Angel breasts
Martin Willett
individuals, correct me if I'm wrong. (A superfluous addition if ever there
was one)
Do angels have breasts and genitalia? If so why and for whose benefit?
Moreover how do you know and why do you believe your sources?
Men have nipples because they are mammals and all mammals have nipples. That
same logic does not seem to apply to angels who have no evolutionary
inheritance. They have never needed nipples, breasts, penises or clitorises
(same thing as a penis but less plumbing) All mammals have a penis or
clitoris, even nuns, how's that for a redundant organ, it knocks the
appendix into a cocked hat.
Martin
Author of
Shoot the Nuns First
Alan Ferris
>
>"Martin Willett" <Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote in message
>news:kDO%5.8537$y5.39406@news2-hme0...
Must be to wonder about genitalia of angels!
--
Alan Ferris
eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211
EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the only colour is black -
the only sound
the broken bell
THEN talk to me about why. Spike Milligan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
arc's Gallery: http://www3.mistral.co.uk/xalan/rogue.htm
ICQ UIN: 12811297
Ian Rohrbacher
Martin Willett wrote:
> Angels seem to be some kind of non-sexual species directly created by God as
> individuals, correct me if I'm wrong. (A superfluous addition if ever there
> was one)
>
> Do angels have breasts and genitalia? If so why and for whose benefit?
> Moreover how do you know and why do you believe your sources?
>
> Men have nipples because they are mammals and all mammals have nipples. That
> same logic does not seem to apply to angels who have no evolutionary
> inheritance.
We don't have evolutionary inheritance either. God made Adam from the dust of
the ground, and from him He made Eve. We only share similar features because
God used a similar design.
--
"Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of Hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory."
[Isaiah 6:3]
PBarker
> Do angels have breasts and genitalia? If so why and for whose benefit?
> Moreover how do you know and why do you believe your sources?
+ Why do you think you have a need to know?
+ If it were explained to you, would you understand?
+ And... how could you understand something beyond your intellect?
Alan Ferris
In other words poor Patsy hasn't a clue. I notice he never does
manage to answer a question about his faith.
Stephanie D. Rendino
<scou...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>"Martin Willett" <Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote in message
>news:kDO%5.8537$y5.39406@news2-hme0...
>> Angels seem to be some kind of non-sexual species directly created by God
>as
>> individuals, correct me if I'm wrong. (A superfluous addition if ever
>there
>> was one)
>>
>> Do angels have breasts and genitalia?
I dunno, but I've been told my bosom is pretty divine.
Ba-dum-bum.
FTT
"Stephanie D. Rendino" <bea...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:mtqv3tsli0rv5vn73...@4ax.com...
Wonderful reply Stephanie
FTT
taxdude
as
> individuals, correct me if I'm wrong. (A superfluous addition if ever
there
> was one)
>
> Do angels have breasts and genitalia?
They don't even have bodies.
> Moreover how do you know and why do you believe your sources?
The Bible I guess. Exorcisms bear this out. Demons (fallen angels) possess
other people's bodies, cause they ain't got none.
Haraslee
>as
>> individuals, correct me if I'm wrong. (A superfluous addition if ever there
>> was one)
>>
>> Do angels have breasts and genitalia? If so why and for whose benefit?
>> Moreover how do you know and why do you believe your sources?
>>
>> Men have nipples because they are mammals and all mammals have nipples.
>That
>> same logic does not seem to apply to angels who have no evolutionary
>> inheritance.
>
>We don't have evolutionary inheritance either. God made Adam from the dust
>of
>the ground, and from him He made Eve. We only share similar features because
>God used a similar design.
::yawn:: yeah, yeah, pick up a science book and get with it.
~Haraslee
Haraslee
>>+ Why do you think you have a need to know?
>>+ If it were explained to you, would you understand?
>>+ And... how could you understand something beyond your intellect?
>
>In other words poor Patsy hasn't a clue. I notice he never does
>manage to answer a question about his faith.
True dat, Alan.
~Haraslee
student
"Scout Lady" <scou...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:91ok3n$njka$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...
> > Men have nipples because they are mammals and all mammals have nipples.
> That
> > same logic does not seem to apply to angels who have no evolutionary
> > inheritance. They have never needed nipples, breasts, penises or
> clitorises
> > (same thing as a penis but less plumbing) All mammals have a penis or
> > clitoris, even nuns, how's that for a redundant organ, it knocks the
> > appendix into a cocked hat.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > Author of
> >
> > Shoot the Nuns First
> >
> > http://www.mememachine.cwc.net/nunsfirst/
> >
> Asshole
They don't need one of those either!
student
frank w elliott jr
: "Martin Willett" <Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote in message
: news:kDO%5.8537$y5.39406@news2-hme0...
