Where's that champagne?
iaoua iaoua
what an adventure! It was a long year with a bit of a bumpy ride but
there is hope for the British justice system yet. There are evidently
still a few good men left in this country. I won the appeal and my
name has been cleared for the allegations that saw me wrongfully
imprisoned last year.
That's Yhwh 1 Satan 0. Bring it on fallen angel fuzzball. Is that all
you got?
JC
JTEM
iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> what an adventure!
Not really. No.
> It was a long year with a bit of a bumpy ride but
> there is hope for the British justice system yet.
Why do they dress as women? You know, with those
black gowns and those wigs? I thought cross dressing
was supposed to be looked down on in the U.K....
> There are evidently still a few good men left in this
> country.
Damn them with faint praise....
> I won the appeal and my name has been cleared for the
> allegations that saw me wrongfully imprisoned last year.
So that sheep did in fact "Ask for it," huh?
--
Check out my friend's lame ass show:
David Iain Greig
Guessing 'not guilty by reason of mental incapacity'.
--D.
iaoua iaoua
Actually, the only point where I was in danger of being found guilty
was on the basis of being more intelligent than the average yobbo that
these folk have to deal with. I think the thought process goes
something like as follows.
' this man is evidently more intelligent than me
' I find that intimidating in some way
' also this person has a slightly different moral outlook than I
(keyword typically used by southeners in this case is 'strange')
' this makes me dislike him
' combining these two factors I decide that he must be guilty
' in fact, I would go so far as to conclude that not only is he
evidently mentally ill but also a genius these two factors being the
common traits of a dangerous criminal mastermind
' if we combine this with deeply ingrained sectarian beliefs I further
conclude that this person poses a threat to my accepted form of
society
' so, even if he isn't guilty let's just lock him up and throw away
the key
' surely, society would be better off without a person like that
Fortunately, they managed to detatch themselves from these kind of
prejudiced lines of thought and concentrate on the real matter. That
of establishing the facts. And for that they managed to gain my
respect.
In any case, locking me up didn't solve anything. While in prison I
continued to preach God's kingdom and like Jesus can happily report
the following. I found more sincerity of heart and willingness to
listen to the voice of Christ among society's so called criminals than
anywhere else. Teaching these people about Christ was a real privilege
and a pleasure. The contrast of pride and closed mindedness of the
middle classes that shafted me with the humility and willingness to
learn of the lower class and victims of the society that they created
was immediately evident. I can only pray that Yhwh continues to help
such people find me that I can continue to have the pleasure of
teaching such delightful children who no doubtedly will win a firm
place in the Kingdom of God before any their 'righteous' persecutors.
You can't beat me. You can't stop me talking if you don't cut out my
tongue. Even if you cut out my tongue God will give me a voice more
eloquent and beautiful than the one I had with it. Even if you kill me
you cannot silence me. For God will raise me up in a spiritual body
more powerful than my physical form could ever dream of being. The
truth will out. You cannot keep it behind bars. You cannot overpower
it with the darkness. Light conquers the dark. Darkness can only exist
in the absence of light. We are the light of this world and you cannot
turn these lights off. The more you try the brighter we will shine
until that glorious day when we shine together with our father, the
father of the light, the father of our King and teacher Christ in a
kingdom where the darkness has been overpowered for ever. Where no lie
exists. Where no truth is hidden. Where righteousness rules. Not men's
righteousness. But that of God. That which is above our own
understanding of righteousness, that which is pure, that which is true
- that which is love.
JC
JC
Ilas
9892-71f...@p6g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
> bleeuurgh <
Yep, we've got loons in the UK too.
Frank J
> Hi guys,
>
> what an adventure! It was a long year with a bit of a bumpy ride but
> there is hope for the British justice system yet. There are evidently
> still a few good men left in this country. I won the appeal and my
> name has been cleared for the allegations that saw me wrongfully
> imprisoned last year.
Count me glad that you're free. But something tells me that you'll
keep "imprisoning" yourself.
>
> That's Yhwh 1 Satan 0. Bring it on fallen angel fuzzball. Is that all
> you got?
>
> JC
As for the champagne, we're waiting for Ray's book.
Matchstick
dgr...@ediacara.org says...
It's a quiet morning so I've had a look over recent judgements from the
UK Appeals Court (Criminal Division) and Supreme Court.
http://www.bailii.org/recent-decisions.html#ew/cases/EWCA/Crim
http://www.bailii.org/recent-decisions.html#uk/cases/UKSC
There's nothing from the Supreme Court that looks applicable and the
only cases I can see from the other court where appears have been
granted in the last month are
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1177.html
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1197.html
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1142.html
I wonder if the OP would like to tell us which, if any, if the relevant
case ?
--
The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
fantastic
pnyikos
> On May 20, 5:44 am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>
> > iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi guys,
>
> > > what an adventure! It was a long year with a bit of a bumpy ride but
> > > there is hope for the British justice system yet. There are evidently
> > > still a few good men left in this country. I won the appeal and my
> > > name has been cleared for the allegations that saw me wrongfully
> > > imprisoned last year.
>
> > > That's Yhwh 1 Satan 0. Bring it on fallen angel fuzzball. Is that all
> > > you got?
>
> > Guessing 'not guilty by reason of mental incapacity'.
>
> > --D.
Hi, JC. I returned to talk.origins in December after about a decade
of absence, so I don't know who you are. Would you like to tell me a
little about your talk.origins activities before you went to gaol [do
the Brits still use that spelling?]?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.
Steven L.
"iaoua iaoua" wrote in message
news:iaoua-a215d4b4-aa8a-4...@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> what an adventure! It was a long year with a bit of a bumpy ride but
> there is hope for the British justice system yet. There are evidently
> still a few good men left in this country. I won the appeal and my
> name has been cleared for the allegations that saw me wrongfully
> imprisoned last year.
Refresh our memories:
What were you accused of doing?
-- Steven L.
r norman
Or what did you really do but got away with it?
raven1
<iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi guys,
>
>what an adventure! It was a long year with a bit of a bumpy ride but
>there is hope for the British justice system yet. There are evidently
>still a few good men left in this country. I won the appeal and my
>name has been cleared for the allegations that saw me wrongfully
>imprisoned last year.
Congratulations, but what the hell are you talking about?
Inez
> On May 20, 5:44 am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>
> > iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi guys,
>
> > > what an adventure! It was a long year with a bit of a bumpy ride but
> > > there is hope for the British justice system yet. There are evidently
> > > still a few good men left in this country. I won the appeal and my
> > > name has been cleared for the allegations that saw me wrongfully
> > > imprisoned last year.
>
> > > That's Yhwh 1 Satan 0. Bring it on fallen angel fuzzball. Is that all
> > > you got?
>
> > Guessing 'not guilty by reason of mental incapacity'.
>
> > --D.
>
> Actually, the only point where I was in danger of being found guilty
> was on the basis of being more intelligent than the average yobbo that
> these folk have to deal with.
Ah, so it's your intelligence that people don't like, not your massive
ego. Interesting.
r norman
It is not uncommon for those of us with vastly superior intelligence
but who are also unassuming, meek, humble and totally without ego to
be detested by the peasantry and proletariat.
Matchstick
match...@deadspam.com says...
Following up my previous post I note that the OP was posting via an IP
address at the University of Essex (155.245.37.43) in Colchester and
that the case covered in
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1197.html has connections
to Colchester.
Interestingly this case DOESN'T see the appellant's conviction
overturned but instead has his sentence reduced from 5 years
imprisonment to 2 years imprisonment with a restraining order, so I'm
sure it's unrelated to the OPs case which saw him "cleared for the
allegations that"
--
r norman
Besides, that case involved someone who heard voices telling him to
harm other people and there was serious question about his mental
stability. So there is obviously no connection here.
Steven L.
news:krsct69l559pclpm8...@4ax.com...
> Congratulations, but what the hell are you talking about?
I think his point is that it's tough to get Internet access if you're in
prison.
-- Steven L.
iaoua iaoua
Unless you can fit an iphone up your crack. Certain sources of
information maintain that some of the regulars can.
JC
iaoua iaoua
> In article <MPG.2840589adde8de71989...@news.individual.net>,
> matchst...@deadspam.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <cabal-ir4rjf$1f3...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> > dgr...@ediacara.org says...
> to Colchester.
>
> Interestingly this case DOESN'T see the appellant's conviction
> overturned but instead has his sentence reduced from 5 years
> imprisonment to 2 years imprisonment with a restraining order, so I'm
> sure it's unrelated to the OPs case which saw him "cleared for the
> allegations that"
>
> --
> The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
> fantastic
You have got to be the world's worst detective. Try again.
JC
Mitchell Coffey
You too?
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
His name is James Christian Read, and he's a graduate student at Essex
University. His case was in St Albans Magistrates Court 7, Thursday, 19
May 2011, room 6: http://incourts.co.uk/Daily/ThursdayFullList.html,
http://incourts.co.uk/Daily/Thursday/StAlbans.html.
From the last:
James Christian Read Room: 6
09:41:00: For Appeal against Conviction - Respondent Case Opened - 10:39
09:51:00: For Appeal against Conviction - Case adjourned until 10:50 - 10:41
10:01:00: For Appeal against Conviction - Respondent Case Opened - 10:56
10:11:00: For Appeal against Conviction - Respondent Case Opened - 11:03
10:21:00: For Appeal against Conviction - Case adjourned until 11:30 - 11:11
10:51:00: For Appeal against Conviction - Resume - 11:48
11:01:00: For Appeal against Conviction - Witness Number 1 Sworn - 11:53
11:51:00: For Appeal against Conviction - No Event - 12:44
12:21:00: For Appeal against Conviction - Case adjourned until 14:00 - 13:03
13:11:00: For Appeal against Conviction - No Event - 14:07
14:11:00: For Appeal against Conviction - No Event - 15:07
14:21:00: For Appeal against Conviction - Appellant Submissions - 15:19
14:31:00: For Appeal against Conviction - Appellant Sworn - 15:25
15:10:00: For Appeal against Conviction - No Event - 16:02
15:31:00: For Appeal against Conviction - Witness Number 2 Continues - 16:24
15:40:00: For Appeal against Conviction - Witness evidence concluded - 16:36
15:50:00: For Appeal against Conviction - Appellant Submissions - 16:38
16:00:00: For Appeal against Conviction - Appellant Submissions - 16:51
16:20:00: For Appeal against Conviction - Bench Retire to consider
Judgment - 17:14
17:00:00: For Appeal against Conviction - Hearing finished for JAMES
CHRISTIAN READ - 17:50
Mitchell Coffey
alextangent
> In article <MPG.2840589adde8de71989...@news.individual.net>,
> matchst...@deadspam.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > dgr...@ediacara.org says...
