Re: Celebrate National Pro-Life Cupcake Day

[W.T.S.]

In article <60sm71....@news.alt.net>, Jerk...@Liar.com says...
>
> What a fantastic idea!
Perhaps a few pennies for starving children around the work might do
more good, plus a few pennies for sterilization and contraception.
>
> http://CatholicsForLies.com/Propaganda/Disinformation/Lies/Bigotry/
>
<snip> Usual lying bull shit, why repost? </snip>
>
Summary: No child is ever involved in any abortion. End of story. So,
what else is new?
>
For more truth, follow the links below:
>

Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4

[pnyikos]

On Oct 9, 2:44 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <60sm71.33i.1...@news.alt.net>, Jerk-L...@Liar.com says...
>
> > What a fantastic idea!

> Usual lying bull shit, why repost?

Yeah, why did you repost your usual lying bullshit?

> Summary:  No child is ever involved in any abortion.  End of story.  So,
> what else is new?

The fact that your summary is a lie is not new. See the following,
from a non-biased website:
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/child-term.html
Here is the relevant excerpt:
Child
1) A person's offspring of any age, which can include biological
offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster
children, and children born outside of marriage.

And here's a little bonus, from another unbiased source:
http://www.drugs.com/ella.html
"ella can harm an unborn baby"

Go ahead, lie that these are bullshit websites, make my day.

I'd been hoping that you were actually Theodore Shulman, and that you
would disappear from Usenet for 41 months:

HEADLINE: 41-month sentence for ‘pro-choice terrorist’ who threatened
to kill pro-life leaders

Excerpts from article:

Theodore Shulman, a pro-choice activist who in 2010 threatened to kill
several pro-life leaders, has been sentenced to 41 months in federal
prison.
...
Shulman liked to style himself as the “first pro-choice terrorist” and
even had a blog called “Operation Counterstrike.” His mission
statement was: “Right-to-lifism is murder, and ALL right-to-lifers are
bloody-handed accessories. Swear it, believe it, proclaim it, and act
on it.”
...
Shulman has frequently harassed Operation Rescue’s Cheryl Sullenger,
threatening in a voice mail that Sullenger should “convert” to pro-
choice “during the few months you have left on this earth,” or else
“you will go to hell and burn.”

Upon the death of pro-life leader Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Shulman
wrote, “Unfortunately, he died in his bed. He was not killed by a pro-
choice counterterrorist. Too bad, he would have been a most effective
target.”
======== end of excerpts

You and Shulman are birds of a feather, obviously. Will you be
plotting together with him once he is let out of prison?

> For more truth, follow the links below:

http://www.abortiontv.com/index.html
http://nchla.org
http://old.usccb.org/prolife/
http://old.usccb.org/prolife/publicat/
http://old.usccb.org/prolife/publicat/lifeinsight/
http://www.rockforlife.org/
http://www.abortionchangesyou.com/
http://www.abort73.com/
http://www.abort73.com/testimony/1457/
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/prenatal_development/
http://www.pregnantpause.org/index.html
http://www.facinglife.tv/index.htm

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[W.T.S.]

In article <60vgu1....@news.alt.net>, Jerk...@Liar.com says...
>
> On 10/9/2012 7:48 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 12:06 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 10:03 pm, J <Jerk...@Liar.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> What a fantastic idea!
> >>
> >> Yeah, you would think so, woman-hating-forced-birther.
> >
> > Where's the evidence that he hates women, or forces them to get
> > pregnant?
His ugly, nasty, bigoted posts and responses.
> >
> > You do need to get pregnant to give birth, you know.
And abortion cures pregnancy. Isn't that wonderful> If you don't like
that, push for more sterilization.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
> Pete, don't waste your time helping me. I amto put it nicely,
> "special". My reading comprehension is nil, and my posts are bigoted
> and hateful in every way. It's just the sort of person I am. And I
> do hate women so much!

[MarkA]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:07:01 -0700, pnyikos wrote:

> On Oct 9, 2:44 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> In article <60sm71.33i.1...@news.alt.net>, Jerk-L...@Liar.com says...
>>
>> > What a fantastic idea!
>
>> Usual lying bull shit, why repost?
>
> Yeah, why did you repost your usual lying bullshit?
>
>> Summary:  No child is ever involved in any abortion.  End of story.
>>  So, what else is new?
>
> The fact that your summary is a lie is not new. See the following, from
> a non-biased website:
> http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/child-term.html
> Here is the relevant excerpt:
> Child
> 1) A person's offspring of any age, which can include biological
> offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster
> children, and children born outside of marriage.
>
>

Anybody who considers a fertilized oocyte to be an "unborn child" is just
plain crazy.

Furthermore, if an "unborn child" is physically attacking you, and
threatening your life, you have ever right to defend yourself, just as you
would if a teenage hooligan were about to stab you with a knife.

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[duke]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:34:47 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:07:01 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
>
>> On Oct 9, 2:44 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> In article <60sm71.33i.1...@news.alt.net>, Jerk-L...@Liar.com says...
>>>
>>> > What a fantastic idea!
>>
>>> Usual lying bull shit, why repost?
>>
>> Yeah, why did you repost your usual lying bullshit?
>>
>>> Summary:  No child is ever involved in any abortion.  End of story.
>>>  So, what else is new?
>>
>> The fact that your summary is a lie is not new. See the following, from
>> a non-biased website:
>> http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/child-term.html
>> Here is the relevant excerpt:
>> Child
>> 1) A person's offspring of any age, which can include biological
>> offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster
>> children, and children born outside of marriage.
>>
>>
>Anybody who considers a fertilized oocyte to be an "unborn child" is just
>plain crazy.

At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body. From that moment
on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms. From that point on, if
you participate in the harm of it, you are relegating yourself to the eternal
fires of hell.

You can book it.

