ask them to describe what Jesus would do in a given moral dilemma.
Again, 20 different answers. So my question is, are they even
worshipping the same Christ? Is all that matters the fact that they
call these 20 vastly different men Jesus?
The scientific method and logical system were created to devise some
means to consistently measure abstractions and test theories. Any
discussion of morality or ethics that doesn't include them is nothing
but a lot of pixie dust.
http://www.fallingskyhazard.com/catalog.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Evil Ortho" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
16 Dec 2003 03:01:21 AM |
|
|
Now, we both agree that children aren't moral and that they're not born with
morals. We both agree that morals are necessary in society. Where we
differ is where the morals come from. I believe morals are from God because
it doesn't seem logical to me that evolution would have anything to do with
it. You're saying we're moral because of evolutionary necessity. If you
travel back down the evolutionary chain towards where monkeys developed into
man, I ask myself why monkeys didn't need morals to survive. I believe God
gave us morals to peacefully live our lives. If everyone followed the 11
Commandments we'd all be just fine.
You argue as if "morals" were an ironclad thing, and they're not.
They're an abstraction. Just because someone says they're moral
doesn't necessarily mean they are. They might think they are, and be
totally, hypocritically wrong. I've seen that a lot, from Christians
and non-Christians alike.
There actually is a way to measure morals - well, ethics, rather
(ethics is morals without the god thrown in). It's called the logical
system. Study philosophy and ethical inquiry. It's an entire school of
thought based on mathematics.
You say evolution doesn't allow for morality. I say the law of the
universe is mathematical. Logic - the only serious attempt to actually
measure the abstraction of ethical thinking - is rooted in
mathematics, so it IS part of the universe, and therefore evolution,
after all.
Now, if you want to say that god is somehow behind all this
mathematical business, fine. But don't say the Bible is a serious
attempt to measure ethics. It isn't. It's a work of subconscious
symbolism, along the lines of folktales. At no point does the Bible
give us any real working theory on how to measure morality. It just
says: "don't do this or that" without qualifying conditions, attention
paid to degree, or even definitive statements as to what certain
things are (i.e., "murder." The Ten Commandments say: "Thou Shalt Not
Murder," as opposed to kill. What's the distinction? There are
characters in the Bible - good, saintly folk, killing all the time.
Aren't they breaking the rules?).
You get twenty Catholics (or Lutherans, or Methodists, or Mormons,
etc) in a room and have them just physically describe Jesus -what his
voice sounds like, the color of his hair and eyes, his shoe size, his
height and weight - and you'll get twenty different descriptions. Then
you ask them to describe what Jesus would do in a given moral dilemma.
Again, 20 different answers. So my question is, are they even
worshipping the same Christ? Is all that matters the fact that they
call these 20 vastly different men Jesus?
The scientific method and logical system were created to devise some
means to consistently measure abstractions and test theories. Any
discussion of morality or ethics that doesn't include them is nothing
but a lot of pixie dust.
http://www.fallingskyhazard.com/catalog.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
16 Dec 2003 06:58:59 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:52:45 +0000, Relz wrote:
<snip>
not pass before the Second Coming of Christ. I was told the Bible defines
a generation as 70 or so years. If we are interpreting those prophecies
correctly, then by 2018ish we should see the Anti-Christ, the False
Prophet, and the start of the War at Armegeddon, which brings about the
Second Coming of Christ.
I have to admire the courage of someone willing to make an
"end-of-the-world prophesy", in light of the fact that thousands of
Christian scholars, beginning with Jesus himself, have made such
predictions, only to turn out wrong. Given that *eventually* one of them
will turn out to be correct, I guess it doesn't hurt to keep trying. Do
you buy lottery tickets, by any chance?
I know you think these are just stories and Christians are fools. Hey,
that's what free will is all about. Unless you're old, I'm willing to bet
you will be alive in 2018. Since you've read this, when it starts to
happen, you'll recognize it and then maybe you'll change your mind.
Remember this: man was created by God to give Him glory. The only
question is, where will you be doing it from? There are only two choices.