> to Colchester.
>
> Interestingly this case DOESN'T see the appellant's conviction
> overturned but instead has his sentence reduced from 5 years
> imprisonment to 2 years imprisonment with a restraining order, so I'm
> sure it's unrelated to the OPs case which saw him "cleared for the
> allegations that"
>
> --
> The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
> fantastic
None of those. I don't think it's been posted yet, since the hearing
was under the name James Christian Read at St Albans Crown Court on
the 19th; judgement may not have been written up yet. Case A20110049
when it does appear in bailii. He has used an address in Peterborough,
attends/(ed?) the University of Essex, so appealing at St Albans Crown
Court suggests several possibilities; though probably that he was
arrested in that court's jurisdiction & sentenced by that court
originally.
SkyEyes
> iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote in news:iaoua-a080d017-7446-43a2-
> 9892-71fed2d48...@p6g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>
> > bleeuurgh <
>
> Yep, we've got loons in the UK too.
Do us Yanks a favor? Keep JC on British soil. We've already got our
fair share of loons over here on the left side of the pond.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
Paul J Gans
Mike Painter
being imprisoned, if they were not guilty.
If you were not guilty why did your Jesus do at least as much.
Matthew 7:7-11 points this out.
iaoua iaoua
You are evidently not familiar with the story of Job. Quick summary.
Satan walks up to Yhwh in front of all the angels he would like to
have follow him and says the only reason Job loves you is because you
have blessed his hand with riches, beautiful wives and children if you
take everything he has away from him you will see that he will curse
you to your face. Yhwh rises to the challenge and says everything he
has is in your hands. Satan takes all of Job's possessions away from
Job and has his wife and kids killed. Job is understandably quite
upset but nonetheless remains faithfull.
Satan, not one to give up so easily, goes back to Yhwh in front of the
angels and claims that Job is remaining faithful because he still has
his health. Yhwh rises to the challenge and gives Job's body and
health in to Satan's hands. Satan is given authority to torture Job
physically but not to be allowed to touch his soul, i.e. kill him.
Satan tortures Job with bad health making his also very ugly in the
process. Job's 'friends' in the guise of being a helping hand tempt
Job to say something bad about Yhwh. Job remains faithful though not a
perfect example like Christ. Yhwh rectifies Job's attitude. Job humbly
accepts the instruction.
The eventual happy ending, Job is blessed with greater riches better
wives and more children.
You may also benefit from reading Peter's words which I found to be a
source of spiritual strength while under persecution:
- In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if
necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the
proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is
perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in
praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
- For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated,
you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and
suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.For
you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for
you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who
committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while
being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He
uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges
righteously;
- But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are
blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled,
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make
a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope
that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good
conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who
revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. For it is
better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is
right rather than for doing what is wrong.
- Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which
comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were
happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of
Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory
you may rejoice with exultation. If you are reviled for the name of
Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests
on you. Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or
evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; but if anyone suffers as a
Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this
name. For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God;
and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who
do not obey the gospel of God? And if it is with difficulty that the
righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the
sinner? Therefore, those also who suffer according to the will of God
shall entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is
right.
- Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He
may exalt you at the proper time, casting all your anxiety on Him,
because He cares for you. Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your
adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking
someone to devour. But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that
the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your
brethren who are in the world. After you have suffered for a little
while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in
Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.
Some translations translate the last passage with the phrase 'he will
finish your training'. The general idea is that remaining faithful
under persecution makes us stronger. I learned a great reliance on
God. It is easy to have faith when everything is going well. But when
you have been locked in a cell for something you haven't done that's
when we get to see what you're really made of. I fasted and relied on
God's holy spirit to keep me alive. It's always interesting to watch
people slowly recognise God's existence when the myth that a man
cannot survive without food and water for more than three days is
utterly smashed before their eyes. When two weeks have gone by and
they come and see you jogging on the spot, doing press ups, sit ups,
pull ups and singing psalms of praise in your dirty little cell
instead of asking for a glass of water or a bite to eat even the
hardest of heart are forced to come to the conclusion that something
supernatural is going on in that sanctuary of his (what they viewed as
my prison cell). It was a great privilege to have been able to help
such people come to give glory to God.
I hope my experience can give others suffering similar persecutions
worldwide to maintain their faith. Always keep in your minds and in
your hearts the words of our lord Jesus Christ
- Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and
falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. “Rejoice and
be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they
persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Stand firm. Keep the faith. Glorify God. Your reward will surely come.
- “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
JC
iaoua iaoua
> On May 20, 2:07 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>
> > iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote in news:iaoua-a080d017-7446-43a2-
> > 9892-71fed2d48...@p6g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > bleeuurgh <
>
> > Yep, we've got loons in the UK too.
>
> Do us Yanks a favor? Keep JC on British soil. We've already got our
> fair share of loons over here on the left side of the pond.
>
I really wouldn't see the point in remaining either in Britain or
coming over to America. These two countries are clearly beyond
salvation having set themselves up as above God's kingdom. However, I
could be wrong. See the story of Jonah. He refused to go to Nineva
reasoning they would have him killed. But then when he eventually went
they had him killed. Could it be the feminist divorce promoting
abortion loving anglican creation denying Yhwh hating anglican states
are the modern Nineva? Who knows! It could be a pleasurable surprise.
Should I step over into Macedonia and give you yanks a chance of
embracing the truth and getting of your high 'THIS A DEMOCRACY!', 'IM
AN AMERICAN' horses? It would require a lot of tact which I don't
really have. The pedastals you have set up for yourselves are really
quite high and I don't I have the ladder in my artillery that could
make the journey back down to earth less painful than the crash of
freefall. If I do come I guess I'll have to try my best. Are you ready
Ninevans? Do you want to meet the fearless preacher of God's Kingdom
JC in the flesh? Or do you prefer the comforts of living in the lies
of the modern moral system you have made for yourselves?
However, call me a prophet but here's a prediction of the attitude I
expect from you:
- Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with
their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is
the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all
continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”
JC
JC
iaoua iaoua
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 09:19:58 -0400, "Steven L."
>
Yes. That was the way I interpretted this prejudiced moron's question
as well. That's why I didn't grace the idiot with an answer.
- Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and
falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. “Rejoice and
be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they
persecuted the prophets who were before you.
And so all I can say is thank God there are so many wankers like him
around. Without them I really don't know where I would get such a
positive confirmation that I am on the right Christian path and such a
energetic source of faith building experiences.
- Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is
broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through
it. “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life,
and there are few who find it.
What better indicator could their be that you're going in through the
narrow gate than the overwhelming prevalance of judgemental tossers
like him going with the flow on the broad and spacious path that leads
to destruction. So please Steven L. do continue with your defamation
of my character. I'm loving every second of it.
JC
alextangent
> On May 20, 4:34 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 5:44 am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>
> > > iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi guys,
>
> > > > what an adventure! It was a long year with a bit of a bumpy ride but
> > > > there is hope for the British justice system yet. There are evidently
> > > > still a few good men left in this country. I won the appeal and my
> > > > name has been cleared for the allegations that saw me wrongfully
> > > > imprisoned last year.
>
> > > > That's Yhwh 1 Satan 0. Bring it on fallen angel fuzzball. Is that all
> > > > you got?
>
> > > Guessing 'not guilty by reason of mental incapacity'.
>
> > > --D.
>
> Hi, JC. I returned to talk.origins in December after about a decade
> of absence, so I don't know who you are. Would you like to tell me a
> little about your talk.origins activities before you went to gaol [do
> the Brits still use that spelling?]?
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
Tag team! Yay! You can do the sciencey stuff when you've an idle half
hour in the staff common room, and iaoua can find the bible verses
when he's not inside or avoiding bloodthirsty Romanians by skulking
around Italy.
David Hare-Scott
>abortion loving anglican creation denying Yhwh hating anglican states
>are the modern Nineva? Who knows! It could be a pleasurable surprise.
>
No, what you meant was:
Could it be the feminist divorce-promoting, abortion-loving, Anglican
creation-denying, Yhwh-hating Anglican States are the modern Nineva?
Who knows! It could be a pleasurable surprise.
Please, if you are going to use TO for pointless religious sectarian
vituperation get your punctuation right.
OTOH you could try posting on topic and f%ck the punctuation.
David
jillery
In the words of someone you appear to hold in high esteem:
"So be careful who you judge and curse. You never know if that
judgement and cursing will turn right back on you. But never be
stingy
with blessings. Because you can always be sure that they will return
to you at least as much and if not many fold. "
Steven L.
"iaoua iaoua" wrote in message
news:iaoua-aca8a257-15e4-4...@a26g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> What better indicator could their be that you're going in through the
> narrow gate than the overwhelming prevalance of judgemental tossers
> like him going with the flow on the broad and spacious path that leads
> to destruction. So please Steven L. do continue with your defamation
> of my character. I'm loving every second of it.
Asking you a simple question is "defaming your character"???
I was just curious. You seemed so happy that you cleared your name; I was
just wondering whether you were in a lot of trouble or just a little.
-- Steven L.
Frank J
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lemme guess, there is no record of that person ever calling anyone a
"prejudiced moron," "judgmental tosser," "idiot" and "wanker" on the
same page, right? If so I would say that JC(R) doesn't even *appear*
to hold that person in high esteem.
jillery
If you want to be charitable, think compartmentalization.
raven1
This story has always puzzled me as to why people find it
inspirational. What does it say about God's character that he allowed
one of his faithful servants to be tortured by one of his former
employees over a prop bet, regardless of whether he was eventually
made whole? Quite frankly, those are the actions of a capricious,
egomaniacal psychopath, not a loving father. And the ending doesn't
seem all that happy for Job's original wives and children.