:> Angels seem to be some kind of non-sexual species directly created by God
:>
: Asshole
Agreed.
Now, if only Cardinal Ratzinger had an asshole.
Frank
Alan W. Craft
>Must be to wonder about genitalia of angels!
They have none, and cease with the base speculations.
Alan
Mike W. Rock
rabbi...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/19/00 4:01 PM:
> We don't have evolutionary inheritance either. God made Adam from the dust of
> the ground, and from him He made Eve. We only share similar features because
> God used a similar design.
there is a difference between spiritual truth and historical truth. such
literalism is an idolatry, or substitution, of the written word over the
direct experience of the living word that is in our hearts and unfolds in
our lives. the written word POINTS to the living word, but is NOT the living
word itself. i realize the word "idolatry" carries a strong emotional charge
for many folks and can seem insulting. I dont mean to use it as a bludgeon,
but as a description. i mean this with all respect and compassion.
by the one who died and rose and is coming i pray that what follows does not
cause my sister or brother to stumble. may it strengthen and renew the faith
of all in the Maker.
the story in genesis 1 is poetry inspired by the prophetic experience of God
that points to the creative intelligence behind all the visible forms we
see, and that we share among ourselves in the breath of the Holy Spirit. It
also points to the experience of having everything we need on earth by
Providence. We have a beautiful planet that is capable of nurturing and
sustaining life. and it points to the seed of divinity in each of us, the
Imago Dei. just like a small piece cut from a holographic film contains the
pattern of the whole film, so do we contain the image of God.
also, it points to the discriminating awareness of mind, that names things
and distingishes objects and forms from the massive flood of chaotic
information rushing at it... it "separates the heavens from the earth" and
"the day from the night" and "the evening and the morning" and causes all
the various objects and living things to be distinguished as separate
beings. When we are children we are most aware of this process, and if we
think back, we can remember what it felt like to name and discover the
things in our world, and to experience that process of "creation" as "Good".
In meditation, ie contemplative prayer or recollection, we can "recollect"
or remember this original experience of divinity, and know directly that God
is Good. And that we as children of God are Good.
we are made of the dust of the ground, and so are all living things. this
illustrates our physical dependence on our mother earth from which our flesh
is made and to which our elements return in death. as our bodies are formed
from the flesh of our human mothers, in the image of our fathers, so our
"original parents", or the pattern of human life, is formed from the flesh
of the earth in the image of God the father of heaven.
It is poetically organized into seven days to symbolize the perfection of
God's creation, which includes ourselves. Because in ancient times only the
seven visible planets/luminaries were visible, and were thought to govern
the heavens and therefore the laws of nature, seven is the mystical number
of perfection or better yet completion. (perfect means complete or
finished.) Seven is used this way throughout the bible.
this is all truth which you can discover for yourself in prayer. may the
holy spirit make it so, and may San Juan de la Cruz and Teresa de Avila and
the Blessed Virgin pray for the opening of the hearts of all the Body of
Christ to these understandings in the spirit.
blessings and peace to all
mike
PBarker
+ I guess Alan may have answered my post.
+ Since I have killfiled him, I don't always see his stupid quips.
+ However, harassed le:
+ I see yours.
+ Do you have a point to make, do you have a question, or...
+ Are you trying to be pals with Karen's butt-buddy, Alan?
+ I will be glad to answer any legitimate questions you have....
Martin Willett
"Alan W. Craft" <Iamasinner@hades'portal.net> wrote in message
news:d3m04ton1gbh68e5p...@4ax.com...
Base speculations? That is one of the most pompous and thoroughly obscene
messages I have ever seen. I will never, ever, under any circumstances stop
asking questions. I am expressing my right to do so, to question all
assumptions, never to take "because it is" as an answer to anything. Also I
am upholding the greatest freedom of expression any man can have, the right
to poke fun at religion. If we ever lose that right (again) free speech is
worthless.
Martin Willett
"Ian Rohrbacher" <rabbi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A3FDAB8...@yahoo.com...
>
>
> Martin Willett wrote:
>
> > Angels seem to be some kind of non-sexual species directly created by
God as
> > individuals, correct me if I'm wrong. (A superfluous addition if ever
there
> > was one)
> >
> > Do angels have breasts and genitalia? If so why and for whose benefit?