>Furthermore, if an "unborn child" is physically attacking you, and
>threatening your life, you have ever right to defend yourself, just as you
>would if a teenage hooligan were about to stab you with a knife.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
A vote for obama is a vote for the end of
democracy in America as we know it. Let the
rolling thunder guide your decision at the
ballot box to put an end to Imperial Obama.
May God bless America.
********************************************

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <034b78picedf311gc...@4ax.com>,

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:34:47 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:07:01 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 9, 2:44 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>> In article <60sm71.33i.1...@news.alt.net>, Jerk-L...@Liar.com says...
> >>>
> >>> > What a fantastic idea!
> >>
> >>> Usual lying bull shit, why repost?
> >>
> >> Yeah, why did you repost your usual lying bullshit?
> >>
> >>> Summary:  No child is ever involved in any abortion.  End of story.
> >>>  So, what else is new?
> >>
> >> The fact that your summary is a lie is not new. See the following, from
> >> a non-biased website:
> >> http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/child-term.html
> >> Here is the relevant excerpt:
> >> Child
> >> 1) A person's offspring of any age, which can include biological
> >> offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster
> >> children, and children born outside of marriage.
> >>
> >>
> >Anybody who considers a fertilized oocyte to be an "unborn child" is just
> >plain crazy.
>
> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body.

You have yet to provide any evidence that any such thing as a "soul"
even exists. Until you do that, your argument is null and void.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Patrick]

"MarkA" <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote

> Furthermore, if an "unborn child" is physically attacking you, and
> threatening your life, you have ever right to defend yourself, just as you
> would if a teenage hooligan were about to stab you with a knife.

Yes, if that unborn child were actually threatening your life.

[Patrick]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in

> You have yet to provide any evidence that any such thing as a "soul"
> even exists. Until you do that, your argument is null and void.

Then why do you keep crawling back for more?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <T1ods.37253$VC5....@fed15.iad>,

You invade OUR home and complain when we defend it? Seriously?

[Father Haskell]

On Oct 10, 10:36 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <T1ods.37253$VC5.12...@fed15.iad>,
>
>  "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
> > "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in

> > > You have yet to provide any evidence that any such thing as a "soul"
> > > even exists. Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
>
> > Then why do you keep crawling back for more?
>
> You invade OUR home and complain when we defend it? Seriously?

You're implying that Ratprick is arrogant?

[MarkA]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:15:10 -0500, duke wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:34:47 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:07:01 -0700, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 9, 2:44 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <60sm71.33i.1...@news.alt.net>, Jerk-L...@Liar.com says...
>>>>
>>>> > What a fantastic idea!
>>>
>>>> Usual lying bull shit, why repost?
>>>
>>> Yeah, why did you repost your usual lying bullshit?
>>>
>>>> Summary:  No child is ever involved in any abortion.  End of story.
>>>>  So, what else is new?
>>>
>>> The fact that your summary is a lie is not new. See the following,
>>> from a non-biased website:
>>> http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/child-term.html
>>> Here is the relevant excerpt:
>>> Child
>>> 1) A person's offspring of any age, which can include biological
>>> offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster
>>> children, and children born outside of marriage.
>>>
>>>
>>Anybody who considers a fertilized oocyte to be an "unborn child" is just
>>plain crazy.
>
> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body. From that
> moment on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms.

If that's the case, why is it that the majority of fertilized oocytes
will fail to implant, and those souls will be right back in God's arms
within a few days? Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.

[MarkA]

I know I've explained this to you before, Patrick: pregnancy carries the
risk of sudden death from pulmonary embolism, or the development of
chronic disease, such as diabetes. That simple fact alone is
justification for terminating any pregnancy you don't absolutely want.

[linuxgal]

MarkA wrote:
>
> I know I've explained this to you before, Patrick: pregnancy carries the
> risk of sudden death from pulmonary embolism, or the development of
> chronic disease, such as diabetes. That simple fact alone is
> justification for terminating any pregnancy you don't absolutely want.
>

Well, remember, in Catholic theology, this life doesn't count, it's the
next life that's important, so it is absolutely imperative that a woman
carries her baby full term and gets it baptized. After that, one or
both can die, no skin off the Pope's dick.

--
Veteran of the Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force (1990-1951)

[Dakota]

Not unless they've been baptized. If they haven't they end up in
Limbo. Oh. Wait. That was the way I was taught in Catholic school
decades ago. Some later Pope decided that was nonsense. Now they go
directly to hell.

[MarkA]

Isn't that sweet! Just what you would expect from a loving, just,
merciful god!

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[Patrick]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-8B29B3...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...

> In article <T1ods.37253$VC5....@fed15.iad>,
> "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
>> > You have yet to provide any evidence that any such thing as a "soul"
>> > even exists. Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
>>
>> Then why do you keep crawling back for more?
>
> You invade OUR home and complain when we defend it? Seriously?

Lock the door. Killfile me.
But then, you will misss out the opportunity of a lifetime.
You will miss me.

[Patrick]

"MarkA" <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.10.11....@somewhere.invalid...

And we will continue to differ on this point.
I will soon be going to Boston. On a plane.
Just my sitting on that plane could cause clots in my legs.
My cruise later could cause me to puke my brains out.

[Patrick]

"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
news:doednSU7YJc9PuvN...@giganews.com...

> MarkA wrote:
>>
>> I know I've explained this to you before, Patrick: pregnancy carries the
>> risk of sudden death from pulmonary embolism, or the development of
>> chronic disease, such as diabetes. That simple fact alone is
>> justification for terminating any pregnancy you don't absolutely want.
>>
>
> Well, remember, in Catholic theology, this life doesn't count, it's the
> next life that's important, so it is absolutely imperative that a woman
> carries her baby full term and gets it baptized. After that, one or both
> can die, no skin off the Pope's dick.

Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?

[duke]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:30:08 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

God said it does. Until you can prove God wrong, your argument is of a stupid
immature woman trying to make an invalid point.

[duke]

Problems with the makeup in the human chemistry. Just like the human being is
born with original sin, human beings are well below par in makeup. That's the
reason all living things die.

>, and those souls will be right back in God's arms
>within a few days

No, souls are infused forever with one conception. The body will die, but the
soul is indestructible..

>? Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.

God is far more intelligent than you.

[duke]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:23:49 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:


>>> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body. From that
>>> moment on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms.
>>
>> If that's the case, why is it that the majority of fertilized oocytes
>> will fail to implant, and those souls will be right back in God's arms
>> within a few days? Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.

>Not unless they've been baptized. If they haven't they end up in
>Limbo. Oh. Wait. That was the way I was taught in Catholic school
>decades ago. Some later Pope decided that was nonsense. Now they go
>directly to hell.

No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no man can
state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.

[duke]

Dakota never learned his lessons.