Rather than tying one's self up in endless knots to solve the problem
of evil, Occam's razor offers a more elegant solution: there's no God,
and shit happens.
iaoua iaoua
Indeed. And yet here are the words of a man I hold in much higher
esteem.
A man is not made impure by what he eats. For what he eats journeys
through the belly and comes out the other hand. What makes a man
impure are his words. For his words come of his heart.
And again.
I did not come to judge but to save. It is not I who judge you but it
is you yourselves by not accepting my message of salvation.
JC
iaoua iaoua
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and apologise. But be honest.
Why did you really want to know? What difference does it make if I've
already been exhonerated?
JC
iaoua iaoua
Obviously, from a modern day Westernised view of morality I can kind
of see where you are coming from because I asked similar questions
myself once. However, before I get onto the meat of the response let
me just nip in the bud your last point. The story is clearly not
complete. It showed only blessings here on earth for his perseverence.
The story does not go on to detail what happened to his old wives and
kids in the resurrection because well it hasn't happened yet.
Anyway, on to answering the real question. One might well simple ask
why didn't Yhwh just kill Satan and Adam and Eve and all the other
fallen angels and start again from the very beginning. The simple
retaliation question is what would that have proved. That our father
Yhwh is good and we should listen to him because if not we'll get our
arses kicked. Not really a demonstration of righteousness now is it.
No! Yhwh allowed Satan to tempt mankind to mislead angels and allowed
the faithful to watch and decide which side they wanted to be on. By
letting man go his own way he has proved that his original intentions
for us were only good. He did not make us as robots but as living free
beings with the ability to make independent choices. We the faithful
that await God's kingdom have seen Satan's world and quite frankly we
don't like it. We want out. We want God's Kingdom. In my eyes Yhwh has
taught me in the best possibly way he ever could have.
JC
iaoua iaoua
So we are both agreed that the character string I sent you was
sufficiently disambiguous for you to figure it out for yourself then?
In that case, one can only conclude that your precious punctuation was
completely redundant. Now I understand why we don't feel the need to
explain to people where full stops and commas are in our speech
signals.
JC
iaoua iaoua
At last a detective with half a brain. I was convicted at Hertford
Magistrates. According to my solicitor had I given evidence I would
have won as the prosecutions case had been shown to full of lies.
However, I could not testify because the British Justice system
doesn't seem to understand that the Bible prohibits the making of
sworn oaths of any kind much less on the bible. I also didn't want to
go through the unpleasant experience of having to potentially
incriminate the complainant by giving the relevant information that
would secure the deal. It turns out that when you refuse to testify in
Britain that can be taken against you (like you have something to hide
or something) and that's basically what happened.
In any case I'm glad I've finally seen what a real court case runs
like. Magistrates court cases are amusingly reminiscent of Kangaroo
courts but not what I could take seriously as a proper truth
establishing justice system. Not on any level. In fact, every case
I've ever seen dealt with in a Magistrates has boiled down to people's
opinions rather than a weighting of established facts. It was a
pleasant surprise to see that the Crown court is more capable.
JC
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
I'm pretty sure that what you've just written is fiction.
jillery
You don't hear the grinding between these phrases? No dichotomy of
meaning? No conflict in spirit? Hmmmm????
Here's one I think is appropriate from someone I admire:
"Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits."
Mike Lyle
The bit about the oath is certainly fiction: English courts have
accepted affirmation on conscientious grounds for three hundred years.
--
Mike.
Frank J
He's at least 300 years out of date on the science too, so that might
explain it.
>
> --
> Mike.- Hide quoted text -
Mike Lyle
wrote:
>On May 21, 4:33 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 May 2011 13:21:30 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >On May 21, 7:30 pm, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> >> At last a detective with half a brain. I was convicted at Hertford
>> >> Magistrates. According to my solicitor had I given evidence I would
>> >> have won as the prosecutions case had been shown to full of lies.
>> >> However, I could not testify because the British Justice system
>> >> doesn't seem to understand that the Bible prohibits the making of
>> >> sworn oaths of any kind much less on the bible. I also didn't want to
>> >> go through the unpleasant experience of having to potentially
>> >> incriminate the complainant by giving the relevant information that
>> >> would secure the deal. It turns out that when you refuse to testify in
>> >> Britain that can be taken against you (like you have something to hide
>> >> or something) and that's basically what happened.
[...]
>>
>> >I'm pretty sure that what you've just written is fiction.
>>
>> The bit about the oath is certainly fiction: English courts have
>> accepted affirmation on conscientious grounds for three hundred years.
>
>He's at least 300 years out of date on the science too, so that might
>explain it.
>
Aha! At last we have the long-awaited evidence for reincarnation.
--
Mike.
David Hare-Scott
Does this mean you will be on topic from now on or are you going to
continue with irrelevant bible study and publishing snippets of your
personal life?
D
Mitchell Coffey
It was Ukrainians, as I recall. Ukrainian Mob, more specifically. And
they are chasing him all about Europe, point of fact. Truth be told,
they're the ones trumped up the charges that got him into an English
prison in the first place. The Ukrainian beef against him stems from him
knocking up one of their daughters, he having in a sense married one of
them - "married" sensu she became one of his several wives. The
Ukrainian Mob wants that kid, and willing to sink much resources into
its capture, for reasons unexplained.
Or so says Iaoua. I myself have my doubts regarding his recollections.
Randy C
> why didn't Yhwh just kill Satan and Adam and Eve and all the other
> fallen angels and start again from the very beginning.
Yup. Those seem like good questions.
> The simple
> retaliation question is what would that have proved. That our father
> Yhwh is good and we should listen to him because if not we'll get our
> arses kicked. Not really a demonstration of righteousness now is it.
Neither is the story that follows "demonstration of righteousness now
is it"?
> No! Yhwh allowed Satan to tempt mankind to mislead angels and allowed
> the faithful to watch and decide which side they wanted to be on. By
> letting man go his own way he has proved that his original intentions
> for us were only good.
Hardly!
I would strongly argue that organized Christianity has done more harm
than good in human society.
So if God's original plan was to create anything like a better society
through his words, then God's
plan isn't working.
How like a creationist it is to insist that God is incompetent!
Paul J Gans
>Or so says Iaoua. I myself have my doubts regarding his recollections.
I simply cannot read that nom-de-net without cracking up.
It, like his posts, are all vowels.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
RAM
Michael Siemon
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
a very moving observation...
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> > Anyway, on to answering the real question. One might well simple ask
> > why didn't Yhwh just kill Satan and Adam and Eve and all the other
> > fallen angels and start again from the very beginning.
>
> Yup. Those seem like good questions.
By not killing them then, he had a whole lot more people he could kill
later.
Killing about everyone in the world is less impressive when it's just
two people and a talking snake. In serial killer terms that doesn't
count as a "spree". It's just a twofer-plus-bunny. Terminating an
advanced global civilisation, people talk about that. Well, if any
people are left. Or consider Sodom and Gomorrah. One of those they
named a sin after. Quite a popular one, as it goes. It keeps your
message alive - unlike the populations of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Mike Painter
>>> Hi guys,
>>
>>> what an adventure! It was a long year with a bit of a bumpy ride but
>>> there is hope for the British justice system yet. There are
>>> evidently still a few good men left in this country. I won the
>>> appeal and my name has been cleared for the allegations that saw me
>>> wrongfully imprisoned last year.
>>
>>> That's Yhwh 1 Satan 0. Bring it on fallen angel fuzzball. Is that
>>> all you got?
>>
>> from being imprisoned, if they were not guilty.
>> If you were not guilty why did your Jesus do at least as much.
>> Matthew 7:7-11 points this out.
>
> You are evidently not familiar with the story of Job. Quick summary.
>
I'm quite familar with it.
God or human, such behavior is sick.
Humans that treated people this way would go to jail.
I suspect my cat was tormented by children bfore I obtained her. After
nearly four years she is just now starting to play with objects and will
stop if she sees me watching. It was two years before she started purring.
Your god has less compassion than a spider.
What happens when it finds out what you said about not testifying because
you would not take an oaht, something that the courts do not require.
Mitchell Coffey
And sometimes "why?"
Mitchell
iaoua iaoua
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 7:30 pm,iaouaiaoua<iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 12:00 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 20, 3:28 pm, Matchstick <matchst...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <MPG.2840589adde8de71989...@news.individual.net>,
> > > > matchst...@deadspam.com says...
>
> > > > > In article <cabal-ir4rjf$1f3...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> > > > > dgr...@ediacara.org says...
>
OK! Let's do an empirical exercise shall we. Let's generate a list of
all magistrates cases where the evidence presented to the magistrates
boiled down to the word of the complainant against the word of the
defendant with no other decisive independent evidence. The law in such
cases would stipulate that the magistrates should find the defendant
not guilty as the onus of the proof is on the prosecution. Now if our
statistical exercise were to find that a statistically significant
proportion of such cases dealt with in magistrates courts actually led
to a conviction my charge that magistrates courts are kangaroo courts
would be justified.
Guess what the stats show!
JC
iaoua iaoua
> On May 21, 1:58 pm,iaouaiaoua<iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 11:53 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On May 20, 2:45 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Fri, 20 May 2011 09:19:58 -0400, "Steven L."
>
> > > > > <sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
Only for the spiritually blind.
It's a bit like this. A fireman goes to a burning house and attempts
to save a man inside. However, much as he would like to save the man
the door he would have to force open is too strong to do so. However,
it can be opened quite easily from the inside and he keeps shouting
this information to the man inside. The man inside keeps ignoring him
and reasoning that the fireman is out of his mind. He insists that the
house is not of fire and that the voice outside the door does not even
exist.
Who is responsible for the man's death?
