A little confused on that church/state thingie?

[Lee Ayrton]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/

Miss. state rep. advocates killing homosexuals on god's orders.

[Mary]

On May 21, 1:24 pm, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com> wrote:
> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/
>
> Miss. state rep. advocates killing homosexuals on god's orders.

Gotta say, I'm not much inclined to worship his god.

Mary
or any god, but that's a different issue.

[rwalker]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 11:34:27 -0700 (PDT), Mary <mrfea...@aol.com>
wrote:

Well, his god is especially distasteful.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 21, 11:24 am, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com> wrote:

> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/
>
> Miss. state rep. advocates killing homosexuals on god's orders.

Really... "Thou shalt not kill"?

And, God saying not to do something is NOT the same as saying you
should be killed for doing it.

[Mary]

On May 21, 2:43 pm, rwalker <rwal...@despammed.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 11:34:27 -0700 (PDT), Mary <mrfeath...@aol.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On May 21, 1:24 pm, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/
>
> >> Miss. state rep. advocates killing homosexuals on god's orders.
>
> >Gotta say, I'm not much inclined to worship his god.
>
> >Mary
> >or any god, but that's a different issue.
>
> Well, his god is especially distasteful.

Yep. That's what I meant.

Mary

[Heather]

A clear case of a man making god in his own image, and what a nasty
image it is too.


--
Heather

[Kevin]

"They are to be put to death" is not clear to you?

[Kevin]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 07:29:19 +1000, Heather <redbo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It's what the bible says, right? "They are to be put to death",
pretty clear.

Also, no shrimps or oysters. Also, country gravy is right out. And
my favorite cotton/linen shirts, they're out too. Bit confusing as to
why cotton/linen shirts and country gravy and shrimps and gay sex are
such bad ideas, but it says right there, doesn't it?

Very serious stuff, that. Good guide to modern life. Must study all
this very carefully, it's quite cryptic, you know.

[Lee Ayrton]

This "West Wing" clip has been getting some airplay recently on FB:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYaewOBGybw&feature=related

[Kevin]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:53:20 +0000 (UTC), Lee Ayrton

<lay...@panix.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 May 2012 17:21:53 -0500, Kevin wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 07:29:19 +1000, Heather <redbo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 May 2012 18:24:51 +0000 (UTC), Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/
>>>>
>>>>Miss. state rep. advocates killing homosexuals on god's orders.
>>>
>>>
>>>A clear case of a man making god in his own image, and what a nasty
>>>image it is too.
>>
>> It's what the bible says, right? "They are to be put to death", pretty
>> clear.
>>
>> Also, no shrimps or oysters. Also, country gravy is right out. And my
>> favorite cotton/linen shirts, they're out too. Bit confusing as to why
>> cotton/linen shirts and country gravy and shrimps and gay sex are such
>> bad ideas, but it says right there, doesn't it?
>>
>> Very serious stuff, that. Good guide to modern life. Must study all
>> this very carefully, it's quite cryptic, you know.
>
>This "West Wing" clip has been getting some airplay recently on FB:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYaewOBGybw&feature=related

CRAB PUFFS! She was holding a plate of crab puffs! Leviticus 11:10,
for goodness sake.

But I did enjoy that show, way back when.

--
Kevin

[D.F. Manno]

Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:

> Heather <redbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/
>>>
>>> Miss. state rep. advocates killing homosexuals on god's orders.
>>
>> A clear case of a man making god in his own image, and what a nasty
>> image it is too.
>
> It's what the bible says, right? "They are to be put to death",
> pretty clear.
>
> Also, no shrimps or oysters. Also, country gravy is right out. And
> my favorite cotton/linen shirts, they're out too. Bit confusing as to
> why cotton/linen shirts and country gravy and shrimps and gay sex are
> such bad ideas, but it says right there, doesn't it?

Interesting how they claim the New Testament trumps the Old when it comes
to cheeseburgers and fabric blends, but regarding homosexuality they stand
on Leviticus.
--
D.F. Manno

[Heather]

They just cherry-pick the bits that suit them, often out of context,
and ignore the rest. There is so much in the bible that it is possible
to justify anything with carefully selected quotes. Of course most of
what they choose comes from the old testament; it is more primitive.