[MarkA]

True enough. When I flew to Tokyo a few years back, I took a few aspirin
before getting on the plane, despite studies that show that it really
doesn't do any good. My wife, who has an anti-clotting factor deficiency,
gives herself subcutaneous injections of heparin before going on a long
car or plane trip. She also gave herself daily heparin injections when
she was pregnant, because, after all, pregnancy increases your risk of
deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. But we've covered that.

[MarkA]

What do you suppose people looked like before "The Fall"? Most of our
current body is geared toward obtaining and digesting food. If there is
no such thing as death, there is no need to eat, and really nothing that
could be eaten, unless you like chewing on rocks. I suppose you could eat
a plant or animal, and have it come out the other end a few days later,
alive and well. That would be kind of creepy, though.

How about the heart? All it does is to pump blood to keep the body alive.
No need for that if there is no death. I can see where lungs might be
useful for speaking, but breathing wouldn't be necessary, either.

This might be a good premise for a "Mr Deity" segment:

Mr Deity: I just cast Adam and Eve out of Paradise. We have to put Death
into the World!

Larry: All those animals, as well as people, will have to be completely
re-designed. We'll be up all night!

Mr Deity: What? Why?

Larry: Well, if they can now die, they'll have to do stuff to stay alive.
Like eat food, and breathe air. They'll need organs to do all that.

Mr Deity: But I already gave them those organs. I knew they wouldn't stay
in Paradise!

Larry: Are you saying they DON'T have "Free Will"? You better check with
Marketing before you say anything more....

Mr Deity: Well, yeah, they have Free Will. It's just that I knew ahead of
time what decisions they were going to make. It's *sort of* like having
Free Will, isn't it?

>
>>, and those souls will be right back in God's arms within a few days
>
> No, souls are infused forever with one conception. The body will die,
> but the soul is indestructible..

Doesn't God create souls, as He needs them? Can't He uncreate one if He
wishes? I thought He was supposed to be omnipotent.

>
>>? Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.
>
> God is far more intelligent than you.
>

So, is He careless, incompetent, or malicious?

[MarkA]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:23:49 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body. From
>>>> that moment on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms.
>>>
>>> If that's the case, why is it that the majority of fertilized oocytes
>>> will fail to implant, and those souls will be right back in God's arms
>>> within a few days? Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.
>
>>Not unless they've been baptized. If they haven't they end up in Limbo.
>>Oh. Wait. That was the way I was taught in Catholic school decades ago.
>>Some later Pope decided that was nonsense. Now they go directly to hell.
>
> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no man
> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>

Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
the idea in the first place.

[MarkA]

You ARE entertaining, in your own special way!

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <topd78pifk7mqvagt...@4ax.com>,

You have yet to provide any evidence that this god of yours exists.

Until you do that, your argument is null and void.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <npzds.66053$PB3....@fed02.iad>,

"Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> wrote:

> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-8B29B3...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
> > In article <T1ods.37253$VC5....@fed15.iad>,
> > "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
> >> > You have yet to provide any evidence that any such thing as a "soul"
> >> > even exists. Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
> >>
> >> Then why do you keep crawling back for more?
> >
> > You invade OUR home and complain when we defend it? Seriously?
>
> Lock the door. Killfile me.
> But then, you will misss out the opportunity of a lifetime.
> You will miss me.

You're right.

I'd miss the entertainment value of your insanity.

[linuxgal]

And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.

[linuxgal]

You must be disappointed.

[Patrick]

"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message

news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...

I've got one, honey.

[Patrick]

"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message

news:d4ydnc0JSKgX6-rN...@giganews.com...

> MarkA wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no
>>> man
>>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>>>
>> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
>> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
>> the idea in the first place.
>>
>
> And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.

Prove it.

[linuxgal]

Okay, except for parrots, but they just copy the sounds they hear. Sort
of like believers in talking snakes.

[linuxgal]

Patrick wrote:
> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message

> news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...

>> Patrick wrote:
>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>>
>> You must be disappointed.
>
> I've got one, honey.

Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
community.

[Patrick]

"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message

news:hN-dnSZaDO-lguXN...@giganews.com...

> Patrick wrote:
>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
>>> Patrick wrote:
>>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>>>
>>> You must be disappointed.
>>
>> I've got one, honey.
>
> Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
> community.

All men have one.
You are not a man.
You don't have one.
Simple.

[Patrick]

"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message

news:hN-dnSdaDO9gg-XN...@giganews.com...

diversion noted.
diversion rejected.

[duke]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:13:38 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>

And you will burn in hell until hell is null and void.

[duke]

Exactly, numbnuts. Scripture states that only the baptized can see the kingdom
of God. It is man specifically that expressed the idea that, shirley, our
loving God would not relegate the unbaptized dead infant to hell forever as it
is no fault of his own. In recent times, numbuts, we came to accept that God
never said one way or the otter for sure, so we no longer push this idea over
that idea.

Do you understand that now, numbnuts?

[duke]

Like Adam and Eve, who were not real people.

> Most of our
>current body is geared toward obtaining and digesting food. If there is
>no such thing as death, there is no need to eat, and really nothing that
>could be eaten, unless you like chewing on rocks. I suppose you could eat
>a plant or animal, and have it come out the other end a few days later,
>alive and well. That would be kind of creepy, though.

>How about the heart? All it does is to pump blood to keep the body alive.
>No need for that if there is no death. I can see where lungs might be
>useful for speaking, but breathing wouldn't be necessary, either.

Which came first: the heart or a need for one?

[Mike Painter]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:22:07 -0400, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>

wrote:

>
>"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
>> Patrick wrote:
>>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>>> news:doednSU7YJc9PuvN...@giganews.com...
>>>> MarkA wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I know I've explained this to you before, Patrick: pregnancy carries
>>>>> the
>>>>> risk of sudden death from pulmonary embolism, or the development of
>>>>> chronic disease, such as diabetes. That simple fact alone is
>>>>> justification for terminating any pregnancy you don't absolutely want.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, remember, in Catholic theology, this life doesn't count, it's the
>>>> next life that's important, so it is absolutely imperative that a woman
>>>> carries her baby full term and gets it baptized. After that, one or
>>>> both
>>>> can die, no skin off the Pope's dick.
>>>
>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>>
>> You must be disappointed.
>
>I've got one, honey.
>

When Patrick tried Viagra he grew six inches taller.

[Syd M.]