JC
iaoua iaoua
> On May 21, 4:33 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 21 May 2011 13:21:30 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
>
> > talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >> On May 21, 12:00 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On May 20, 3:28 pm, Matchstick <matchst...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > In article <MPG.2840589adde8de71989...@news.individual.net>,
> > >> > > matchst...@deadspam.com says...
>
> > >> > > > In article <cabal-ir4rjf$1f3...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> > >> > > > dgr...@ediacara.org says...
>
Really? By out of date do we mean out of step with consensus? Is
consensus your only guiding force of establishing truth? If consensus
told you that matter did not exist that it was a figment of our
imagination would you jump on the bandwagon?
May I suggest that in addition to becoming familiar with the consensus
it is also a good idea to put it to the test?
JC
iaoua iaoua
> On Sat, 21 May 2011 13:21:30 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 21, 7:30 pm,iaouaiaoua<iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 21, 12:00 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On May 20, 3:28 pm, Matchstick <matchst...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > In article <MPG.2840589adde8de71989...@news.individual.net>,
> >> > > matchst...@deadspam.com says...
>
> >> > > > In article <cabal-ir4rjf$1f3...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> >> > > > dgr...@ediacara.org says...
>
Have you ever read the wording of affirmation? What about it makes you
believe to not be of the form of a sworn oath?
Also, how could you expect a person to be able to promise in advance
that he will tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
What if unforseen personal questions are asked that you do not wish to
answer? What if unforseen questions that would incriminate a person
you love are asked?
Jesus puts it far better than I can.
- Do not swear at all. Just let your Yes mean Yes and your No mean No.
Anything more is from the bad guy.
JC
iaoua iaoua
hiiunderstandyouareincapableofreadingsentenceswithoutpunctuationdoyouhavethesameproblemwhenpeoplespeaktoyoudoyouneedthemtokeepstoppingandindicatingthatthereshouldbeaquestionmarkattheendofeachquestion
JC
iaoua iaoua
wrote:
> On 5/21/2011 5:56 AM, alextangent wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 12:24 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi guys,
>
> >>>>> what an adventure! It was a long year with a bit of a bumpy ride but
> >>>>> there is hope for the British justice system yet. There are evidently
> >>>>> still a few good men left in this country. I won the appeal and my
> >>>>> name has been cleared for the allegations that saw me wrongfully
> >>>>> imprisoned last year.
>
> >>>>> That's Yhwh 1 Satan 0. Bring it on fallen angel fuzzball. Is that all
> >>>>> you got?
>
> >>>> Guessing 'not guilty by reason of mental incapacity'.
>
> >>>> --D.
>
> >> Hi, JC. I returned to talk.origins in December after about a decade
> >> of absence, so I don't know who you are. Would you like to tell me a
> >> little about your talk.origins activities before you went to gaol [do
> >> the Brits still use that spelling?]?
>
> >> Peter Nyikos
> >> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >> University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>
> > Tag team! Yay! You can do the sciencey stuff when you've an idle half
> > when he's not inside or avoiding bloodthirsty Romanians by skulking
> > around Italy.
>
> It was Ukrainians, as I recall. Ukrainian Mob, more specifically. And
> they are chasing him all about Europe, point of fact. Truth be told,
> they're the ones trumped up the charges that got him into an English
> prison in the first place. The Ukrainian beef against him stems from him
> knocking up one of their daughters, he having in a sense married one of
> them - "married" sensu she became one of his several wives. The
> Ukrainian Mob wants that kid, and willing to sink much resources into
> its capture, for reasons unexplained.
>
It's wife number 1, the one I made the grave mistake of bringing to
the UK that made the charges.
JC
iaoua iaoua
> > why didn't Yhwh just kill Satan and Adam and Eve and all the other
> > fallen angels and start again from the very beginning.
>
> Yup. Those seem like good questions.
>
> > The simple
> > retaliation question is what would that have proved. That our father
> > Yhwh is good and we should listen to him because if not we'll get our
> > arses kicked. Not really a demonstration of righteousness now is it.
>
> Neither is the story that follows "demonstration of righteousness now
> is it"?
>
Well, Satan offered Eve the chance to go her own way independently of
God. She thought it was such a good idea that not only did she do it
but invited Adam to tag along. He also thought it was a good idea and
did it. The results are all around us.
> > No! Yhwh allowed Satan to tempt mankind to mislead angels and allowed
> > the faithful to watch and decide which side they wanted to be on. By
> > letting man go his own way he has proved that his original intentions
> > for us were only good.
>
> Hardly!
>
Now I didn't say his righteousness has been proven to everybody now
did I. You, being the son of Adam and daughter of Eve that you are
still think we can do it better without God. God says fine. If this is
really the way you want to live just keep living like that. Anytime
you have a change of heart here I am waiting for you with open arms.
Now, some of us have rejected Adam and Eve as our father and mother
and choose Christ as our spiritual father and his kingdom as our
spiritual mother. We are the children of Jerusalem and it King, Christ
and we want no part in this world. The only reason we choose to
continue to suffer in this world is to help others see the light and
give them the chance to come with us.
> I would strongly argue that organized Christianity has done more harm
> than good in human society.
>
I would strongly agree but perhaps for different reasons. In any case,
I would note that most of the things you hold to be morally correct
you do so because you grew up in a country whose history was largely
influenced by Christian thought. i.e. probably about 90%+ of your
moral code is of Judeo-Christian origin.
> So if God's original plan was to create anything like a better society
> through his words, then God's
> plan isn't working.
>
I disagree. His Kingdom has not yet come. That's why we pray for it.
Let your kingdom come, let your will be done here on earth as it is in
heaven. The distinct implication is that neither has the kingdom yet
come nor is our father's will yet being fully accomplished here on
earth. Why else would John prophesise that there will be a new earth
after the old one has been purged with fire?
JC
iaoua iaoua
> iaouaiaouawrote:
> > On May 21, 4:17 am, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>iaouaiaouawrote:
> >>> Hi guys,
>
> >>> what an adventure! It was a long year with a bit of a bumpy ride but
> >>> there is hope for the British justice system yet. There are
> >>> evidently still a few good men left in this country. I won the
> >>> appeal and my name has been cleared for the allegations that saw me
> >>> wrongfully imprisoned last year.
>
> >>> That's Yhwh 1 Satan 0. Bring it on fallen angel fuzzball. Is that
> >>> all you got?
>
> >> A loving parent would do all that was possible to avoid thier child
> >> from being imprisoned, if they were not guilty.
> >> If you were not guilty why did your Jesus do at least as much.
> >> Matthew 7:7-11 points this out.
>
> > You are evidently not familiar with the story of Job. Quick summary.
>
> I'm quite familar with it.
> God or human, such behavior is sick.
>
> Humans that treated people this way would go to jail.
>
> I suspect my cat was tormented by children bfore I obtained her. After
> nearly four years she is just now starting to play with objects and will
> stop if she sees me watching. It was two years before she started purring.
>
James puts it far better than I could.
- Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for
God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own
lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when
sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my
beloved brethren. Every good thing given and every perfect gift is
from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is
no variation or shifting shadow.
> Your god has less compassion than a spider.
>
> What happens when it finds out what you said about not testifying because
> you would not take an oaht, something that the courts do not require.
Yes they do. The affermation is also an oath.
JC
iaoua iaoua
Let the weeds and wheat grow together so that you don't risk chopping
down some wheat while trying to take the weeds out.
What do you think these words mean? Well, I dare say that many of my
ancestors did not have God in their hearts and will not join me in
God's Kingdom. In fact, I'm more than sure that many of my relatives
now living will also not be joining me. I am also quite sure that if I
had many children many of them also could potentially not be joining
me. But of their children and their children's children perhaps some
of them could.
So let's just let the weeds and the wheat grow together until it's
time for the harvest shall we.
JC
David Hare-Scott
So in your opinion what is the origin of the variety of life that we
observe on earth?
David
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
But we were talking about Adam and Eve: both weeds, in the sense of
the metaphor, sinners condemned to death. As has been everybody else
from the moment of their conception, except for Jesus and, according
to some, his mother. In which case, she married badly.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
If it's the one given at
<http://www.magistrates-association.org.uk/questions.php>
it would be the words, and the fact that it was designed specifically
to permit testimony by people who are unwilling to take an oath.
"I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm, that the
evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth."
Perhaps like Kenneth Clarke you don't know what some of these words
mean.
Or perhaps you're confused by the apparent implication that using the
affirmation amounts to declaring that you aren't religious. I think
that's a mistake and it's appropriate if you esteem the bible but are
not willing to use it to prop up your credibility... or is that wrong,
too? I honestly don't recall if you've been us ng the b ble to prop
up your credibility here - like Harold Camping.
Best line on /that/, in a humour piece at
<http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_18112897>
"Mr. Camping rebuts this argument using other scripture, particularly
Thessalonians, and I wish I could explain how. I always thought
Thessalonians were those little armored sea crabs you find in fossils
everywhere."
But that only because I haven't seen one describing the act of not
showing up at work and/or literally heading for the hills last week
because the Rapture was coming as a "Camping holiday".
Mark Isaak
> On May 21, 5:28 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>> This story [Job] has always puzzled me as to why people find it
>> inspirational. What does it say about God's character that he allowed
>> one of his faithful servants to be tortured by one of his former
>> employees over a prop bet, regardless of whether he was eventually
>> made whole? Quite frankly, those are the actions of a capricious,
>> egomaniacal psychopath, not a loving father. And the ending doesn't
>> seem all that happy for Job's original wives and children.
>>
> Obviously, from a modern day Westernised view of morality I can kind of
> see where you are coming from because I asked similar questions myself
> once. However, before I get onto the meat of the response let me just
> nip in the bud your last point. The story is clearly not complete. It
> showed only blessings here on earth for his perseverence. The story
> does not go on to detail what happened to his old wives and kids in the
> resurrection because well it hasn't happened yet.
>
> Anyway, on to answering the real question. One might well simple ask
> why didn't Yhwh just kill Satan and Adam and Eve and all the other
> fallen angels and start again from the very beginning. The simple
> retaliation question is what would that have proved. That our father
> Yhwh is good and we should listen to him because if not we'll get our
> arses kicked. Not really a demonstration of righteousness now is it.