--
Heather

[Binyamin Dissen]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 17:21:53 -0500 Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:

:> And

:>my favorite cotton/linen shirts, they're out too.

False. Why not read it before you comment?

--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

[Binyamin Dissen]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 18:24:51 +0000 (UTC) Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com> wrote:

:>http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/

:>Miss. state rep. advocates killing homosexuals on god's orders.

All I can see is that he is quoting the bible.

Does being elected to an office prevent the exercise of freedom of religion?

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <tmflr75rjldm4ml5f...@4ax.com>,

Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:
>
>It's what the bible says, right? "They are to be put to death",
>pretty clear.
>
>Also, no shrimps or oysters. Also, country gravy is right out. And
>my favorite cotton/linen shirts, they're out too. Bit confusing as to
>why cotton/linen shirts and country gravy and shrimps and gay sex are
>such bad ideas, but it says right there, doesn't it?

Is the blending of fibers thing specific to cotton and linen, or does
it say any two fibers? i.e., could a strict legalist argue that cotton
polyester is therefore OK? After all, if polyester were important, God
would have mentioned it.

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <e16nr75oq0bnjt6mr...@4ax.com>,

Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 May 2012 18:24:51 +0000 (UTC) Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>:>http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/
>
>:>Miss. state rep. advocates killing homosexuals on god's orders.
>
>All I can see is that he is quoting the bible.
>
>Does being elected to an office prevent the exercise of freedom of religion?

If by "exercise", you mean "write it into law and force people who do not
believe in it to follow its restricitons" (and many Americans think that
is *exactly* what "exercise freedom of religion" means) then, yes.
Elected officials do NOT have the right to "exercise freedom of religion"
in that sense.

[Binyamin Dissen]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:01:13 +0000 (UTC) nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek)
wrote:

:>In article <tmflr75rjldm4ml5f...@4ax.com>,

:>Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:

:>>It's what the bible says, right? "They are to be put to death",
:>>pretty clear.

:>>Also, no shrimps or oysters. Also, country gravy is right out. And
:>>my favorite cotton/linen shirts, they're out too. Bit confusing as to
:>>why cotton/linen shirts and country gravy and shrimps and gay sex are
:>>such bad ideas, but it says right there, doesn't it?

:>Is the blending of fibers thing specific to cotton and linen, or does
:>it say any two fibers? i.e., could a strict legalist argue that cotton
:>polyester is therefore OK? After all, if polyester were important, God
:>would have mentioned it.

Specifically wool and linen. And only for clothing. And, of course, only for
Jews.

[Binyamin Dissen]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:05:33 +0000 (UTC) nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek)
wrote:

:>In article <e16nr75oq0bnjt6mr...@4ax.com>,

:>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>On Mon, 21 May 2012 18:24:51 +0000 (UTC) Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com> wrote:

:>>:>http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/

:>>:>Miss. state rep. advocates killing homosexuals on god's orders.

:>>All I can see is that he is quoting the bible.

:>>Does being elected to an office prevent the exercise of freedom of religion?

:>If by "exercise", you mean "write it into law and force people who do not
:>believe in it to follow its restricitons" (and many Americans think that
:>is *exactly* what "exercise freedom of religion" means) then, yes.

Thus any law must have a test to prove that it is not based on any religion?
Most religions have laws against murder - thus a law against murder is
religion based?

If the law passes constitutional muster, even if others consider it silly or
resent being forced to follow its restrictions - such as laws criminalizing
cock fights or against whiskey sales after 2AM - why does it matter if it is
based on religion or not?

:>Elected officials do NOT have the right to "exercise freedom of religion"
:>in that sense.

What is your proof for that assertion that writing laws that harmonize with
ones religious belief is unconstitutional?