On Oct 12, 11:55 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:11:22 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:44:44 -0500, duke wrote:
>

> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:55:05 -0400, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid>

> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:15:10 -0500, duke wrote:
>

> >>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:34:47 -0400, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid>

What do you care? You don't use yours.

[Syd M.]

On Oct 12, 11:51 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:13:51 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:23:49 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body.  From
> >>>>> that moment on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms.
>
> >>>> If that's the case, why is it that the majority of fertilized oocytes
> >>>> will fail to implant, and those souls will be right back in God's arms
> >>>> within a few days?  Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.
>
> >>>Not unless they've been baptized. If they haven't they end up in Limbo.
> >>>Oh. Wait. That was the way I was taught in Catholic school decades ago.
> >>>Some later Pope decided that was nonsense. Now they go directly to hell.
>
> >> No, you should has stuck with our original thought.  Truth is that no man
> >> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
> >Talk about unintended humor!  Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
> >happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
> >the idea in the first place.
>
> Exactly, numbnuts.  Scripture states

Not evidence, asshole.

[Syd M.]

On Oct 12, 11:46 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:13:38 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <topd78pifk7mqvagteef9i56pac9nm1...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:30:08 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >In article <034b78picedf311gcv27evndc9ag4sa...@4ax.com>,
> >> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:34:47 -0400, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid>

<Yawn> Desperate Dork now resorts to the usual empty threat.

[Syd M.]

On Oct 12, 11:11 am, "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hN-dnSZaDO-lguXN...@giganews.com...
>
> > Patrick wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message

> >>news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
> >>> Patrick wrote:
> >>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>
> >>> You must be disappointed.
>
> >> I've got one, honey.
>
> > Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
> > community.
>
> All men have one.
> You are not a man.
> You don't have one.
> Simple.

Yes, you certainly are.

[Syd M.]

On Oct 12, 11:12 am, "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hN-dnSdaDO9gg-XN...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Patrick wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message

> >>news:d4ydnc0JSKgX6-rN...@giganews.com...
> >>> MarkA wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>
> >>>>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought.  Truth is that no
> >>>>> man
> >>>>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>
> >>>> Talk about unintended humor!  Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
> >>>> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up
> >>>> with
> >>>> the idea in the first place.
>
> >>> And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
>
> >> Prove it.
>
> > Okay, except for parrots, but they just copy the sounds they hear.  Sort
> > of like believers in talking snakes.
>
> diversion noted.
> diversion rejected.

Nope.
Only diversion is YOURS.

[Uergil]

In article <g5fg7816rfb1l6n86...@4ax.com>,

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> Which came first: the heart or a need for one?

A use/need for one must have come first, as that is how Evolution works.

Variations which confer no advantage tend not to be preserved.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson

[Uergil]

In article <fYTds.580$ey7...@fe33.iad>, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>
wrote:

Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
limited vocabularies.

As to the existence of angels, there is absolutely no objective physical
evidence supporting any claims of angelic existence, so no reason to
suppose any do exist.




And Mitt wants to make all abortions illegal!

The Best Way To Lower Abortion Rates Is To Give All Women Free And
Effective Birth Control


http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224132-free-birth-control-cu
ts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds?lite

[duke]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:31:29 -0600, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:

>In article <fYTds.580$ey7...@fe33.iad>, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>
>wrote:
>
>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> news:d4ydnc0JSKgX6-rN...@giganews.com...
>> > MarkA wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no
>> >>> man
>> >>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>> >>>
>> >> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
>> >> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
>> >> the idea in the first place.
>> >>
>> >
>> > And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
>> Prove it.

>Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>limited vocabularies.

Did a prairie dog tell you that?

>As to the existence of angels, there is absolutely no objective physical
>evidence supporting any claims of angelic existence, so no reason to
>suppose any do exist.

And I don't have any evidence to suggest that you weren't hatched, so there.

[linuxgal]

Uergil wrote:
> In article <fYTds.580$ey7...@fe33.iad>, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> news:d4ydnc0JSKgX6-rN...@giganews.com...
>>> MarkA wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that no
>>>>> man
>>>>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>>>>>
>>>> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
>>>> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
>>>> the idea in the first place.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
> calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
> limited vocabularies.

They sure as shit don't cover the sacraments.

[Brian E. Clark]

In article <gsWdnT9viPAg5uXN...@giganews.com>,
linu...@cleanposts.com says...

> > Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
> > calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
> > limited vocabularies.
>
> They sure as shit don't cover the sacraments.

That's a point in their favor.

--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

[MarkA]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:17:41 -0600, Uergil wrote:

> In article <g5fg7816rfb1l6n86...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Which came first: the heart or a need for one?
>
> A use/need for one must have come first, as that is how Evolution works.
>
> Variations which confer no advantage tend not to be preserved.

No, if a variation is completely neutral, it will randomly distribute
throughout the population.

[MarkA]

It's perfectly clear to me. In the Bible, Jesus says that "None come to
the Father except through me." Christians have widely interpreted that to
mean that only by accepting Jesus as your Saviour can you get into Heaven.
Many Christians, Catholics in particular, also believe that the soul
enters the body at the moment of conception (which is not actually a
moment, BTW, but that's a discussion for another day).

This creates a conflict, when you consider that for every person alive
today, there are at least 3 or 4 who died within a few days of conception,
because their blastocyst did not implant in the wall of their mother's
uterus. Clearly, they can't go to Heaven. Equally clearly, they don't
deserve to go to Hell, either. And, there's a LOT of them.

For a while, the RCC solved the problem by postulating the existence of
"Limbo", where everyone goes if they don't qualify for either Heaven or
Hell. Recently, the Pope decided that Limbo wasn't such a good idea after
all, so they stopped promoting it.

So, now, if you ask a "good Catholic" what happens to the soul of an
unbaptized baby that dies, they say, "Idunno", and leave it at that.

I'm waiting for the Pope to realize that, since the Bible doesn't say
anything against abortion or birth control, either, he should maybe apply
the same "Idunno" standard there, too?

I'm not holding my breath.

[MarkA]

They may not have sacraments, but they have plenty of excrement, which is
infinitely more useful.

[MarkA]

It's a fair cop!