> No! Yhwh allowed Satan to tempt mankind to mislead angels and allowed
> the faithful to watch and decide which side they wanted to be on.
God did not *allow* Satan to tempt Job, he *ordered* Satan to tempt Job.
Satan is God's creation and, as such, is an extension of God. Or at
least, he was until the Christian churches decided they did not like the
moral implications of monotheism and decided to go back to dualism.
> By letting man go his own way he has proved that his original
> intentions for us were only good.
Some of the greatest evils in the world have been (and are being) called
"God's original intensions." (Have you ever read _Huckleberry Finn_?
You should; everybody should.)
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
>> [...]
> Well, Satan offered Eve the chance to go her own way independently of
> God.
Not according to the Bible. There is nothing in it to indicate that
Satan and Eve ever met.
Granted, Satan is in the modern Adam and Eve myth, but that myth is not
in the Bible.
Mitchell Coffey
>
> It's wife number 1, the one I made the grave mistake of bringing to
> the UK that made the charges.
>
> JC
>
1. Was the charge polygamy?
2. Do you plan to divorce her?
3. This detail seems to be another contradiction in your narrative.
4. That's OK because narrative contradiction makes fictive personas more
interesting.
Mitchell Coffey
Mike Lyle
<iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 21, 9:33 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> The bit about the oath is certainly fiction: English courts have
>> accepted affirmation on conscientious grounds for three hundred years.
>>
>> --
>> Mike.
>
>Have you ever read the wording of affirmation? What about it makes you
>believe to not be of the form of a sworn oath?
You mean the 1978 statutory version? As follows: " 'I,..., do
solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm,' and then proceed
with the words of the oath prescribed by law, omitting any words of
imprecation or calling to witness."
That is not a sworn oath in any sane sense. Or, indeed, any moderately
insane sense, either.
>
>Also, how could you expect a person to be able to promise in advance
>that he will tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
>What if unforseen personal questions are asked that you do not wish to
>answer? What if unforseen questions that would incriminate a person
>you love are asked?
This seems deliberately evasive. It turns out that the oath wasn't
your reason for refusing to testify, after all.
>
>Jesus puts it far better than I can.
>
>- Do not swear at all. Just let your Yes mean Yes and your No mean No.
>Anything more is from the bad guy.
You're being evasive again: Jesus knew quite as well as the rest of us
that some questions cannot be answered with a plain "Yes" or "No".
--
Mike.
iaoua iaoua
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 03:19:44 -0700 (PDT),iaouaiaoua
An act of creation of a variety of original pairs that went on to
mate, multiply, adapt and change is the most probable explanation I
can see from the data.
JC
iaoua iaoua
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
Yes but if those weeds had been destroyed then what was good in them
would not have had the chance to come out.
Imagine it as a genetic game if you like. Some part of Adam would not
have eaten the fruit. Some part of Eve would not have eaten it either.
By allowing them to have children and allowing those children to have
children and so on the many different combinations and recombinations
of DNA has allowed sequences of DNA to arise that have brought out of
Adam and Eve the bit that didn't want to eat the fruit.
JC
JC
iaoua iaoua
What on earth are you waffling on about man? There is not a single
passage in any of the holy writings of the prophets that would lead
anybody to believe that Satan was not acting independently. Angels are
not robots. They have free will just like man. How do you think it
would be possible for them fall if that were not the case?
JC
iaoua iaoua
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
At the end of the day my friend the point is this. The UK is supposed
to be a country that respects religious diversity. If the justice
system refuses to provide for those who cannot make such oaths because
of their beliefs then there is something clearly wrong with the
system.
Further, a system that constrains you to get up and speak horribly
about a person you love under the threat of being imprisoned otherwise
just has to be fundamentally and terribly wrong.
You are free to disagree. And I may even note your reasons. But I
probably won't agree with them.
JC
iaoua iaoua
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 03:29:57 -0700,iaouaiaouawrote:
> >> [...]
> > Well, Satan offered Eve the chance to go her own way independently of
> > God.
>
> Not according to the Bible. There is nothing in it to indicate that
> Satan and Eve ever met.
>
Of course not. At least not directly. What sin would Eve have had if
an angel appeared and told her she could eat the fruit? Clearly none!
As angels are God's representatives and therefore authoritative. No!
He had to use the serpent. Viewing an animal as an authority above
that of God through your husband is certainly a sin. Also, the
interpretation is not so modern. It is clearly what the author of the
apocalypse believed and no doubt many other authors before him.
JC
iaoua iaoua
> On 5/22/2011 6:20 AM,iaouaiaouawrote:
>
> > It's wife number 1, the one I made the grave mistake of bringing to
> > the UK that made the charges.
>
> > JC
>
> 1. Was the charge polygamy?
No!
> 2. Do you plan to divorce her?
No! Don't believe in divorce. Once she's been deported out of the UK
and then extradited to Italy she will answer for her crimes there. She
won't be able to pull the wool over the Italians eyes. They've had
plenty of experience with her type before. I didn't want to have to do
this to her but after two months of rotting in a prison cell for a
crime I didn't commit instead of watching my little 7 month old
daughter grow up I've rather lost compassion.
I think a letter or two to the border agency and the home office
should also be in order detailing how she committed purgery in order
to assist her application for permanent residency in this country.
Lesson number 1 about polygamy: don't marry one that wants to live and
work in a European country, that's pretty damn sure to be the only
reason she's marrying you
Lesson number 2 about polygamy: should you not heed the warning of
lesson 1 don't make the fatal mistake of bringing them back to your
own country, she will shit on you from a great height once she's got
was she really wanted
> 3. This detail seems to be another contradiction in your narrative.
Not that I particularly care what you think but more out of genuine
interest I ask what contradiction? I really don't see one.
> 4. That's OK because narrative contradiction makes fictive personas more
> interesting.
I can't believe I'm asking this but just who do you believe the
fictitious person to be? DId you think you was reading output from a
chatbot all this time? Not that couldn't be arranged of course.
JC
>
> Mitchell Coffey
iaoua iaoua
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 03:15:49 -0700 (PDT),iaouaiaoua
>
>
>
> <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 21, 9:33 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> [...]
>
> >> The bit about the oath is certainly fiction: English courts have
> >> accepted affirmation on conscientious grounds for three hundred years.
>
> >> --
> >> Mike.
>
> >Have you ever read the wording of affirmation? What about it makes you
> >believe to not be of the form of a sworn oath?
>
> You mean the 1978 statutory version? As follows: " 'I,..., do
> solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm,' and then proceed
> with the words of the oath prescribed by law, omitting any words of
> imprecation or calling to witness."
>
> That is not a sworn oath in any sane sense. Or, indeed, any moderately
> insane sense, either.
>
This was the wording at the crown court. I took the affirmation under
duress because otherwise I wouldn't have been able to have given
evidence. However. at mags it was far worse. It was something like 'I
solemnly promise...'.
>
>
> >Also, how could you expect a person to be able to promise in advance
> >that he will tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
> >What if unforseen personal questions are asked that you do not wish to
> >answer? What if unforseen questions that would incriminate a person
> >you love are asked?
>
> This seems deliberately evasive. It turns out that the oath wasn't
> your reason for refusing to testify, after all.
>
Jesus says we should let our Yes mean Yes and our No No. Basically, he
saying don't lie. If you promise in advance to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth then you are setting yourself up as a liar
later on. Because having promised to tell the whole truth when asked a
question you refuse to answer you have now broken your promise. I
would have no problems with an affirmation such as 'If I choose to
answer it will only be with the truth' or 'Let my Yes mean Yes and my
No mean No for anything beyond this is from the devil'. As it stands
the affirmation I was forced to take does not respect my beliefs and I
intend to take this further.
>
>
> >Jesus puts it far better than I can.
>
> >- Do not swear at all. Just let your Yes mean Yes and your No mean No.
> >Anything more is from the bad guy.
>
> You're being evasive again: Jesus knew quite as well as the rest of us
> that some questions cannot be answered with a plain "Yes" or "No".
>
You evidently haven't understood Jesus words have you. Jesus is
basically saying just tell the truth. i.e. consider sentences 1, 2 and
3 below
1) I went to the shops yesterday
2) I swear on my mother's life I went to the shops yesterday
3) I swear to God that I went to the shops yesterday
Sentence 1 is the preferred form that Jesus would like us to use.
JC
> --
> Mike.
raven1
What has this to do with the story of Job?
>> Your god has less compassion than a spider.
>>
>> What happens when it finds out what you said about not testifying because
>> you would not take an oaht, something that the courts do not require.
>
>Yes they do. The affermation is also an oath.
That's a fairly unorthodox position; the idea of affirming in court
was developed for the benefit of people whose religious convictions do
not allow them to make oaths.
>
>JC
Paul J Gans
>And sometimes "why?"
As in "Why is he moving his vowels in public?"
--
--- Paul J. Gans
raven1
<iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 21, 5:28 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 May 2011 02:02:05 -0700 (PDT), iaoua iaoua
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 21, 4:17 am, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> iaoua iaoua wrote:
>> >> > Hi guys,
>>
>> >> > what an adventure! It was a long year with a bit of a bumpy ride but
>> >> > there is hope for the British justice system yet. There are evidently
>> >> > still a few good men left in this country. I won the appeal and my
>> >> > name has been cleared for the allegations that saw me wrongfully
>> >> > imprisoned last year.
>>
>> >> > That's Yhwh 1 Satan 0. Bring it on fallen angel fuzzball. Is that all
>> >> > you got?
>>
>> >> A loving parent would do all that was possible to avoid thier child from
>> >> being imprisoned, if they were not guilty.
>> >> If you were not guilty why did your Jesus do at least as much.
>> >> Matthew 7:7-11 points this out.
>>
>> >You are evidently not familiar with the story of Job. Quick summary.