> > Moreover how do you know and why do you believe your sources?
> >
> > Men have nipples because they are mammals and all mammals have nipples.
That
> > same logic does not seem to apply to angels who have no evolutionary
> > inheritance.
>
> We don't have evolutionary inheritance either. God made Adam from the
dust of
> the ground, and from him He made Eve. We only share similar features
because
> God used a similar design.
>
The really sad thing about this story is that people still willingly believe
it. This makes me really pessimistic about the future of the planet we live
on, full of people prepared to believe any idea they grow up with.
Where is the evidence of good design in people? We have hundreds of features
that are quite unsuitable to our current lifestyle, just look at our spines
and our appetites for fatty and sugary foods for a start. If we have been
designed by an all wise God he must think suffering is good for us.
Martin Willett
"PBarker" <bark...@nospam.erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3a3fe4a9$0$1503$53a6...@news.erinet.com...
I have a need to know. Why I do not know. Why do you need to doubt it?
If it was explained to me I would understand. If it was told to me and it
was not the truth I probably would understand better than the person who
told me.
I cannot understand things beyond my intellect. I do not tell stories of
things that are supposed to be beyond human understanding, I would not have
the nerve to do such a thing. Unfortunately many millions of people do not
share that inhibition and willingly tell others that there are things that
exist in their world that they could never hope to understand. The saddest
and cruellest twist on this tale is that these people are not doing so out
of malice.
Martin Willett
"taxdude" <taxm...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:taV%5.10168$1M.26...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
I can't say that answer fills me with confidence.
Ian Rohrbacher
Haraslee wrote:
I've picked up MANY science books. It's funny how even in the past 50 years the
*theory* of evolution has undergone many permutations. You can accept the
falllible word of men pandering pseudoscience - I'll believe God.
>
> ~Haraslee
Ian Rohrbacher
"Mike W. Rock" wrote:
> in article 3A3FDAB8...@yahoo.com, Ian Rohrbacher at
> rabbi...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/19/00 4:01 PM:
>
> > We don't have evolutionary inheritance either. God made Adam from the dust of
> > the ground, and from him He made Eve. We only share similar features because
> > God used a similar design.
>
> there is a difference between spiritual truth and historical truth. such
> literalism is an idolatry, or substitution, of the written word over the
> direct experience of the living word that is in our hearts and unfolds in
> our lives. the written word POINTS to the living word, but is NOT the living
> word itself. i realize the word "idolatry" carries a strong emotional charge
> for many folks and can seem insulting. I dont mean to use it as a bludgeon,
> but as a description. i mean this with all respect and compassion.
>
> by the one who died and rose and is coming i pray that what follows does not
> cause my sister or brother to stumble. may it strengthen and renew the faith
> of all in the Maker.
>
> the story in genesis 1 is poetry inspired by the prophetic experience of God
> that points to the creative intelligence behind all the visible forms we
> see,
So, Adam and Eve are metaphors? Enoch? Noah? David? Solomon? Joseph? Jesus?
When does the Bible stop being just metaphorical poetry and becomes actual history?
Jesus and the apostles believed Genesis to be literal, why should I not do so?
Ah, I see... You need to ask [dead] people for help getting to God. There is only
one God, and one mediator between God and Man - Jesus Christ.
>
>
> blessings and peace to all
>
> mike
--
Haraslee
Damn man, are you always this pissed off? Do you get off on trying to insult
others? By the way, funny use of words with that "harassed le" thing. It was
hilarious.
Oh, and dickface, here's a legitimate question for you: were *you* trying to
make a point, or was that just a lame attempt at insulting me?
~Haraslee
Haraslee
>dust
>> >of
>> >the ground, and from him He made Eve. We only share similar features
>because
>> >God used a similar design.
>>
>> ::yawn:: yeah, yeah, pick up a science book and get with it.
>
>I've picked up MANY science books. It's funny how even in the past 50 years
>the
>*theory* of evolution has undergone many permutations. You can accept the
>falllible word of men pandering pseudoscience - I'll believe God.
Alright, so evolution is just a theory, that's true. However, I think it's
rather important that you understand that the *story* of Adam/Eve is nothing
more than that; a story created by pre-scientific humans thousands of years ago
to help explain where people came from. There are hundreds of others like it
around the world in all sorts of religions.
~Haraslee
student
they have no body. So they have no anus either.