[Uergil]

In article <RqWds.170$NB2...@fe12.iad>, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>

wrote:

> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
> news:hN-dnSZaDO-lguXN...@giganews.com...
> > Patrick wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
> >> news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
> >>> Patrick wrote:
> >>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
> >>>
> >>> You must be disappointed.
> >>
> >> I've got one, honey.
> >
> > Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
> > community.
>
> All men have one.
> You are not a man.
> You don't have one.
> Simple.

Having a dick does not confer wisdom.
Too many, like "Patrick", seem to think it can replace their brain!

The Best Way To Lower Abortion Rates Is To Give All Women Free And
Effective Birth Control


http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224132-free-birth-control-cu
ts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds?lite

***************************************

Obama is on the side of common people.
Romney is on the side of the wealthy.
Whose side will you be on?

***************************************

[Paul Duca]

On Oct 12, 11:11 am, "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hN-dnSZaDO-lguXN...@giganews.com...
>
> > Patrick wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message

> >>news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
> >>> Patrick wrote:
> >>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>
> >>> You must be disappointed.
>
> >> I've got one, honey.
>
> > Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
> > community.
>
> All men have one.

> I never use mine.
> I don't know if I am still a man
> That makes things complex

[Paul Duca]

On Oct 12, 11:51 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:13:51 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:23:49 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> At the moment of conception, God infuses a soul into the body.  From
> >>>>> that moment on, a human being is starting a journey to God's arms.
>
> >>>> If that's the case, why is it that the majority of fertilized oocytes
> >>>> will fail to implant, and those souls will be right back in God's arms
> >>>> within a few days?  Seems like a pretty pointless endeavor to me.
>
> >>>Not unless they've been baptized. If they haven't they end up in Limbo.
> >>>Oh. Wait. That was the way I was taught in Catholic school decades ago.
> >>>Some later Pope decided that was nonsense. Now they go directly to hell.
>
> >> No, you should has stuck with our original thought.  Truth is that no man
> >> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
> >Talk about unintended humor!  Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
> >happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up with
> >the idea in the first place.
>
> Exactly, numbnuts.  Scripture states that only the baptized can see the kingdom
> of God.  It is man specifically that expressed the idea that, shirley, our
> loving God would not relegate the unbaptized dead infant to hell forever as it
> is no fault of his own.  In recent times, numbuts, we came to accept that God
> never said one way or the otter for sure, so we no longer push this idea over
> that idea.
>

Could you explain WHY, all of a sudden Catholics began shedding
crocodile tears over babies in Hell?


Paul

[Patrick]

"Uergil" <Uer...@uer.net> wrote in message
news:Uergil-33F01E....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...

> In article <RqWds.170$NB2...@fe12.iad>, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> news:hN-dnSZaDO-lguXN...@giganews.com...
>> > Patrick wrote:
>> >> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:BoWdna6RBNQ_HurN...@giganews.com...
>> >>> Patrick wrote:
>> >>>> Hmmmm - you really are excited about dicks, aren't you?
>> >>>
>> >>> You must be disappointed.
>> >>
>> >> I've got one, honey.
>> >
>> > Just so nobody forgets, Patrick here represents the Roman Catholic
>> > community.
>>
>> All men have one.
>> You are not a man.
>> You don't have one.
>> Simple.
>
> Having a dick does not confer wisdom.
> Too many, like "Patrick", seem to think it can replace their brain!

Not my claim, honey.

[Patrick]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote ...

> , Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
>>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d4ydnc0JSKgX6-rN...@giganews.com...
>>> > MarkA wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that
>>> >>> no
>>> >>> man
>>> >>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>>> >>>
>>> >> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say what
>>> >> happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who came up
>>> >> with
>>> >> the idea in the first place.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
>>> Prove it.
>
>>Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>>calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>>limited vocabularies.
>
> Did a prairie dog tell you that?

I used to whistle on the prairie and wait until one of them gophers
would stick his head up. Then, I'd shoot his brains out.

[Patrick]

"MarkA" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote

> For a while, the RCC solved the problem by postulating the existence of
> "Limbo", where everyone goes if they don't qualify for either Heaven or
> Hell. Recently, the Pope decided that Limbo wasn't such a good idea after
> all, so they stopped promoting it.
>
> So, now, if you ask a "good Catholic" what happens to the soul of an
> unbaptized baby that dies, they say, "Idunno", and leave it at that.
>
> I'm waiting for the Pope to realize that, since the Bible doesn't say
> anything against abortion or birth control, either, he should maybe apply
> the same "Idunno" standard there, too?
>
> I'm not holding my breath.

Good plan. Abortion is the deliberate taking of a life.
That will never be accepted as logical or moral behavior.
Birth control is another story.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <4peg785bpdtodgnsm...@4ax.com>,

Not according to your bible which states that only believers have
eternal life.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Uergil]

In article <W11es.4526$9_1....@fe07.iad>, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com>
wrote:

It it whether it is your practice to think with it that is in question.

[duke]

U-boy talks to them instead.

[duke]

That too.

[duke]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:01:29 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>

Now you're starting to get it. It's God's decision.

[duke]

Exactly.

> Christians have widely interpreted that to
>mean that only by accepting Jesus as your Saviour can you get into Heaven.

No, that's your interpretation regardless of what others think. You see, to me
belief mandates following, but following does not mandate belief. God called us
to follow, not to "believe". Many people in the world live a life equal to
following Jesus, even though they realize it not.

>Many Christians, Catholics in particular, also believe that the soul
>enters the body at the moment of conception (which is not actually a
>moment, BTW, but that's a discussion for another day).

You can't split hairs. God knows when it happens.

>This creates a conflict, when you consider that for every person alive
>today, there are at least 3 or 4 who died within a few days of conception,
>because their blastocyst did not implant in the wall of their mother's
>uterus. Clearly, they can't go to Heaven. Equally clearly, they don't
>deserve to go to Hell, either. And, there's a LOT of them.

Agreed, and now you know where the concept of limbo comes from. It is a BELIEF,
not a fact, that our loving God does not eternally punish the unbaptized infant
for no fault of his own. But no man can state one way or the other.

>For a while, the RCC solved the problem by postulating the existence of
>"Limbo", where everyone goes if they don't qualify for either Heaven or
>Hell. Recently, the Pope decided that Limbo wasn't such a good idea after
>all, so they stopped promoting it.
>So, now, if you ask a "good Catholic" what happens to the soul of an
>unbaptized baby that dies, they say, "Idunno", and leave it at that.