[art...@yahoo.com]

On May 21, 3:43 pm, rwalker <rwal...@despammed.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 11:34:27 -0700 (PDT), Mary <mrfeath...@aol.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On May 21, 1:24 pm, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/
>
> >> Miss. state rep. advocates killing homosexuals on god's orders.
>
> >Gotta say, I'm not much inclined to worship his god.
>
> >Mary
> >or any god, but that's a different issue.
>
> Well, his god is especially distasteful.

I happened to watch "Red State" last night which is about a Fred
Phelps like minister who goes beyond mere picketing and kills gay
people. The guy who plays the Fred Phelps does an impressive job (I
am not familiar with the actor). You should be warned that "red" is
code for "Really bloody". The ending is not what you might expect.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 21, 3:16 pm, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:

> >> Miss. state rep. advocates killing homosexuals on god's orders.
>
> >Really...  "Thou shalt not kill"?
>
> >And, God saying not to do something is NOT the same as saying you
> >should be killed for doing it.
>
> "They are to be put to death" is not clear to you?

A) God said "thou shalt not kill", that other bit is someone else.

B) Catholics usually ignore inconvenient parts of the OT. We have
dispensation.

[Binyamin Dissen]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:02:15 -0700 (PDT) Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com>
wrote:

:>A) God said "thou shalt not kill",

Actually "Thou shalt not murder". There are different Hebrew words for kill
and murder and it appears the translators got confused.

[Kevin]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:02:11 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
<post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:01:13 +0000 (UTC) nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek)
>wrote:
>
>:>In article <tmflr75rjldm4ml5f...@4ax.com>,
>:>Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:
>
>:>>It's what the bible says, right? "They are to be put to death",
>:>>pretty clear.
>
>:>>Also, no shrimps or oysters. Also, country gravy is right out. And
>:>>my favorite cotton/linen shirts, they're out too. Bit confusing as to
>:>>why cotton/linen shirts and country gravy and shrimps and gay sex are
>:>>such bad ideas, but it says right there, doesn't it?
>
>:>Is the blending of fibers thing specific to cotton and linen, or does
>:>it say any two fibers? i.e., could a strict legalist argue that cotton
>:>polyester is therefore OK? After all, if polyester were important, God
>:>would have mentioned it.
>
>Specifically wool and linen.

Well, that makes a lot more sense.

>And only for clothing. And, of course, only for
>Jews.

Of course, the point of my screed is that parts of that same book are
used to condem gay sex in the modern era, and to justify legal
inequity in a secular state among non-Jews. Perhaps you should go
back and read the whole conversation again and see if you can follow
the thread this time.

[Greg Goss]

Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:02:11 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
>>:>Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:

>>:>>my favorite cotton/linen shirts, they're out too.
>>

>>:>Is the blending of fibers thing specific to cotton and linen, or does
>>:>it say any two fibers? i.e., could a strict legalist argue that cotton
>>:>polyester is therefore OK? After all, if polyester were important, God
>>:>would have mentioned it.
>>
>>Specifically wool and linen.
>
>Well, that makes a lot more sense.

I believe that some of the uber-careful jews generalize it so that you
cannot mix animal fibers with non-animal fibers. Even with that
generalization, there would be no problem with cotton/linen.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <fhanr7h1fn99f6b2k...@4ax.com>,

Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>
>Specifically wool and linen. And only for clothing. And, of course, only for
>Jews.

If gentiles can wear any fibers they like, and eat all the pork and
shellfish they like, then should gentiles also be free to have all the
gay and/or adulterous sex if they want to?

[Binyamin Dissen]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:32:39 -0600 Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

:>Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:
:>>On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:02:11 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
:>>>:>Kevin <K_S_O...@yh.com> wrote:

:>>>:>>my favorite cotton/linen shirts, they're out too.

:>>>:>Is the blending of fibers thing specific to cotton and linen, or does
:>>>:>it say any two fibers? i.e., could a strict legalist argue that cotton
:>>>:>polyester is therefore OK? After all, if polyester were important, God
:>>>:>would have mentioned it.

:>>>Specifically wool and linen.

:>>Well, that makes a lot more sense.