But it does raise an interesting question. One of the Gospels tells
us that Jesus ate food. So did he go to the toilet, a natural
consequence. Yes or no? Eating food was told to make Him
look fully human. So would going to the toilet.
student
PBarker
> "PBarker" <wrote in message
> > "Martin Willett" wrote
> > > Do angels have breasts and genitalia? If so why and for whose benefit?
> > > Moreover how do you know and why do you believe your sources?
> >
> > + Why do you think you have a need to know?
> > + If it were explained to you, would you understand?
> > + And... how could you understand something beyond your intellect?
>
> I have a need to know. Why I do not know. Why do you need to doubt it?
+ If you do not know why you need to know, then perhaps you are
mistaken, and you don't have a need to know. I do not doubt your
needs or wants. I am merely inquiring why you feel you have a need?
> If it was explained to me I would understand. If it was told to me and it
> was not the truth I probably would understand better than the person who
> told me.
+ Do you really want an explanation, or a simple "yes" or "no?"
+ Either and both are available.
> I cannot understand things beyond my intellect. I do not tell stories of
> things that are supposed to be beyond human understanding, I would not
have
> the nerve to do such a thing. Unfortunately many millions of people do not
> share that inhibition and willingly tell others that there are things that
> exist in their world that they could never hope to understand. The saddest
> and cruellest twist on this tale is that these people are not doing so out
> of malice.
+ So true.
+ The saddest people are those who are stupid, don't know they are
stupid, think that they are normal and maybe even intelligent, but don't
have a clue bag to hold a clue in -- if someone gave them a clue.
+ Because of this, I am unsure as to whether to hand you a clue....
PBarker
> >> True dat, Alan.
> >+ I guess Alan may have answered my post.
> >+ Since I have killfiled him, I don't always see his stupid quips.
> >+ However, harassed le:
> >+ I see yours.
> >+ Do you have a point to make, do you have a question, or...
> >+ Are you trying to be pals with Karen's butt-buddy, Alan?
> >+ I will be glad to answer any legitimate questions you have....
> >
>
> Damn man, are you always this pissed off? Do you get off on trying to
insult
> others? By the way, funny use of words with that "harassed le" thing. It
was
> hilarious.
+ Thanks. It is a gift.
+ Nope, not always mad.
+ Only when someone agrees with an atheist whom
I have kill-filed. I answer any and all posts until they
become a millstone around my neck trying to talk to
a wall. Alan Ferris is a troll. If you find his words
worthy of your time, then I feel you do not have much in
common with me. No brag. Just fact.
> Oh, and dickface,
+ Now, that isn't funny at all.
+ I am a little disappointed in you, but then....
+ If you and Alan Ferris are BB's, then so be it.
here's a legitimate question for you: were *you* trying to
> make a point, or was that just a lame attempt at insulting me?
+ It was an insult - Number one.
+ And, it was a statement to you - Number two.
+ If you have a question of me, my faith, my religion,
or anything about me, do not hesitate to ask. I have
absolutely nothing to hide. I am not the smartest Catholic
who is on this ng, but I usually have something to say
to the illiterates and non-catholics looking to bug people.
+ Who are you? And why are you here?
Haraslee
Jesus was a human being. For the first 30 -something years of his life he
didn't even have "special abilities".
taxdude
>
> "taxdude" <taxm...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:taV%5.10168$1M.26...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> >
> > "Martin Willett" <Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote in message
> > news:kDO%5.8537$y5.39406@news2-hme0...
> > > Angels seem to be some kind of non-sexual species directly created by
> God
> > as
> > > individuals, correct me if I'm wrong. (A superfluous addition if ever
> > there
> > > was one)
> > >
> > > Do angels have breasts and genitalia?
> >
> > They don't even have bodies.
> >
> > > Moreover how do you know and why do you believe your sources?
> >
> > The Bible I guess. Exorcisms bear this out. Demons (fallen angels)
> possess
> > other people's bodies, cause they ain't got none.
>
> I can't say that answer fills me with confidence.
Do you believe that the spirit/soul can exist separate from the body?
Haraslee
>
>> >+ I guess Alan may have answered my post.
>> >+ Since I have killfiled him, I don't always see his stupid quips.
>> >+ However, harassed le:
>> >+ I see yours.
>> >+ Do you have a point to make, do you have a question, or...
>> >+ Are you trying to be pals with Karen's butt-buddy, Alan?
>> >+ I will be glad to answer any legitimate questions you have....
>> >
>>
>> Damn man, are you always this pissed off? Do you get off on trying to
>insult
>> others? By the way, funny use of words with that "harassed le" thing. It
>was
>> hilarious.