Relz
I also have to admire anyone who can keep a straight face while
fabricating an "omnipotent god" endowed with very human weaknesses, like
the need for praise.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerking off to Jesus" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
17 Dec 2003 08:29:43 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:58:59 GMT, "MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
message <pan.2003.12.16.12.58.00.592456@stopspam.net>:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:52:45 +0000, Relz wrote:
not pass before the Second Coming of Christ. I was told the Bible defines
a generation as 70 or so years. If we are interpreting those prophecies
correctly, then by 2018ish we should see the Anti-Christ, the False
Prophet, and the start of the War at Armegeddon, which brings about the
Second Coming of Christ.
I have to admire the courage of someone willing to make an
"end-of-the-world prophesy", in light of the fact that thousands of
Christian scholars, beginning with Jesus himself, have made such
predictions, only to turn out wrong. Given that *eventually* one of them
will turn out to be correct,
that is some assumption you have. how do you know that Jesus will ever
Return for certain?
I feel more confident betting he will never return at all. ever.
I guess it doesn't hurt to keep trying. Do
you buy lottery tickets, by any chance?
i believe i have a better chance winning the lottery if i played it everyday
for a millenium, than of Christ coming back during those 1000 years.
--
Adderleystreet.co.za - first class web hosting
www.adderleystreet.co.za
Sign up online today!
(021) 683-6219
084-778-9160 - not currently working
083-471-4795 - please use this cell instead
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
18 Dec 2003 11:00:35 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:29:43 +0200, Jerking off to Jesus wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:58:59 GMT, "MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
message <pan.2003.12.16.12.58.00.592456@stopspam.net>:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:52:45 +0000, Relz wrote:
not pass before the Second Coming of Christ. I was told the Bible
defines a generation as 70 or so years. If we are interpreting those
prophecies correctly, then by 2018ish we should see the Anti-Christ, the
False Prophet, and the start of the War at Armegeddon, which brings
about the Second Coming of Christ.
I have to admire the courage of someone willing to make an
"end-of-the-world prophesy", in light of the fact that thousands of
Christian scholars, beginning with Jesus himself, have made such
predictions, only to turn out wrong. Given that *eventually* one of them
will turn out to be correct,
that is some assumption you have. how do you know that Jesus will ever
Return for certain?
I feel more confident betting he will never return at all. ever.
I am confident that some day the world will end, NOT that Jesus will have
anything to do with it.
I guess it doesn't hurt to keep trying. Do you buy lottery tickets, by
any chance?
i believe i have a better chance winning the lottery if i played it
everyday for a millenium, than of Christ coming back during those 1000
years.
Agreed.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "It is all meaningless" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
18 Dec 2003 06:41:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:00:35 GMT, "MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
message <pan.2003.12.18.16.59.35.92705@stopspam.net>:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:29:43 +0200, Jerking off to Jesus wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:58:59 GMT, "MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:52:45 +0000, Relz wrote:
not pass before the Second Coming of Christ. I was told the Bible
defines a generation as 70 or so years. If we are interpreting those
prophecies correctly, then by 2018ish we should see the Anti-Christ, the
False Prophet, and the start of the War at Armegeddon, which brings
about the Second Coming of Christ.
I have to admire the courage of someone willing to make an
"end-of-the-world prophesy", in light of the fact that thousands of
Christian scholars, beginning with Jesus himself, have made such
predictions, only to turn out wrong. Given that *eventually* one of them
will turn out to be correct,
that is some assumption you have. how do you know that Jesus will ever
Return for certain?
I feel more confident betting he will never return at all. ever.
I am confident that some day the world will end, NOT that Jesus will have
anything to do with it.
It is 100% certain that this entire universe will one day end and all its
history destroyed.
no one will remember anything and nothing and no life that existed in this
universe will survive after its demise.
it will be as if it never existed.
there is absolutely no meaning to any of this.
nothing matters.
--
Adolf Hitler
Der Führer
*******************************
Read the Official ATJ FAQ at the resource site for ATJ:
http://www.atjfaq.com
*******************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "MosZibby APATHY@ATJ" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
19 Dec 2003 09:14:32 AM |
|
|
"It is all meaningless" <the.nothing@blank.com> wrote in message
news:msf4uv4chjf3cekmlt27p6de45aiv8mih8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:00:35 GMT, "MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
message <pan.2003.12.18.16.59.35.92705@stopspam.net>:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:29:43 +0200, Jerking off to Jesus wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:58:59 GMT, "MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote
in
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:52:45 +0000, Relz wrote:
not pass before the Second Coming of Christ. I was told the Bible
defines a generation as 70 or so years. If we are interpreting those
prophecies correctly, then by 2018ish we should see the Anti-Christ,
the
False Prophet, and the start of the War at Armegeddon, which brings
about the Second Coming of Christ.