:>I believe that some of the uber-careful jews generalize it so that you
:>cannot mix animal fibers with non-animal fibers. Even with that
:>generalization, there would be no problem with cotton/linen.

Really? I am not aware of anyone doing such a thing.

And it would be quite unusual, as we do not know the reason for the law. Why
choose to extend it to include leather/cotton more than linen/cotton?

[Binyamin Dissen]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 22:40:54 +0000 (UTC) nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek)
wrote:

:>In article <fhanr7h1fn99f6b2k...@4ax.com>,

:>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:

:>>Specifically wool and linen. And only for clothing. And, of course, only for
:>>Jews.

:>If gentiles can wear any fibers they like, and eat all the pork and
:>shellfish they like, then should gentiles also be free to have all the
:>gay and/or adulterous sex if they want to?

Regarding adulterous, as non-Jews do not have a formal divorce ceremony the
opinion is by cheating one is logically divorcing. As a side point, the Jewish
definition of adultery is intercourse between a married women and a man who is
not her husband. The marital status of the male is irrelevant. By definition
an unmarried women can not have adulterous intercourse.

As far as male/male penetration, that is included in the Noachide Laws and
thus applies even to non-Jews

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <sjanr75jp2lajrskn...@4ax.com>,

Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>
>Thus any law must have a test to prove that it is not based on any religion?
>Most religions have laws against murder - thus a law against murder is
>religion based?

Rather, you must be able to come up with some rationale why the law is
needed that does not rely on religion--"compelling state interest".
Furthermore, if it can be proven that the real intention of the law is
to stick it to a particular group on religious grounds, the law can be
struck down. Some wingnuts have tried to come up with ways to ban Hallal
foods, or ban the sacrifice of chickens in voodoo ceremonies, but any
such laws--unless made so specific that they violate the first amendment--
would also make the kosher food industry illegal.

To recap, you can come up with arguments for why murder should be illegal
that do not rely upon religion. Finding non-religious grounds for making
homosexuality a captial offense--remember where this thread started?--is
a lot harder.

[Greg Goss]

Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:32:39 -0600 Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>:>I believe that some of the uber-careful jews generalize it so that you
>:>cannot mix animal fibers with non-animal fibers. Even with that
>:>generalization, there would be no problem with cotton/linen.
>
>Really? I am not aware of anyone doing such a thing.
>
>And it would be quite unusual, as we do not know the reason for the law. Why
>choose to extend it to include leather/cotton more than linen/cotton?

OK, I was misinformed by people I thought were familiar with "the
Law". Thank you for the correction.

How the written law has been extended into the oral law is often
difficult to comprehend by people who don't have roots in the culture.
So I don't rule on the "why" questions.

Avoid corn-syrup coke during certain parts of the year because of a
law against yeast-based bread? If I were to comment... (grin)

[D.F. Manno]

Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:

> As far as male/male penetration, that is included in the Noachide Laws and
> thus applies even to non-Jews

The hell it does.

--
D.F. Manno

[Kevin]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 01:56:47 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
<post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2012 22:40:54 +0000 (UTC) nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek)
>wrote:
>
>:>In article <fhanr7h1fn99f6b2k...@4ax.com>,
>:>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>
>:>>Specifically wool and linen. And only for clothing. And, of course, only for
>:>>Jews.
>
>:>If gentiles can wear any fibers they like, and eat all the pork and
>:>shellfish they like, then should gentiles also be free to have all the
>:>gay and/or adulterous sex if they want to?
>
>Regarding adulterous, as non-Jews do not have a formal divorce ceremony the
>opinion is by cheating one is logically divorcing. As a side point, the Jewish
>definition of adultery is intercourse between a married women and a man who is
>not her husband. The marital status of the male is irrelevant. By definition
>an unmarried women can not have adulterous intercourse.
>
>As far as male/male penetration, that is included in the Noachide Laws and
>thus applies even to non-Jews

In as much as Iron Age tribal taboos apply to anyone, I think they
only apply to people who choose to observe them, don't you?