>>
>> >Satan walks up to Yhwh in front of all the angels he would like to
>> >have follow him and says the only reason Job loves you is because you
>> >have blessed his hand with riches, beautiful wives and children if you
>> >take everything he has away from him you will see that he will curse
>> >you to your face. Yhwh rises to the challenge and says everything he
>> >has is in your hands. Satan takes all of Job's possessions away from
>> >Job and has his wife and kids killed. Job is understandably quite
>> >upset but nonetheless remains faithfull.
>>
>> >Satan, not one to give up so easily, goes back to Yhwh in front of the
>> >angels and claims that Job is remaining faithful because he still has
>> >his health. Yhwh rises to the challenge and gives Job's body and
>> >health in to Satan's hands. Satan is given authority to torture Job
>> >physically but not to be allowed to touch his soul, i.e. kill him.
>> >Satan tortures Job with bad health making his also very ugly in the
>> >process. Job's 'friends' in the guise of being a helping hand tempt
>> >Job to say something bad about Yhwh. Job remains faithful though not a
>> >perfect example like Christ. Yhwh rectifies Job's attitude. Job humbly
>> >accepts the instruction.
>>
>> >The eventual happy ending, Job is blessed with greater riches better
>> >wives and more children.
>>
>> This story has always puzzled me as to why people find it
>> inspirational. What does it say about God's character that he allowed
>> one of his faithful servants to be tortured by one of his former
>> employees over a prop bet, regardless of whether he was eventually
>> made whole? Quite frankly, those are the actions of a capricious,
>> egomaniacal psychopath, not a loving father. And the ending doesn't
>> seem all that happy for Job's original wives and children.
>>
>
>Obviously, from a modern day Westernised view of morality I can kind
>of see where you are coming from because I asked similar questions
>myself once. However, before I get onto the meat of the response let
>me just nip in the bud your last point. The story is clearly not
>complete. It showed only blessings here on earth for his perseverence.
>The story does not go on to detail what happened to his old wives and
>kids in the resurrection because well it hasn't happened yet.
It does not detail such a thing because Judaism had no such
theological concept. They're simply dead in the story.
>Anyway, on to answering the real question. One might well simple ask
>why didn't Yhwh just kill Satan and Adam and Eve and all the other
>fallen angels and start again from the very beginning. The simple
>retaliation question is what would that have proved.
What did it prove when he purportedly wiped out everyone except Noah
and his family a bit later?
>That our father
>Yhwh is good and we should listen to him because if not we'll get our
>arses kicked. Not really a demonstration of righteousness now is it.
>No! Yhwh allowed Satan to tempt mankind to mislead angels and allowed
>the faithful to watch and decide which side they wanted to be on.
What has this to do with the story of Job? God didn't allow Satan to
"tempt" him, he allowed him to torture him and kill his family. Over a
bet.
>By
>letting man go his own way he has proved that his original intentions
>for us were only good. He did not make us as robots but as living free
>beings with the ability to make independent choices. We the faithful
>that await God's kingdom have seen Satan's world and quite frankly we
>don't like it. We want out. We want God's Kingdom. In my eyes Yhwh has
>taught me in the best possibly way he ever could have.
>
>JC
>
>> Rather than tying one's self up in endless knots to solve the problem
>> of evil, Occam's razor offers a more elegant solution: there's no God,
>> and shit happens.
>
raven1
<iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 22, 3:50 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 May 2011 03:29:57 -0700,iaouaiaouawrote:
>> >> [...]
>> > Well, Satan offered Eve the chance to go her own way independently of
>> > God.
>>
>> Not according to the Bible. There is nothing in it to indicate that
>> Satan and Eve ever met.
>>
>
>Of course not. At least not directly. What sin would Eve have had if
>an angel appeared and told her she could eat the fruit? Clearly none!
>As angels are God's representatives and therefore authoritative. No!
>He had to use the serpent. Viewing an animal as an authority above
>that of God through your husband is certainly a sin.
Except that Adam and Eve had no concept of sin until they actually ate
the fruit.
Mitchell Coffey
Bummer, in the United States one cannot be compelled to testify against
one's self, neither against a spouse. However, the spouse in question
has't to be one's legal spouse. From your descriptions this may not have
been the case in the event.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
> On May 21, 9:21 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> orig...@moderators.isc.org"<rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> On May 21, 7:30 pm,iaouaiaoua<iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 21, 12:00 am, alextangent<b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On May 20, 3:28 pm, Matchstick<matchst...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> In article<MPG.2840589adde8de71989...@news.individual.net>,
>>>>> matchst...@deadspam.com says...
>>
>>>>>> In article<cabal-ir4rjf$1f3...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
>>>>>> dgr...@ediacara.org says...
>>
>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>
>>>>>>>> what an adventure! It was a long year with a bit of a bumpy ride but
>>>>>>>> there is hope for the British justice system yet. There are evidently
>>>>>>>> still a few good men left in this country. I won the appeal and my
>>>>>>>> name has been cleared for the allegations that saw me wrongfully
>>>>>>>> imprisoned last year.
>>
>>>>>>>> That's Yhwh 1 Satan 0. Bring it on fallen angel fuzzball. Is that all
>>>>>>>> you got?
>>
>>
>>>>>>> --D.
>>
>>>>>> UK Appeals Court (Criminal Division) and Supreme Court.
>>
>>>>>> http://www.bailii.org/recent-decisions.html#ew/cases/EWCA/Crim
>>
>>>>>> http://www.bailii.org/recent-decisions.html#uk/cases/UKSC
>>
>>>>>> There's nothing from the Supreme Court that looks applicable and the
>>>>>> only cases I can see from the other court where appears have been
>>>>>> granted in the last month are
>>
>>>>>> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1177.html
>>
>>>>>> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1197.html
>>
>>>>>> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1142.html
>>
>>>>>> I wonder if the OP would like to tell us which, if any, if the relevant
>>>>>> case ?
>>
>>>>> Following up my previous post I note that the OP was posting via an IP
>>>>> address at the University of Essex (155.245.37.43) in Colchester and
>>>>> that the case covered inhttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1197.htmlhasconnections
>>>>> to Colchester.
>>
>>>>> Interestingly this case DOESN'T see the appellant's conviction
>>>>> overturned but instead has his sentence reduced from 5 years
>>>>> imprisonment to 2 years imprisonment with a restraining order, so I'm
>>>>> allegations that"
>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
>>>>> fantastic
>>
>>>> None of those. I don't think it's been posted yet, since the hearing
>>>> was under the name James Christian Read at St Albans Crown Court on
>>>> the 19th; judgement may not have been written up yet. Case A20110049
>>>> when it does appear in bailii. He has used an address in Peterborough,
>>>> attends/(ed?) the University of Essex, so appealing at St Albans Crown
>>>> Court suggests several possibilities; though probably that he was
>>>> originally.
>>
>>> At last a detective with half a brain. I was convicted at Hertford
>>> Magistrates. According to my solicitor had I given evidence I would
>>> have won as the prosecutions case had been shown to full of lies.
>>> However, I could not testify because the British Justice system
>>> doesn't seem to understand that the Bible prohibits the making of
>>> sworn oaths of any kind much less on the bible. I also didn't want to
>>> go through the unpleasant experience of having to potentially
>>> incriminate the complainant by giving the relevant information that
>>> would secure the deal. It turns out that when you refuse to testify in
>>> Britain that can be taken against you (like you have something to hide
>>> or something) and that's basically what happened.
>>
>>> In any case I'm glad I've finally seen what a real court case runs
>>> like. Magistrates court cases are amusingly reminiscent of Kangaroo
>>> courts but not what I could take seriously as a proper truth
>>> establishing justice system. Not on any level. In fact, every case
>>> I've ever seen dealt with in a Magistrates has boiled down to people's
>>> opinions rather than a weighting of established facts. It was a
>>> pleasant surprise to see that the Crown court is more capable.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that what you've just written is fiction.
>
> all magistrates cases where the evidence presented to the magistrates
> boiled down to the word of the complainant against the word of the
> defendant with no other decisive independent evidence. The law in such
> cases would stipulate that the magistrates should find the defendant
> not guilty as the onus of the proof is on the prosecution. Now if our
> statistical exercise were to find that a statistically significant
> proportion of such cases dealt with in magistrates courts actually led
> to a conviction my charge that magistrates courts are kangaroo courts
> would be justified.
>
> Guess what the stats show!
>
> JC
>
It depends on whether the word of the defendant was credible.
Klaus Hellnick
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 09:51:29 -0700 (PDT), iaoua iaoua
> <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 22, 3:50 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 May 2011 03:29:57 -0700,iaouaiaouawrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>> Well, Satan offered Eve the chance to go her own way independently of
>>>> God.
>>>
>>> Not according to the Bible. There is nothing in it to indicate that
>>> Satan and Eve ever met.
>>>
>>
>> Of course not. At least not directly. What sin would Eve have had if
>> an angel appeared and told her she could eat the fruit? Clearly none!
>> As angels are God's representatives and therefore authoritative. No!
>> He had to use the serpent. Viewing an animal as an authority above
>> that of God through your husband is certainly a sin.
>
> Except that Adam and Eve had no concept of sin until they actually ate
> the fruit.
>
Indeed, why did God curse all snakes if the serpent was directly under
Satan's control?
Arkalen
> On May 21, 4:17 am, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Hi guys,
>
> > > what an adventure! It was a long year with a bit of a bumpy ride but
> > > there is hope for the British justice system yet. There are evidently
> > > still a few good men left in this country. I won the appeal and my
> > > name has been cleared for the allegations that saw me wrongfully
> > > imprisoned last year.
>
> > > That's Yhwh 1 Satan 0. Bring it on fallen angel fuzzball. Is that all
> > > you got?
>
> > being imprisoned, if they were not guilty.
> > If you were not guilty why did your Jesus do at least as much.
> > Matthew 7:7-11 points this out.
>
> You are evidently not familiar with the story of Job. Quick summary.
>
> Satan walks up to Yhwh in front of all the angels he would like to
> have follow him and says the only reason Job loves you is because you
> have blessed his hand with riches, beautiful wives and children if you
> take everything he has away from him you will see that he will curse
> you to your face. Yhwh rises to the challenge and says everything he
> has is in your hands.