I have to admire the courage of someone willing to make an
"end-of-the-world prophesy", in light of the fact that thousands of
Christian scholars, beginning with Jesus himself, have made such
predictions, only to turn out wrong. Given that *eventually* one of
them
will turn out to be correct,
that is some assumption you have. how do you know that Jesus will ever
Return for certain?
I feel more confident betting he will never return at all. ever.
I am confident that some day the world will end, NOT that Jesus will have
anything to do with it.
It is 100% certain that this entire universe will one day end and all its
history destroyed.
no one will remember anything and nothing and no life that existed in this
universe will survive after its demise.
it will be as if it never existed.
there is absolutely no meaning to any of this.
nothing matters.
Heh.....in the long run, we're all dead.
--
Adolf Hitler
Der Führer
*******************************
Read the Official ATJ FAQ at the resource site for ATJ:
http://www.atjfaq.com
*******************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "marvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
19 Dec 2003 09:21:19 AM |
|
|
"MosZibby" <APATHY@ATJ> wrote in message
news:vu65fqmjcodg78@corp.supernews.com...
"It is all meaningless" <the.nothing@blank.com> wrote in message
news:msf4uv4chjf3cekmlt27p6de45aiv8mih8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:00:35 GMT, "MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote
in
message <pan.2003.12.18.16.59.35.92705@stopspam.net>:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:29:43 +0200, Jerking off to Jesus wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:58:59 GMT, "MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net>
wrote
in
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:52:45 +0000, Relz wrote:
not pass before the Second Coming of Christ. I was told the Bible
defines a generation as 70 or so years. If we are interpreting
those
prophecies correctly, then by 2018ish we should see the Anti-Christ,
the
False Prophet, and the start of the War at Armegeddon, which brings
about the Second Coming of Christ.
I have to admire the courage of someone willing to make an
"end-of-the-world prophesy", in light of the fact that thousands of
Christian scholars, beginning with Jesus himself, have made such
predictions, only to turn out wrong. Given that *eventually* one of
them
will turn out to be correct,
that is some assumption you have. how do you know that Jesus will ever
Return for certain?
I feel more confident betting he will never return at all. ever.
I am confident that some day the world will end, NOT that Jesus will
have
anything to do with it.
It is 100% certain that this entire universe will one day end and all
its
history destroyed.
no one will remember anything and nothing and no life that existed in
this
universe will survive after its demise.
it will be as if it never existed.
there is absolutely no meaning to any of this.
nothing matters.
Heh.....in the long run, we're all dead.
talkin' to y'r ***** now zibby?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
20 Dec 2003 09:47:37 PM |
|
|
MosZibby wrote:
"It is all meaningless" <the.nothing@blank.com> wrote in message
news:msf4uv4chjf3cekmlt27p6de45aiv8mih8@4ax.com...
[...]
nothing matters.
Heh.....in the long run, we're all dead.
Yeah, I've heard that one before. There's two different ways
to look at that, though.
(Sorry to be taking this seriously. That probably makes this
off topic in all the humor groups.)
First way: There will be no one left alive in the long run.
Second way: Each of us individually will be dead in the long run.
I think people usually hear it the first way, although the
reason it gets a pass as "obviously" true is the second reading.
The difference between them is in how long the long run is.
Barring some planet-wide catastrophe, it will be a much longer
time until the last human dies than until the last person
who has read this dies.
I'm not even sure "until the last human dies" means what we
think it means. There are billions of years of life left
in our sun and possibly trillions of years left in the
universe. It's a reasonable bet that we 21st century humans
are only lungfish flopping around on the shores of consciousness.
Our descendants of a million years from now could well be
as far above us as we are above the first lungfish.
Perhaps they will be able to pack an infinite amount of
life experience into a finite amount of (real) time.
That assumes that there will be descendants of some kind. We might
have a very, very long run ahead of us, or, we (all of us) might
not make it out of this century alive. There are no guarantees that
we will survive and there are no guarantees that we will die. So,
to the extent that we are able to avoid the avoidable disasters
and to the extent we care about these hypothetical descendants,
what we choose to do does matter.