>+ Thanks. It is a gift.
Apparently you had trouble detecting the sarcasm in that statement.
>+ Nope, not always mad.
>+ Only when someone agrees with an atheist whom
>I have kill-filed. I answer any and all posts until they
>become a millstone around my neck trying to talk to
>a wall. Alan Ferris is a troll. If you find his words
>worthy of your time, then I feel you do not have much in
>common with me. No brag. Just fact.
Well, here's what I find pathetic: you, first of all, do not find Alan's words
worthy of your time, so you apparently ignore him, which is all fine and good.
Then I come along and support something that Alan says, (I can't even remember
what it was), in a kinda joking way, one that nobody in their right mind would
respond to. You, however, who gets off on insulting others, feels the need to
actually *respond* to my "true dat" statement, for god knows what reason. To
make it worse, you make a total *ass* out of yourself by trying to be funny
about it. Get a fucking life.
>> Oh, and dickface,
>
>+ Now, that isn't funny at all.
>+ I am a little disappointed in you, but then....
>+ If you and Alan Ferris are BB's, then so be it.
Ha. Yeah...was that supposed to be a joke? It didn't even make sense.
>here's a legitimate question for you: were *you* trying to
>> make a point, or was that just a lame attempt at insulting me?
>+ It was an insult - Number one.
Not a very good one.
>+ And, it was a statement to you - Number two.
>+ If you have a question of me, my faith, my religion,
>or anything about me, do not hesitate to ask. I have
>absolutely nothing to hide.
Whatever. I could really care less about you, your faith, religion, etc.
> I am not the smartest Catholic
>who is on this ng,
So very obvious.
> but I usually have something to say
Nothing very intelligent to say, though.
>to the illiterates and non-catholics looking to bug people.
>+ Who are you? And why are you here?
Who I am is none of your concern, and I'm here because I have many valid
opinions. You, one can assume, are here to jack-off while insulting (poorly, I
might add) other people, catholic and atheist alike. Maybe I'm not catholic,
but I am here to give my opinions, not to simply insult others, unless, of
course, they attempt to insult me first.
~Haraslee
Mike W. Rock
rabbi...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/20/00 5:18 PM:
>
> "Mike W. Rock" wrote:
>>
>> the story in genesis 1 is poetry inspired by the prophetic experience of God
>> that points to the creative intelligence behind all the visible forms we
>> see,
>
> So, Adam and Eve are metaphors? Enoch? Noah? David? Solomon? Joseph?
> Jesus?
> When does the Bible stop being just metaphorical poetry and becomes actual
> history?
yes and yes. the rest, it doesnt matter. it really isnt that important in
the grand scheme whether these figures are historical or not. the spiritual
truths contained in their stories would still be true whether or not the
people ever really existed, just like the truths illustrated in a great
novel like Dune, a play like the Tempest, or an epic like Babylon 5 are just
as true as the characters are fictitious.
metaphors are powerful vehicles of truth. they are not "mere" metaphors.
myth is the most powerful and useful type of metaphor there is. and metaphor
is the only way you can approach the prophetic experience of God with
language.
if you've ever learned calculus, God is a limit. language can never reach
that limit. only by resting in the power of the spirit and quieting the mind
through prayer can that limit be gapped by the intuitive understanding of
prophetic revelation, what in Buddism is referred to as enlightenment.
> Jesus and the apostles believed Genesis to be literal, why should I not do so?
>
this is speculation on your part. jesus can just as easily be citing the
stories in genesis as an illustrative story that everyone around him knows,
for instance, just like i could illustrate a point with a citation from an
episode of B5 or from a shakespearean play. as stories they are accomplished
fact, but no one would claim they were history in the accepted sense.
however, it is possible for them to have authority in spiritual matters, if
the inspiration behind them is of divine prophecy. it is inspiration that
gives the documents of bible spiritual authority, not historical accuracy.
>> this is all truth which you can discover for yourself in prayer. may the
>> holy spirit make it so, and may San Juan de la Cruz and Teresa de Avila and
>> the Blessed Virgin pray for the opening of the hearts of all the Body of
>> Christ to these understandings in the spirit.
>
> Ah, I see... You need to ask [dead] people for help getting to God. There is
> only
> one God, and one mediator between God and Man - Jesus Christ.
>
no, unfortunately you dont appear to see. you are making assumptions about
me based on your own preconceptions. and you are reciting a formula. here is
a formula... knowledge puffs up, love builds up. if you really did see, then
the fruits of the spirit, patience, love, etc would be manifest in your
response. instead, you scoff. so be it.