Thus proving himself to be a terrible, terrible person.
> Satan takes all of Job's possessions away from
> Job and has his wife and kids killed. Job is understandably quite
> upset but nonetheless remains faithfull.
>
> Satan, not one to give up so easily, goes back to Yhwh in front of the
> angels and claims that Job is remaining faithful because he still has
> his health. Yhwh rises to the challenge and gives Job's body and
> health in to Satan's hands. Satan is given authority to torture Job
> physically but not to be allowed to touch his soul, i.e. kill him.
> Satan tortures Job with bad health making his also very ugly in the
> process. Job's 'friends' in the guise of being a helping hand tempt
> Job to say something bad about Yhwh. Job remains faithful though not a
> perfect example like Christ. Yhwh rectifies Job's attitude. Job humbly
> accepts the instruction.
Would you do this kind of thing to your daughter ? Or, say, let
someone who had claimed that your daughter only loves you for the nice
life you're giving her do such things to her ? I mean literally the
same thing - take away all she has, deprive her of her family, infect
her with illnesses ?
>
> The eventual happy ending, Job is blessed with greater riches better
> wives and more children.
Because like property, wives and children are perfectly
interchangeable. Although wives at least seem to vary along one axis,
"good/bad". With children all that matters is how many of the critters
you have.
>
> You may also benefit from reading Peter's words which I found to be a
> source of spiritual strength while under persecution:
>
> - In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if
> necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the
> proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is
> perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in
> praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
>
> - For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated,
> you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and
> suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.For
> you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for
> you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who
> committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while
> being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He
> uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges
> righteously;
>
> - But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are
> blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled,
> but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make
> a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope
> that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good
> conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who
> revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. For it is
> better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is
> right rather than for doing what is wrong.
>
> - Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which
> comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were
> happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of
> Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory
> you may rejoice with exultation. If you are reviled for the name of
> Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests
> on you. Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or
> evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; but if anyone suffers as a
> Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this
> name. For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God;
> and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who
> do not obey the gospel of God? And if it is with difficulty that the
> righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the
> sinner? Therefore, those also who suffer according to the will of God
> shall entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is
> right.
>
> - Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He
> may exalt you at the proper time, casting all your anxiety on Him,
> because He cares for you. Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your
> adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking
> someone to devour. But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that
> the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your
> brethren who are in the world. After you have suffered for a little
> while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in
> Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.
>
> Some translations translate the last passage with the phrase 'he will
> finish your training'. The general idea is that remaining faithful
> under persecution makes us stronger. I learned a great reliance on
> God. It is easy to have faith when everything is going well. But when
> you have been locked in a cell for something you haven't done that's
> when we get to see what you're really made of. I fasted and relied on
> God's holy spirit to keep me alive. It's always interesting to watch
> people slowly recognise God's existence when the myth that a man
> cannot survive without food and water for more than three days is
> utterly smashed before their eyes. When two weeks have gone by and
> they come and see you jogging on the spot, doing press ups, sit ups,
> pull ups and singing psalms of praise in your dirty little cell
> instead of asking for a glass of water or a bite to eat even the
> hardest of heart are forced to come to the conclusion that something
> supernatural is going on in that sanctuary of his (what they viewed as
> my prison cell). It was a great privilege to have been able to help
> such people come to give glory to God.
>
> I hope my experience can give others suffering similar persecutions
> worldwide to maintain their faith. Always keep in your minds and in
> your hearts the words of our lord Jesus Christ
>
> - Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and
> falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. “Rejoice and
> be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they
> persecuted the prophets who were before you.
>
> Stand firm. Keep the faith. Glorify God. Your reward will surely come.
>
> - “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
>
> JC
jillery
> On May 21, 9:21 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 1:58 pm,iaouaiaoua<iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 21, 11:53 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 21, 5:18 am,iaouaiaoua<iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 20, 2:45 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Fri, 20 May 2011 09:19:58 -0400, "Steven L."
>
> > > > > > <sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >"iaouaiaoua" wrote in message
> > > > > > >news:iaoua-a215d4b4-aa8a-4...@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > >> what an adventure! It was a long year with a bit of a bumpy ride but
> > > > > > >> there is hope for the British justice system yet. There are evidently
> > > > > > >> still a few good men left in this country. I won the appeal and my
> > > > > > >> name has been cleared for the allegations that saw me wrongfully
> > > > > > >> imprisoned last year.
>
> > > > > > >What were you accused of doing?
>
> > > > > > Or what did you really do but got away with it?
>
> > > > > Yes. That was the way I interpretted this prejudiced moron's question
> > > > > as well. That's why I didn't grace the idiot with an answer.
>
> > > > > - Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and
> > > > > falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. “Rejoice and
> > > > > be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they
> > > > > persecuted the prophets who were before you.
>
> > > > > around. Without them I really don't know where I would get such a
> > > > > positive confirmation that I am on the right Christian path and such a
> > > > > energetic source of faith building experiences.
>
> > > > > - Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is
> > > > > broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through
> > > > > it. “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life,
> > > > > and there are few who find it.
>
> > > > > What better indicator could their be that you're going in through the
> > > > > narrow gate than the overwhelming prevalance of judgemental tossers
> > > > > like him going with the flow on the broad and spacious path that leads
> > > > > to destruction. So please Steven L. do continue with your defamation
> > > > > of my character. I'm loving every second of it.
>
> > > > > JC
>
> > > > In the words of someone you appear to hold in high esteem:
>
> > > > "So be careful who you judge and curse. You never know if that
> > > > judgement and cursing will turn right back on you. But never be
> > > > stingy
> > > > with blessings. Because you can always be sure that they will return
> > > > to you at least as much and if not many fold. "
>
> > > Indeed. And yet here are the words of a man I hold in much higher
> > > esteem.
>
> > > A man is not made impure by what he eats. For what he eats journeys
> > > through the belly and comes out the other hand. What makes a man
> > > impure are his words. For his words come of his heart.
>
> > > And again.
>
> > > I did not come to judge but to save. It is not I who judge you but it
> > > is you yourselves by not accepting my message of salvation.
>
> > You don't hear the grinding between these phrases? No dichotomy of
> > meaning? No conflict in spirit? Hmmmm????
>
> Only for the spiritually blind.
And how will name-calling open their eyes?
> It's a bit like this. A fireman goes to a burning house and attempts
> to save a man inside. However, much as he would like to save the man
> the door he would have to force open is too strong to do so. However,
> it can be opened quite easily from the inside and he keeps shouting
> this information to the man inside. The man inside keeps ignoring him
> and reasoning that the fireman is out of his mind. He insists that the
> house is not of fire and that the voice outside the door does not even
> exist.
>
> Who is responsible for the man's death?
>
> JC
A rather bizarre parable to deflect attention. ISTM you have been
looking at too many motes.
> > Here's one I think is appropriate from someone I admire:
>
> > "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Frank J
> On May 21, 9:44 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 4:33 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 21 May 2011 13:21:30 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc
>
> > > >On May 21, 7:30 pm,iaouaiaoua<iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On May 21, 12:00 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > On May 20, 3:28 pm, Matchstick <matchst...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > In article <MPG.2840589adde8de71989...@news.individual.net>,
> > > >> > > matchst...@deadspam.com says...
>
> > > >> > > > In article <cabal-ir4rjf$1f3...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> > > >> > > > dgr...@ediacara.org says...
>
> > > >> > > > >iaouaiaoua<iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > Hi guys,
>
> > > >> > > > > > there is hope for the British justice system yet. There are evidently
> > > >> > > > > > still a few good men left in this country. I won the appeal and my
> > > >> > > > > > name has been cleared for the allegations that saw me wrongfully
> > > >> > > > > > imprisoned last year.
>
> > > >> > > > > > you got?
>
>
> > > >> > > > > --D.
>
> > > >> > > > It's a quiet morning so I've had a look over recent judgements from the
> > > >> > > > UK Appeals Court (Criminal Division) and Supreme Court.
>
> > > >> > > >http://www.bailii.org/recent-decisions.html#ew/cases/EWCA/Crim
>
> > > >> > > >http://www.bailii.org/recent-decisions.html#uk/cases/UKSC
>
> > > >> > > > There's nothing from the Supreme Court that looks applicable and the
> > > >> > > > only cases I can see from the other court where appears have been
> > > >> > > > granted in the last month are
>
> > > >> > > >http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1177.html
>
> > > >> > > >http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1197.html
>
> > > >> > > >http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1142.html
>
> > > >> > > > I wonder if the OP would like to tell us which, if any, if the relevant
> > > >> > > > case ?
>
> > > >> > > Following up my previous post I note that the OP was posting via an IP
> > > >> > > address at the University of Essex (155.245.37.43) in Colchester and
> > > >> > > that the case covered inhttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1197.htmlhasconnections
> > > >> > > to Colchester.
>
> > > >> > > Interestingly this case DOESN'T see the appellant's conviction
> > > >> > > overturned but instead has his sentence reduced from 5 years
> > > >> > > imprisonment to 2 years imprisonment with a restraining order, so I'm
> > > >> > > allegations that"
>
> > > >> > > --
> > > >> > > The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
> > > >> > > fantastic
>
> > > >> > None of those. I don't think it's been posted yet, since the hearing
> > > >> > was under the name James Christian Read at St Albans Crown Court on
> > > >> > the 19th; judgement may not have been written up yet. Case A20110049
> > > >> > when it does appear in bailii. He has used an address in Peterborough,
> > > >> > attends/(ed?) the University of Essex, so appealing at St Albans Crown
> > > >> > Court suggests several possibilities; though probably that he was
> > > >> > originally.
>
> > > >> At last a detective with half a brain. I was convicted at Hertford
> > > >> Magistrates. According to my solicitor had I given evidence I would
> > > >> have won as the prosecutions case had been shown to full of lies.
> > > >> However, I could not testify because the British Justice system
> > > >> doesn't seem to understand that the Bible prohibits the making of
> > > >> sworn oaths of any kind much less on the bible. I also didn't want to
> > > >> go through the unpleasant experience of having to potentially
> > > >> incriminate the complainant by giving the relevant information that
> > > >> would secure the deal. It turns out that when you refuse to testify in
> > > >> Britain that can be taken against you (like you have something to hide
> > > >> or something) and that's basically what happened.