We never did, we don't now, we never will. God alone calls the shots.

>I'm waiting for the Pope to realize that, since the Bible doesn't say
>anything against abortion or birth control, either, he should maybe apply
>the same "Idunno" standard there, too?
>I'm not holding my breath.

Then breathe. The Pope long ago advised that we don't know one way or the
other, but we can only hope that our loving God has plans for those infants that
died unbaptized to eventually be raised to the heavenly kingdom.

[Patrick]

"Uergil" <Uer...@uer.net> wrote com...

>, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> > wrote:
>
>> > Having a dick does not confer wisdom.
>> > Too many, like "Patrick", seem to think it can replace their brain!
>>
>> Not my claim, honey.
>
> It it whether it is your practice to think with it that is in question.

Stop being pissed that God never gave you one.

[duke]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:23:37 -0400, Brian E. Clark

Satan likes that one.

[duke]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:07:49 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:23:37 -0400, Brian E. Clark wrote:
>
>> In article <gsWdnT9viPAg5uXN...@giganews.com>,
>> linu...@cleanposts.com says...
>>
>>> > Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite
>>> > different calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they
>>> > do have quite limited vocabularies.
>>>
>>> They sure as shit don't cover the sacraments.
>>
>> That's a point in their favor.
>
>They may not have sacraments, but they have plenty of excrement, which is
>infinitely more useful.

What do you use it for?

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:23:37 -0400, Brian E. Clark
> <brian...@newsgroup.reply.only> wrote:
>
>> In article <gsWdnT9viPAg5uXN...@giganews.com>,
>> linu...@cleanposts.com says...
>>
>>>> Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>>>> calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>>>> limited vocabularies.
>>>
>>> They sure as shit don't cover the sacraments.
>>
>> That's a point in their favor.
>
> Satan likes that one.

I suppose you know that from being in his personal entourage.

[MarkA]

Now this is interesting. The very last post of yours that I read before
this one was the one where you said that "deliberate taking of a life will
never be accepted as logical or moral behavior." Clearly, you didn't mean
just *any* life. You must have meant "human life, under some
circumstances". After all, even in the Bible, God says, "Thou shalt not
kill", and Moses immediately orders the execution of 3,000 people for
worshiping the golden calf made by Aaron. So, even killing humans is OK
under some circumstances.

You and I just have different circumstances that we recognize as
appropriate for killing some humans.

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[Uergil]

In article <UDdes.77453$oJ3....@fed07.iad>,

I have one, so that if, as you claim, your god did not give it to me,
you have just given me a TOTALLY sufficient reason to be an atheist.

The Best Way To Lower Abortion Rates Is To Give All Women Free And
Effective Birth Control


http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224132-free-birth-control-cu
ts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds?lite

[Patrick]

"MarkA" <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote ..

> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:45:20 -0400, Patrick wrote:
>>>>> > MarkA wrote:
>>>>> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:46:48 -0500, duke wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> No, you should has stuck with our original thought. Truth is that
>>>>> >>> no
>>>>> >>> man
>>>>> >>> can state definitively what happens to the unbaptized soul.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >> Talk about unintended humor! Men are the ONLY ones who can say
>>>>> >> what happens to the unbaptized soul, since they are the ones who
>>>>> >> came up with
>>>>> >> the idea in the first place.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> > And also because there are no angels and animals don't talk.
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>>>Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>>>>calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>>>>limited vocabularies.
>>>
>>> Did a prairie dog tell you that?
>>
>> I used to whistle on the prairie and wait until one of them gophers would
>> stick his head up. Then, I'd shoot his brains out.
>
> Now this is interesting. The very last post of yours that I read before
> this one was the one where you said that "deliberate taking of a life will
> never be accepted as logical or moral behavior." Clearly, you didn't mean
> just *any* life. You must have meant "human life, under some
> circumstances".

Exactly.
Human life and animal life are not even close to the same thing.
Have you ever seen a hereford calf step in a gopher hole and break
its leg? It is very sad. The calf's mother will even give up on the
calf and move on. I just happen o value a calf's life above a gopher's
life.
And I consider a human life to be infinitely more important than
a calf's life. ANy more questions?

> After all, even in the Bible, God says, "Thou shalt not
> kill", and Moses immediately orders the execution of 3,000 people for
> worshiping the golden calf made by Aaron. So, even killing humans is OK
> under some circumstances.

OK.
I don't hold a lot of reality in some of the OT stories.

> You and I just have different circumstances that we recognize as
> appropriate for killing some humans.

Yes.
I don't think I could kill another human unless it were under
extraordinary circumstances. But, I won't shed any tears if
you go around killing rapists in the streets.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <doli78559spo8096r...@4ax.com>,

Wow. Talk about twisted logic.

What, exactly, am I starting to get? The fact that you always bring up
the empty threat when you're losing an argument?

[Patrick]

"Uergil" <Uer...@uer.net> wrote in message

news:Uergil-7F1856....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...

> In article <UDdes.77453$oJ3....@fed07.iad>,
> "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> wrote:
>
>> "Uergil" <Uer...@uer.net> wrote com...
>> >, "Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Having a dick does not confer wisdom.
>> >> > Too many, like "Patrick", seem to think it can replace their brain!
>> >>
>> >> Not my claim, honey.
>> >
>> > It it whether it is your practice to think with it that is in question.
>>
>> Stop being pissed that God never gave you one.
>
> I have one, so that if, as you claim, your god did not give it to me,
> you have just given me a TOTALLY sufficient reason to be an atheist.

I thought you were a chick?
Or was that someone else who had "gal" in their name.
All you loozers confuse me with fake monikers.

[Uergil]

In article <gvjes.44799$L57....@fed13.iad>,

"Patrick" <PBARK...@r.com> wrote:

> Human life and animal life are not even close to the same thing.

Human life is just one version of animal life, which is itself only one
of a number of different forms of life on Earth..

Patrick is well over 90% identical with the great apes, but acts more
like a monkey.

The Best Way To Lower Abortion Rates Is To Give All Women Free And
Effective Birth Control


http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224132-free-birth-control-cu
ts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds?lite

***************************************

Obama is on the side of people.
Romney is on the side of wealth.
Which side are you on?