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jesse" |
|
| Title: Happy Holidays!!! |
21 Dec 2003 05:56:38 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:47:37 -0500, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote in
message <3FE517D9.AE33C0FE@osu.edu>:
MosZibby wrote:
"It is all meaningless" <the.nothing@blank.com> wrote in message
nothing matters.
Heh.....in the long run, we're all dead.
Yeah, I've heard that one before. There's two different ways
to look at that, though.
(Sorry to be taking this seriously. That probably makes this
off topic in all the humor groups.)
First way: There will be no one left alive in the long run.
Second way: Each of us individually will be dead in the long run.
I think people usually hear it the first way, although the
reason it gets a pass as "obviously" true is the second reading.
The difference between them is in how long the long run is.
Barring some planet-wide catastrophe, it will be a much longer
time until the last human dies than until the last person
who has read this dies.
I'm not even sure "until the last human dies" means what we
think it means. There are billions of years of life left
in our sun and possibly trillions of years left in the
universe. It's a reasonable bet that we 21st century humans
are only lungfish flopping around on the shores of consciousness.
Our descendants of a million years from now could well be
as far above us as we are above the first lungfish.
Perhaps they will be able to pack an infinite amount of
life experience into a finite amount of (real) time.
That assumes that there will be descendants of some kind. We might
have a very, very long run ahead of us, or, we (all of us) might
not make it out of this century alive. There are no guarantees that
we will survive and there are no guarantees that we will die. So,
to the extent that we are able to avoid the avoidable disasters
and to the extent we care about these hypothetical descendants,
what we choose to do does matter.
Jim Burns
....nothing matters, ya post proves it...
--
Adolf Hitler
Der Führer
*******************************
Read the Official ATJ FAQ at the resource site for ATJ:
http://www.atjfaq.com
*******************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
19 Dec 2003 11:25:51 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:14:32 +0000, MosZibby wrote:
"It is all meaningless" <the.nothing@blank.com> wrote in message
news:msf4uv4chjf3cekmlt27p6de45aiv8mih8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:00:35 GMT, "MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote
in message <pan.2003.12.18.16.59.35.92705@stopspam.net>:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:29:43 +0200, Jerking off to Jesus wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:58:59 GMT, "MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net>
wrote
in
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:52:45 +0000, Relz wrote:
not pass before the Second Coming of Christ. I was told the Bible
defines a generation as 70 or so years. If we are interpreting
those prophecies correctly, then by 2018ish we should see the
Anti-Christ,
the
False Prophet, and the start of the War at Armegeddon, which brings
about the Second Coming of Christ.
I have to admire the courage of someone willing to make an
"end-of-the-world prophesy", in light of the fact that thousands of
Christian scholars, beginning with Jesus himself, have made such
predictions, only to turn out wrong. Given that *eventually* one of
them
will turn out to be correct,
that is some assumption you have. how do you know that Jesus will ever
Return for certain?
I feel more confident betting he will never return at all. ever.
I am confident that some day the world will end, NOT that Jesus will
have anything to do with it.
It is 100% certain that this entire universe will one day end and all
its history destroyed.
no one will remember anything and nothing and no life that existed in
this universe will survive after its demise.
it will be as if it never existed.
there is absolutely no meaning to any of this.
nothing matters.
Heh.....in the long run, we're all dead.
"Life is a terminal condition."
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vanilla Gorilla Monkey Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
20 Dec 2003 03:59:16 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:25:51 GMT, "MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net>
wrote in alt.tasteless.jokes:
no one will remember anything and nothing and no life that existed in
this universe will survive after its demise.
it will be as if it never existed.
there is absolutely no meaning to any of this.
nothing matters.
Heh.....in the long run, we're all dead.
"Life is a terminal condition."
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to
zero. " - 'Narrator', 'Fight Club'
--
V.G.
"People are more violently opposed to fur than leather, because it is easier to harrass
rich women than it is motorcycle gangs." - Bumper Sticker
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)
Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whats a kootie?" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
21 Dec 2003 05:56:01 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:59:16 -0900, "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)"
<vgorilla@pobox.alaska.net> wrote in message
<egh9uvk6ma36qmd0nsgof7emr0eni4ne6s@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:25:51 GMT, "MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net>
wrote in alt.tasteless.jokes:
no one will remember anything and nothing and no life that existed in
this universe will survive after its demise.
it will be as if it never existed.
there is absolutely no meaning to any of this.
nothing matters.