>
> > > >> In any case I'm glad I've finally seen what a real court case runs
> > > >> like. Magistrates court cases are amusingly reminiscent of Kangaroo
> > > >> courts but not what I could take seriously as a proper truth
> > > >> establishing justice system. Not on any level. In fact, every case
> > > >> I've ever seen dealt with in a Magistrates has boiled down to people's
> > > >> opinions rather than a weighting of established facts. It was a
> > > >> pleasant surprise to see that the Crown court is more capable.
>
> > > >I'm pretty sure that what you've just written is fiction.
>
> > > accepted affirmation on conscientious grounds for three hundred years.
>
> > explain it.
>
> Really? By out of date do we mean out of step with consensus? Is
> consensus your only guiding force of establishing truth? If consensus
> told you that matter did not exist that it was a figment of our
> imagination would you jump on the bandwagon?
I forget if it was you or one of the other evolution (& science &
reality) deniers who tried the "consensus" word game recently, there's
a *huge* difference between the consensus reached by having a great
majority like the same thing, and a consensus reached by the
*convergence, neither sought nor fabricated of multiple lines of
independent evidence*.
I'm sure you know this and pretend not to, but in case there are any
lurkers who don't, I'll say it again. Most scientists would prefer
that evolution *not* be true. For several reasons. First, they would
all jump at the chance to come up with a new theory. Second, nearly
half of those scientists are religious, and most of them would love to
be the one who finds God, validates Genesis or both. And please don't
embarrass yourself with any garbage about "bullying."
>
> May I suggest that in addition to becoming familiar with the consensus
> it is also a good idea to put it to the test?
Which is what real scientists do. It's absolutely amazing to watch the
handful of real scientists who have sold out to the anti-evolution
scam. They'll test their ideas in other fields, but when the subject
is evolution, they avoid it like the plague. They don't even say what
the alternate explanation is, other than "some designer did something
at some time." A neat trick, because nothing could ever falsify that,
>
> JC
>
>
>
>
>
> > > --
> > > Mike.- Hide quoted text -
David Hare-Scott
>>
>> So in your opinion what is the origin of the variety of life that we
>> observe on earth?
>>
>> David
>
>An act of creation of a variety of original pairs that went on to
>mate, multiply, adapt and change is the most probable explanation I
>can see from the data.
>
>JC
I normally don't like subject changing but this is so removed from the
original I thought it justified.
So let's get to details.
When did this "creation of a variety of original pairs" take place?
Most important of all, how do you know that this is what happened?
Secondly, how did the large number of organisms that don't come in
pairs get here?
Thirdly, what is the mechanism of the "adapt and change" component of
this scheme?
David
Ilas
news:iaoua-928993e8-a2b2-4...@n10g2000vby.googlegroups.
com:
> However, call me a prophet
That's not the word I had in mind.
Ilas
com:
> What on earth are you waffling on about man? There is not a single
> passage in any of the holy writings of the prophets that would lead
> anybody to believe that Satan was not acting independently. Angels are
> not robots. They have free will just like man.
Good to know that. Now that's settled, tell me, what colour are the Loch
Ness monster's flippers?
Mitchell Coffey
Then it's most likely spousal or child abuse, or child abduction. And,
look, if you don't think it's fair to speculate, then don't brag about
your criminal activities (polygamy) to get attention to yourself.
>> 2. Do you plan to divorce her?
>
> No! Don't believe in divorce.
You choose adultery instead. Nice guy.
> Once she's been deported out of the UK
> and then extradited to Italy she will answer for her crimes there. She
> won't be able to pull the wool over the Italians eyes. They've had
> plenty of experience with her type before. I didn't want to have to do
> this to her but after two months of rotting in a prison cell for a
> crime I didn't commit instead of watching my little 7 month old
> daughter grow up I've rather lost compassion.
>
> I think a letter or two to the border agency and the home office
> should also be in order detailing how she committed purgery in order
> to assist her application for permanent residency in this country.
>
> Lesson number 1 about polygamy: don't marry one that wants to live and
> work in a European country, that's pretty damn sure to be the only
> reason she's marrying you
>
> Lesson number 2 about polygamy: should you not heed the warning of
> lesson 1 don't make the fatal mistake of bringing them back to your
> own country, she will shit on you from a great height once she's got
> was she really wanted
>
>> 3. This detail seems to be another contradiction in your narrative.
>
> Not that I particularly care what you think but more out of genuine
> interest I ask what contradiction? I really don't see one.
In the past this particular "wife" was as I recall on the lam with you.
More importantly, the reason you had been imprisoned was because of the
influence the Ukrainian Mob had on the British judicial system. Or so I
recall. Don't reel out these obvious absurdities and expect everyone to
keep them straight.
And if you didn't care what other people think, why do you volunteer
these bizarre, off-topic fictions about your personal life - as if
people care.
>> 4. That's OK because narrative contradiction makes fictive personas more
>> interesting.
>
> I can't believe I'm asking this but just who do you believe the
> fictitious person to be? DId you think you was reading output from a
> chatbot all this time? Not that couldn't be arranged of course.
No, a fictional personal persona: you pretending to be someone with
invented personality traits and personal histories. Of course, you may
believe your fictional narrative. Given the extremity of it - the
polygamy fantasy, the claim that you're being chased by the Ukrainian
Mob, linking to photos of a hot blond having her child blessed by the
Pope and claiming she's one of your "wives" and it's your kid, claiming
to being places you're not (Jerusalem), etc. - combined with the
paranoiac responses and disordered logic, it suggests some serious
mental illness at play. As I recall, that had something to do with your
problems with your university.
James Beck
[snip]
An here I was wondering what the voices were saying...
Mark Isaak
The satan character in Job was not a fallen angel. He was, in essence,
an officer of the court in which God presided.
iaoua iaoua
> On 5/22/2011 1:01 PM,iaouaiaouawrote:
In my experience people who expect others to be liars usually do so
because they themselves are liars and cannot imagine that others are
not.
JC
pnyikos
> On May 21, 11:27 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/21/2011 5:56 AM, alextangent wrote:
>
> > > On May 20, 12:24 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> On May 20, 4:34 am,iaouaiaoua<iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> On May 20, 5:44 am, David Iain Greig<dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>
> > >>>>iaouaiaoua<iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi guys,
>
> > >>>>> what an adventure! It was a long year with a bit of a bumpy ride but
> > >>>>> there is hope for the British justice system yet. There are evidently
> > >>>>> still a few good men left in this country. I won the appeal and my
> > >>>>> name has been cleared for the allegations that saw me wrongfully
> > >>>>> imprisoned last year.
>
> > >>>>> That's Yhwh 1 Satan 0. Bring it on fallen angel fuzzball. Is that all
> > >>>>> you got?
>
> > >>>> Guessing 'not guilty by reason of mental incapacity'.
>
> > >>>> --D.
>
> > >> Hi, JC. I returned to talk.origins in December after about a decade
> > >> of absence, so I don't know who you are. Would you like to tell me a
> > >> the Brits still use that spelling?]?
>
> > >> Peter Nyikos
> > >> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > >> University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>
> > > Tag team! Yay! You can do the sciencey stuff when you've an idle half
> > > when he's not inside or avoiding bloodthirsty Romanians by skulking
> > > around Italy.
>
> > It was Ukrainians, as I recall. Ukrainian Mob, more specifically. And
> > they are chasing him all about Europe, point of fact. Truth be told,
> > they're the ones trumped up the charges that got him into an English
> > prison in the first place. The Ukrainian beef against him stems from him
> > knocking up one of their daughters, he having in a sense married one of
> > them - "married" sensu she became one of his several wives. The
> > Ukrainian Mob wants that kid, and willing to sink much resources into
> > its capture, for reasons unexplained.
>
>
> It's wife number 1, the one I made the grave mistake of bringing to
> the UK that made the charges.
>
> JC
But...but...I wasn't asking about what got you in trouble. I was
asking what you did in talk.origins before you got into trouble. Were
you ever posting on scientific matters, or were you just quoting
Bible verses like alextangent was suggesting?
But now that you've gotten into this theme... what's this about
"several wives" and "wife number 1"? aren't you a Christian?
Peter Nyikos
Mitchell Coffey
In other words, you admit what I've said was true. I think the funniest
things you write are your lessons "about polygamy."
Ernest Major
<a9c1ea64-5ca1-475c...@14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes
You could look at his record via Google Groups.
>
>But now that you've gotten into this theme... what's this about
>"several wives" and "wife number 1"? aren't you a Christian?
>
>Peter Nyikos
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ilas
com:
> In my experience people who expect others to be liars usually do so
> because they themselves are liars and cannot imagine that others are
> not.
No, it's because you sound like a liar. Billy Bullshit, as we used to call
them at school. Ukranian mob, my arse.
Ilas
news:a9c1ea64-5ca1-475c...@14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
> But now that you've gotten into this theme... what's this about
> "several wives" and "wife number 1"? aren't you a Christian?
Not only is he a Christian, but he *the* one true Christian, as well as the
arbiter of all things Christian. Tony and Ray imagine something similar.
(Oh, and he's dead clever too. I mean, really, really, clever. You can tell
because he keeps telling us)
iaoua iaoua
> On 5/23/2011 7:46 PM,iaouaiaouawrote:
Do you mean this gorgeous blonde here?
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B-CUcvOyJR-dYzVhZGNiMjMtMDVjOS00N2M0LTk0MDEtZDUzY2U2Nzc1NmEw&hl=en_US
Who's that handsome bloke she's clinging onto? Quick answer: NOT YOU!
More detailed answer: the man who has several others even more
beautiful.
People like you are all the same. Because you don't have a life of
your own and probably a nonexistent sex life you find it difficult to
believe that others have a life that is better than your own. You
therefore feel justified in calling people a liar. A bit sad really
but never mind. All I can do is thank God that I am me and not you.
JC