***************************************

[Budikka666]

With free birth control, abortion rate drops, but you never see lying
scum like J Young promoting that, do you?
http://www.futurity.org/health-medicine/with-free-birth-control-abortion-rate-drops/

That's why he's a piece of theist trash.

Budikka

[james g. keegan jr.]

In article
<50861ee5-7263-45ce...@n2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Oct 9, 2:44 am, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > Summary:  No child is ever involved in any abortion.  End of story.  So,
> > what else is new?
>
> The fact that your summary is a lie is not new.

that allegation from a well known plagiarist like you doesn't carry much
weight.

[Father Haskell]

On Oct 13, 3:43 pm, "Patrick" <PBARKER...@r.com> wrote:
>
> Human life and animal life are not even close to the same thing.
> Have you ever seen a hereford calf step in a gopher hole and break
> its leg?  It is very sad.  The calf's mother will even give up on the
> calf and move on.  I just happen o value a calf's life above a gopher's
> life.
> And I consider a human life to be infinitely more important than
> a calf's life.  ANy more questions?

Kabang the shepherd is more noble than you'll ever be.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/kabang-hero-dog_n_1962929.html

[duke]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 11:39:46 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:23:37 -0400, Brian E. Clark
>> <brian...@newsgroup.reply.only> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <gsWdnT9viPAg5uXN...@giganews.com>,
>>> linu...@cleanposts.com says...
>>>
>>>>> Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>>>>> calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>>>>> limited vocabularies.

>>>> They sure as shit don't cover the sacraments.
>>> That's a point in their favor.
>> Satan likes that one.

>I suppose you know that from being in his personal entourage.

When the shoe fits, you don't have to walk with the foot.

[duke]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 15:30:17 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

>> >> >You have yet to provide any evidence that this god of yours exists.
>> >> >Until you do that, your argument is null and void.

>> >> And you will burn in hell until hell is null and void.

>> >Not according to your bible which states that only believers have
>> >eternal life.

>> Now you're starting to get it. It's God's decision.

>Wow. Talk about twisted logic.
>What, exactly, am I starting to get? The fact that you always bring up
>the empty threat when you're losing an argument?

Why do you engage in these discussions when basic logic alludes you?
But I'll help you a bit seeing as you're so easily confused.

YOUR reference, the bible, states that following God is rewarded with eternal
life ........ in his heavenly kingdom. Those that don't follow him go another
way - very little said about another way but often referenced to the wheat hulls
burned in the village garbage dump. Is it eternal? Maybe fuel in hell never
burns out. I just don't know. This is your demonstrated choice. If you don't
like it, look to yourself, not me.

[Patrick]

"Uergil" <Uer...@uer.net> wrote .

>
> Patrick is well over 90% identical with the great apes, but acts more
> like a monkey.

Since he cannot debate the facts, he insults the poster.

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 11:39:46 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:23:37 -0400, Brian E. Clark
>>> <brian...@newsgroup.reply.only> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <gsWdnT9viPAg5uXN...@giganews.com>,
>>>> linu...@cleanposts.com says...
>>>>
>>>>>> Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>>>>>> calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>>>>>> limited vocabularies.
>
>>>>> They sure as shit don't cover the sacraments.
>>>> That's a point in their favor.
>>> Satan likes that one.
>
>> I suppose you know that from being in his personal entourage.
>
> When the shoe fits, you don't have to walk with the foot.
>

That's good, because if I tried to wear your cloven shoes they'd smart
something fierce.


--
Teddy Roosevelt - Square Deal
Franklin Roosevelt - New Deal
Harry Truman - Fair Deal
Bill Clinton - Meal Deal
Barack Obama - Raw Deal

[Uergil]

In article <8t9l78ptct22nipfu...@4ax.com>,

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 15:30:17 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> >You have yet to provide any evidence that this god of yours exists.
> >> >> >Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
>
> >> >> And you will burn in hell until hell is null and void.
>
> >> >Not according to your bible which states that only believers have
> >> >eternal life.
>
> >> Now you're starting to get it. It's God's decision.
>
> >Wow. Talk about twisted logic.
> >What, exactly, am I starting to get? The fact that you always bring up
> >the empty threat when you're losing an argument?
>
> Why do you engage in these discussions when basic logic alludes you?
> But I'll help you a bit seeing as you're so easily confused.
>
> YOUR reference, the bible, states that following God is rewarded with eternal
> life ........ in his heavenly kingdom. Those that don't follow him go
> another way

Actually the bible says in several places that only those who follow
Jesus will never die, which implies that those who do not will die and
be no more.

Personally, the choice between an end of life or an infinite life with
your sort of god makes such an end seem heavenly and that sort of
everlasting life a hell.

[linuxgal]

Uergil wrote:
>
> Actually the bible says in several places that only those who follow
> Jesus will never die, which implies that those who do not will die and
> be no more.

They got that figured out. The followers of Jesus never die
SPIRITUALLY. And how does Jesus know they are his followers?

Luke 14:33 "Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath,
he cannot be my disciple."

Whereupon his wealthiest followers will tell him, "I forsook all that I
had SPIRITUALLY."

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <8t9l78ptct22nipfu...@4ax.com>,
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 15:30:17 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> >You have yet to provide any evidence that this god of yours exists.
> >> >> >Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
>
> >> >> And you will burn in hell until hell is null and void.
>
> >> >Not according to your bible which states that only believers have
> >> >eternal life.
>
> >> Now you're starting to get it. It's God's decision.
>
> >Wow. Talk about twisted logic.
> >What, exactly, am I starting to get? The fact that you always bring up
> >the empty threat when you're losing an argument?
>
> Why do you engage in these discussions when basic logic alludes you?
> But I'll help you a bit seeing as you're so easily confused.
>
> YOUR reference, the bible, states that following God is rewarded with eternal
> life ........ in his heavenly kingdom. Those that don't follow him go
> another
> way - very little said about another way but often referenced to the wheat
> hulls
> burned in the village garbage dump. Is it eternal? Maybe fuel in hell never
> burns out. I just don't know. This is your demonstrated choice. If you
> don't
> like it, look to yourself, not me.

Are you claiming that there's ANY logic in that silly paragraph?