[Binyamin Dissen]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 22:57:34 +0000 (UTC) nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek)
wrote:

[:>In article <sjanr75jp2lajrskn...@4ax.com>,

:>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:

:>>Thus any law must have a test to prove that it is not based on any religion?
:>>Most religions have laws against murder - thus a law against murder is
:>>religion based?

:>Rather, you must be able to come up with some rationale why the law is
:>needed that does not rely on religion--"compelling state interest".
:>Furthermore, if it can be proven that the real intention of the law is
:>to stick it to a particular group on religious grounds, the law can be
:>struck down. Some wingnuts have tried to come up with ways to ban Hallal
:>foods, or ban the sacrifice of chickens in voodoo ceremonies, but any
:>such laws--unless made so specific that they violate the first amendment--
:>would also make the kosher food industry illegal.

:>To recap, you can come up with arguments for why murder should be illegal
:>that do not rely upon religion. Finding non-religious grounds for making
:>homosexuality a captial offense--remember where this thread started?--is
:>a lot harder.

If the constitution does not constrain the government from doing it, is there
a need for such arguments? Religion is a red herring in this case.

Why is it any different than cock-fighting? If you argue that the constitution
forbids the government from constraining cock-fighting, then the government
cannot constrain it. If you argue that the constitution does not constrain the
government from forbidding homosexual acts, then the government can make laws
against it.

[Mary]

On May 22, 5:56 pm, Binyamin Dissen <postin...@dissensoftware.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 22 May 2012 22:40:54 +0000 (UTC) nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek)
> wrote:
>

> :>In article <fhanr7h1fn99f6b2kkfjrijhg2hvr7c...@4ax.com>,

> :>Binyamin Dissen  <postin...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>
> :>>Specifically wool and linen. And only for clothing. And, of course, only for
> :>>Jews.
>
> :>If gentiles can wear any fibers they like, and eat all the pork and
> :>shellfish they like, then should gentiles also be free to have all the
> :>gay and/or adulterous sex if they want to?
>
> Regarding adulterous, as non-Jews do not have a formal divorce ceremony the
> opinion is by cheating one is logically divorcing. As a side point, the Jewish
> definition of adultery is intercourse between a married women and a man who is
> not her husband. The marital status of the male is irrelevant. By definition
> an unmarried women can not have adulterous intercourse.
>
> As far as male/male penetration, that is included in the Noachide Laws and
> thus applies even to non-Jews

No, not really. Noachide Law? Give me a break.

Mary

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <714376a6-9743-4b0a...@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 21, 3:16 pm, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Miss. state rep. advocates killing homosexuals on god's orders.
>>
>> >Really...  "Thou shalt not kill"?
>>
>> >And, God saying not to do something is NOT the same as saying you
>> >should be killed for doing it.
>>
>> "They are to be put to death" is not clear to you?
>
>
>A) God said "thou shalt not kill", that other bit is someone else.

Are you saying that some parts of the Bible are the word of god and
others are not? The dominant form of Christianity in the USA these
days says otherwise.

>B) Catholics usually ignore inconvenient parts of the OT. We have
>dispensation.

So why worry about gays at all? Jesus never said anything about them.
He *did* specifically and unambiguously say that divorce and re-marriage
is adultery; yet Christians seem a lot less concerned about that for
some reason.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <846or7tjeb5vlujc9...@4ax.com>,

Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>
>As far as male/male penetration, that is included in the Noachide Laws and
>thus applies even to non-Jews

Only those non-Jews who are willing to believe in a world wide flood
that reduced the global population to eight people, while going
unnoticed in Egypt which had manpower-intensive construction projects
going on throughout that period.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 23, 7:02 am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

> >A)  God said "thou shalt not kill", that other bit is someone else.
>
> Are you saying that some parts of the Bible are the word of god and
> others are not?

Right. Was I unclear?

>  The dominant form of Christianity in the USA these
> days says otherwise.

So what? The dominant form of Christianity on the planet agrees with
me.

> >B)  Catholics usually ignore inconvenient parts of the OT.  We have
> >dispensation.
>
> So why worry about gays at all?