Heh.....in the long run, we're all dead.
"Life is a terminal condition."
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to
zero. " - 'Narrator', 'Fight Club'
The narrator was Edward Norton. I think he is the ultimate actor. The cream
of the cream. The best of the best.
He is simply "it".
--
Adolf Hitler
Der Führer
*******************************
Read the Official ATJ FAQ at the resource site for ATJ:
http://www.atjfaq.com
*******************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith E." |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
21 Dec 2003 06:49:43 PM |
|
|
Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:56:01 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "What's a kootie?" <snot@snot.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:59:16 -0900, "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)"
<vgorilla@pobox.alaska.net> wrote in message
<egh9uvk6ma36qmd0nsgof7emr0eni4ne6s@4ax.com>:
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to
zero. " - 'Narrator', 'Fight Club'
The narrator was Edward Norton. I think he is the ultimate actor. The cream
of the cream. The best of the best.
He is simply "it".
*****. Ron Jeremy is te best.
--
Keith E.
Excrementum casus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cute Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
22 Dec 2003 08:01:11 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:49:43 GMT, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote in
message <a03c0989224e646ec88404a1e37e238c@news.1usenet.com>:
Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:56:01 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "What's a kootie?" <snot@snot.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:59:16 -0900, "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)"
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to
zero. " - 'Narrator', 'Fight Club'
The narrator was Edward Norton. I think he is the ultimate actor. The cream
of the cream. The best of the best.
He is simply "it".
*****. Ron Jeremy is te best.
you like a male porn star?
....figures...
--
Adolf Hitler
Der Führer
*******************************
Read the Official ATJ FAQ at the resource site for ATJ:
http://www.atjfaq.com
*******************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith E." |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
22 Dec 2003 01:47:24 PM |
|
|
Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:01:11 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "Cute Bear"
<hariy.male.porn.stars@urgently.required.by.keith.for.fun.and.laughs>
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:49:43 GMT, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote in
message <a03c0989224e646ec88404a1e37e238c@news.1usenet.com>:
Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:56:01 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "What's a kootie?" <snot@snot.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:59:16 -0900, "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)"
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to
zero. " - 'Narrator', 'Fight Club'
The narrator was Edward Norton. I think he is the ultimate actor. The cream
of the cream. The best of the best.
He is simply "it".
*****. Ron Jeremy is te best.
you like a male porn star?
...figures...
He's a remarkable actor.
--
Keith E.
Excrementum casus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hairy beast" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
23 Dec 2003 08:24:13 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:47:24 GMT, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote in
message <b9745fcbe4d9bc8a37e788e444e37de8@news.1usenet.com>:
Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:01:11 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "Cute Bear"
<hariy.male.porn.stars@urgently.required.by.keith.for.fun.and.laughs>
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:49:43 GMT, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote in
message <a03c0989224e646ec88404a1e37e238c@news.1usenet.com>:
Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:56:01 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "What's a kootie?" <snot@snot.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:59:16 -0900, "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)"
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to
zero. " - 'Narrator', 'Fight Club'
The narrator was Edward Norton. I think he is the ultimate actor. The cream
of the cream. The best of the best.
He is simply "it".
*****. Ron Jeremy is te best.
you like a male porn star?
...figures...
He's a remarkable actor.
he's a hairy beast.
--
Adolf Hitler
Der Führer
*******************************
Read the Official ATJ FAQ at the resource site for ATJ:
http://www.atjfaq.com
*******************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith E." |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
23 Dec 2003 03:01:08 PM |
|
|
Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:24:13 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "Hairy beast" <mug.shot@too.loops> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:47:24 GMT, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote in
message <b9745fcbe4d9bc8a37e788e444e37de8@news.1usenet.com>:
Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:01:11 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "Cute Bear"
<hariy.male.porn.stars@urgently.required.by.keith.for.fun.and.laughs>
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:49:43 GMT, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote in
message <a03c0989224e646ec88404a1e37e238c@news.1usenet.com>:
Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:56:01 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "What's a kootie?" <snot@snot.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:59:16 -0900, "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)"
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to
zero. " - 'Narrator', 'Fight Club'
The narrator was Edward Norton. I think he is the ultimate actor. The cream
of the cream. The best of the best.