[duke]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 06:54:12 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 11:39:46 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:23:37 -0400, Brian E. Clark
>>>> <brian...@newsgroup.reply.only> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <gsWdnT9viPAg5uXN...@giganews.com>,
>>>>> linu...@cleanposts.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually some animals do 'talk', e.g., prairie dogs have quite different
>>>>>>> calls to warn of hawks versus coyotes and wolves. But they do have quite
>>>>>>> limited vocabularies.
>>
>>>>>> They sure as shit don't cover the sacraments.
>>>>> That's a point in their favor.
>>>> Satan likes that one.
>>
>>> I suppose you know that from being in his personal entourage.
>>
>> When the shoe fits, you don't have to walk with the foot.

>That's good, because if I tried to wear your cloven shoes they'd smart
>something fierce.

You wear those? No wonder you are so cranky. Heeheehee.

[duke]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 14:59:46 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>Uergil wrote:
>>
>> Actually the bible says in several places that only those who follow
>> Jesus will never die, which implies that those who do not will die and
>> be no more.
>
>They got that figured out. The followers of Jesus never die
>SPIRITUALLY. And how does Jesus know they are his followers?

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're more advanced than that, which I
expect from javs.

>Luke 14:33 "Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath,
>he cannot be my disciple."
>
>Whereupon his wealthiest followers will tell him, "I forsook all that I
>had SPIRITUALLY."

[duke]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:11:59 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>

ARRRGGGGGGG!! The competition is dead in the water.

[Syd M.]

On Oct 15, 8:14 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:11:59 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <8t9l78ptct22nipfua9k5fqvflu7djb...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 15:30:17 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com>

> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >You have yet to provide any evidence that this god of yours exists.
> >> >> >> >Until you do that, your argument is null and void.
>
> >> >> >> And you will burn in hell until hell is null and void.
>
> >> >> >Not according to your bible which states that only believers have
> >> >> >eternal life.
>
> >> >> Now you're starting to get it.  It's God's decision.
>
> >> >Wow. Talk about twisted logic.
> >> >What, exactly, am I starting to get? The fact that you always bring up
> >> >the empty threat when you're losing an argument?
>
> >> Why do you engage in these discussions when basic logic alludes you?
> >> But I'll help you a bit seeing as you're so easily confused.
>
> >> YOUR reference, the bible, states that following God is rewarded with eternal
> >> life ........ in his heavenly kingdom.  Those that don't follow him go
> >> another
> >> way - very little said about another way but often referenced to the wheat
> >> hulls
> >> burned in the village garbage dump.  Is it eternal?  Maybe fuel in hell never
> >> burns out.  I just don't know.  This is your demonstrated choice.  If you
> >> don't
> >> like it, look to yourself, not me.
>
> >Are you claiming that there's ANY logic in that silly paragraph?
>
> ARRRGGGGGGG!!  The competition is dead in the water.
>
>

So, the answer to her question is 'no', then, ignorant lying Earl?

[Syd M.]

On Oct 15, 8:13 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 14:59:46 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >Uergil wrote:
>
> >> Actually the bible says in several places that only those who follow
> >> Jesus will never die, which implies that those who do not will die and
> >> be no more.
>
> >They got that figured out.  The followers of Jesus never die
> >SPIRITUALLY.   And how does Jesus know they are his followers?
>
> You're kidding, right?  Please tell me you're more advanced than that, which I
> expect from javs.
>

We expect NOTHING from you, Earl.
And we get it in spades.

[Dino]

Oh Syd??? I have to track you down. You dodged and ran away.

> On Oct 12, 7:01 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On Oct 12, 1:20 pm, Dino <whate...@homemail.com> wrote:

> > > On Oct 12, 11:49 am, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > On Oct 12, 12:22 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:

> > > > > This is the mentality of the pro-choice' lobby; all kids have the
> > > > > 'right' to be killed.

> > > > Oh, look; More idiotic and hateful propaganda.
> > > > If the bus driver really said that, he should be suspended.
> > > > But I doubt he did, coming from you, the biggest liar here.

> > > Can we talk about your lies?
> > > Like how you claimed I interfered in women's choices, or wanted to
> > > force women to carry to term?

> > It's not a lie, asshole.

> It is. And unless you can point to the woman, you claim I interfered
> in her choices..it shall remain a lie.

> Asshole.

> Now, get to work and prove your claims.

> Oh, and provide the woman's identity that you claim I "forced" to
> carry to term, moron.
> Some dates, times, locations are going to be needed as well.

> > That IS what you are advocating.

> And that too is a lie.
> I do NOT advocate interfering in her right to choose.
> I do NOT advocate forcing her to carry to term.

> Got any more lies, moron?

> > Look, do you or do you not support pro-life?

> I support EVERY persons right to make choices that are legal.
> Understand?
> That includes a woman's right to choose to abort or carry.

> That does NOT mean I have to support the choice. Got it, asshole?

> I seriously doubt you can comprehend that. It's probably a little
> complex. Regardless, you have some claims to support.

> Provide names, dates, times, locations.

You suddenly got quiet Syd.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <ofvn785jsc7l40b7q...@4ax.com>,

Deflection noted. Deflection rejected.

Answer the question.

[duke]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 06:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Dino <what...@homemail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 15, 8:32 am, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 8:13 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 14:59:46 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>> > >Uergil wrote:
>>
>> > >> Actually the bible says in several places that only those who follow
>> > >> Jesus will never die, which implies that those who do not will die and
>> > >> be no more.
>>
>> > >They got that figured out.  The followers of Jesus never die
>> > >SPIRITUALLY.   And how does Jesus know they are his followers?
>>
>> > You're kidding, right?  Please tell me you're more advanced than that, which I
>> > expect from javs.
>>
>> We expect NOTHING from you, Earl.
>> And we get it in spades.
>
>Oh Syd??? I have to track you down. You dodged and ran away.

syd and pdw are 2 village idiots in one skin.

[duke]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:32:46 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>

And you still can't come to grips with it.

>Answer the question.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <gbjo78p8qsl0k4gtt...@4ax.com>,

And you STILL haven't answered the question.

[duke]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:29:33 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>

And you still can't offer any substance to a discussion. A discussion is more
than one person (me) offering substance and detail and one person (you) only
asking questions.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <9ekq78p4v09ic00gr...@4ax.com>,

Deflection noted. Deflection rejected.

Answer the question.

[duke]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:47:38 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>

You have nothing of substance to add to a discussion.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <mq7t781c38c75aepj...@4ax.com>,

And yet another confession to not knowing the answer to the question.