I don't.

[rroger]

On May 22, 4:02 pm, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 3:16 pm, Kevin <K_S_ONe...@yh.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Miss. state rep. advocates killing homosexuals on god's orders.
>
> > >Really...  "Thou shalt not kill"?
>
> > >And, God saying not to do something is NOT the same as saying you
> > >should be killed for doing it.
>
> > "They are to be put to death" is not clear to you?
>
> A)  God said "thou shalt not kill", that other bit is someone else.
>

What other bit?

[Alan J Rosenthal]

nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>After all, if polyester were important, God would have mentioned it.

I find it very suspicious that nuclear weapons weren't mentioned in the bible.
They're pretty important these days, and I think will be for a long time,
eventually constituting a significant fraction of the history of humanity.
So why isn't there any guidance?

-- aj "A balm??! Quick, throw it in the trough!" r

[Tim Wright]

On 5/23/2012 8:14 PM, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>> After all, if polyester were important, God would have mentioned it.
>
> I find it very suspicious that nuclear weapons weren't mentioned in the bible.
> They're pretty important these days, and I think will be for a long time,
> eventually constituting a significant fraction of the history of humanity.
> So why isn't there any guidance?
>

Brother: And Saint Attila raised the Hand Grenade up on high, saying:

"O Lord, bless this thy Hand Grenade that with it thou mayest blow thine
enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy."
And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs and
sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and
fruit bats and large chu..

Maynard: Skip a bit, Brother.

Brother: And the Lord spake, saying:

"First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin.
Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less.
Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the
counting shall be three.
Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that
thou then proceed to three.
Five is right out.
Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest
thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being
naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."

Maynard: Amen.

--

Tim W

[Binyamin Dissen]

On 24 May 2012 01:14:03 GMT fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) wrote:

:>nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:
:>>After all, if polyester were important, God would have mentioned it.

:>I find it very suspicious that nuclear weapons weren't mentioned in the bible.
:>They're pretty important these days, and I think will be for a long time,
:>eventually constituting a significant fraction of the history of humanity.
:>So why isn't there any guidance?

The prophets do speak of the aftermath of a war where nothing will grow for
many years.

[art...@yahoo.com]

Noachide left behind.

[art...@yahoo.com]

On May 22, 10:01 am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> After all, if polyester were important, God
> would have mentioned it.

Is Steve Martin close enough?

"How many polyesters did they have to kill to make that suit?"

[Lee Ayrton]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:03:22 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote:

> On 24 May 2012 01:14:03 GMT fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal)
> wrote:
>
> :>nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes: :>>After all, if polyester
> were important, God would have mentioned it.
>
> :>I find it very suspicious that nuclear weapons weren't mentioned in
> the bible. :>They're pretty important these days, and I think will be
> for a long time, :>eventually constituting a significant fraction of the
> history of humanity. :>So why isn't there any guidance?
>
> The prophets do speak of the aftermath of a war where nothing will grow
> for many years.

How very Mesopotamian.



Lee "Salt of the earth" Ayrton

[BillT...@invalid.com]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 05:22:34 -0700 (PDT), "art...@yahoo.com"
<art...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>> No, not really.  Noachide Law?  Give me a break.
>
>Noachide left behind.

Didn't they used to make sofas from that stuff?

[Charles Wm. Dimmick]

I once had a couch covered in Noachide.

[D.F. Manno]

Think of the poor Noachides! You should have had it done in faux Noachide.
--
D.F. Manno

[Mac]

The best examples came Noachatuck, CT, of course.

[Mary]

Fauxahide?

Mary

[Charles Wm. Dimmick]

http://www.hollywoodloverugs.com/faux-fur-rugs/faux-animal-hide-rugs/

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <jq3dqh$3bl$1...@dont-email.me>,

Charles Wm. Dimmick <cdim...@snet.net> wrote:
>>

>> Fauxahide?
>
>http://www.hollywoodloverugs.com/faux-fur-rugs/faux-animal-hide-rugs/

Where the faux hat?