He is simply "it".
*****. Ron Jeremy is te best.
you like a male porn star?
...figures...
He's a remarkable actor.
he's a hairy beast.
There's more'n one reason he's called the hedgehog.
--
Keith E.
Excrementum casus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daddy spanks me" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
23 Dec 2003 06:56:37 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:01:08 GMT, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote in
message <829071f2dec203d099556f938ab08198@news.1usenet.com>:
Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:24:13 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "Hairy beast" <mug.shot@too.loops> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:47:24 GMT, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote in
Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:01:11 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "Cute Bear"
<hariy.male.porn.stars@urgently.required.by.keith.for.fun.and.laughs>
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:49:43 GMT, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote in
Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:56:01 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "What's a kootie?" <snot@snot.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:59:16 -0900, "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)"
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to
zero. " - 'Narrator', 'Fight Club'
The narrator was Edward Norton. I think he is the ultimate actor. The cream
of the cream. The best of the best.
He is simply "it".
*****. Ron Jeremy is te best.
you like a male porn star?
...figures...
He's a remarkable actor.
he's a hairy beast.
There's more'n one reason he's called the hedgehog.
tell me the other reasons... be graphic. for the children reading this
forum.
--
Adolf Hitler
Der Führer
*******************************
Read the Official ATJ FAQ at the resource site for ATJ:
http://www.atjfaq.com
*******************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith E." |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
24 Dec 2003 03:39:36 PM |
|
|
Wed, 24 Dec 2003 02:56:37 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "Daddy spanks me" <pls.daddy@spank.me> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:01:08 GMT, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote in
message <829071f2dec203d099556f938ab08198@news.1usenet.com>:
Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:24:13 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "Hairy beast" <mug.shot@too.loops> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:47:24 GMT, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote in
Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:01:11 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "Cute Bear"
<hariy.male.porn.stars@urgently.required.by.keith.for.fun.and.laughs>
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:49:43 GMT, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote in
Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:56:01 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "What's a kootie?" <snot@snot.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:59:16 -0900, "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)"
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to
zero. " - 'Narrator', 'Fight Club'
The narrator was Edward Norton. I think he is the ultimate actor. The cream
of the cream. The best of the best.
He is simply "it".
*****. Ron Jeremy is te best.
you like a male porn star?
...figures...
He's a remarkable actor.
he's a hairy beast.
There's more'n one reason he's called the hedgehog.
tell me the other reasons... be graphic. for the children reading this
forum.
Because of how he looks when he wraps his lips around his own
***** when sucks the spunk out of it. Until he got too fat to
bend in the middle, any way.
--
Keith E.
Excrementum casus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Crude Keith" |
|
| Title: Re: Slaves to fashion (was: North vs South) |
24 Dec 2003 06:02:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:39:36 GMT, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote in
message <acb92bc6bd9ef4a4481e27ee41295b44@news.1usenet.com>:
Wed, 24 Dec 2003 02:56:37 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "Daddy spanks me" <pls.daddy@spank.me> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:01:08 GMT, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote in
Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:24:13 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "Hairy beast" <mug.shot@too.loops> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:47:24 GMT, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote in
Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:01:11 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "Cute Bear"
<hariy.male.porn.stars@urgently.required.by.keith.for.fun.and.laughs>
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:49:43 GMT, Keith E. <i.m.knot@aol.com> wrote in
Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:56:01 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "What's a kootie?" <snot@snot.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:59:16 -0900, "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)"
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to
zero. " - 'Narrator', 'Fight Club'
The narrator was Edward Norton. I think he is the ultimate actor. The cream
of the cream. The best of the best.
He is simply "it".
*****. Ron Jeremy is te best.
you like a male porn star?
...figures...
He's a remarkable actor.
he's a hairy beast.
There's more'n one reason he's called the hedgehog.
tell me the other reasons... be graphic. for the children reading this
forum.
Because of how he looks when he wraps his lips around his own
***** when sucks the spunk out of it. Until he got too fat to
bend in the middle, any way.
HE NEVER DID THAT!!!
--
Adolf Hitler
Der Führer
*******************************
Read the Official ATJ FAQ at the resource site for ATJ:
http://www.atjfaq.com
*******************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