God is One. but this isnt the same as saying there is one God. To be honest,
one should never utter the word "God", because to say one word about God is
to have God slip out of your grasp. God is a slippery fish that cannot be
caught with the hands. Instead you will want to use a net that is infinitely
small.
All that said, I cant see that i said anything that disagreed with your
formula. Your formula such as it is, is "correct", but also inaccurate. the
reality is so profound, that when you understand it, it humbles you lower
than the bedrock, and cant be contained in a formula.
As for dead people, they are very near to us. Just like you would ask a
friend or minister to pray for you, one can ask the saints who have passed
beyond the veil to pray for oneself. your friend whom you ask is not your
mediator, they are your friend. it is no different with the saints, who are
the friends of all seekers after truth. and in my personal experience it is
no different with Jesus Christ. He is our friend and elder brother. His
person and life point the way to the Father, the Source. through his example
of prayer, meditation, and concern for others, we may come to know the
Father in the intimate fashion he does and know love and peace in our lives,
not as abstract concepts and stale formulas, but as a living breathing
reality in our ordinary human lives.
And suddenly, the words "The Body of Christ, The Blood of Christ" said over
the eucharist will be among the most profound words ever spoken about God.
The very actions of the eucharistic feast itself are more profound in
communicating the truth of our relationship to God than all the words in the
entire new testament. why? because actions speak louder than words. Jesus
understood this intimately.
peace
mike
Karen H Jarvis
>>+ And, it was a statement to you - Number two.
>>+ If you have a question of me, my faith, my religion,
>>or anything about me, do not hesitate to ask. I have
>>absolutely nothing to hide.
>
>Whatever. I could really care less about you, your faith, religion, etc.
The sad thing is, from reading Patsy's posts, neither does he care
about his faith.
>>+ Who are you? And why are you here?
>
>Who I am is none of your concern, and I'm here because I have many valid
>opinions. You, one can assume, are here to jack-off while insulting (poorly, I
>might add) other people, catholic and atheist alike. Maybe I'm not catholic,
>but I am here to give my opinions, not to simply insult others, unless, of
>course, they attempt to insult me first.
Patsy will normally now respond with the tale(lie) about how he only
insults people to find out the "truth"
Alan Ferris.
Karen H Jarvis
To: "Karen H Jarvis" <kjne...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Angel breasts
From: "PBarker" <bark...@erinet.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:34:48 -0500
>
> >+ I am a "piece-o-shit".
> >+ I love "sniffing and wiping butts".
> >+ I like sniffing my "butt-buddy's bike seat".
+ Uhhhh.
+ Is it something I said that may have upset you, darlin?
Kahn
Scout Lady wrote in message
<91rlih$jplu$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>...>news:SWa06.9715$y5.46470@news2-hme0...
>
>
Strange, you will not answer this man with dignified answers or with any
love. But you choose to give derrogatory remarks to his rights and his
search for truth. I guess it is easier to believe the lie instead of seeking
and finding the truth.
Kahn, age 16
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Kahn
PBarker wrote in message <3a416efb$0$1516$53a6...@news.erinet.com>...
>"Martin Willett" < wrote
>> "PBarker" <wrote in message
>> > "Martin Willett" wrote
>> > > Do angels have breasts and genitalia? If so why and for whose
benefit?
>> > > Moreover how do you know and why do you believe your sources?
>> >
>> > + Why do you think you have a need to know?
>> > + If it were explained to you, would you understand?
>> > + And... how could you understand something beyond your intellect?
>>
>> I have a need to know. Why I do not know. Why do you need to doubt it?
>
>+ If you do not know why you need to know, then perhaps you are
>mistaken, and you don't have a need to know. I do not doubt your
>needs or wants. I am merely inquiring why you feel you have a need?
All need answers, to all questions. If you are not able to supply them, then
just say you cannot. For then he will seek and find and ask and receive in
another place. When you ask Christ for salvation I bet he doesn't respond
with "well, do you really need salvation...?"
>
>> If it was explained to me I would understand. If it was told to me and it
>> was not the truth I probably would understand better than the person who
>> told me.
>
>+ Do you really want an explanation, or a simple "yes" or "no?"
>+ Either and both are available.
Then give them both if they are available.
>
>> I cannot understand things beyond my intellect. I do not tell stories of
>> things that are supposed to be beyond human understanding, I would not
>have
>> the nerve to do such a thing. Unfortunately many millions of people do
not
>> share that inhibition and willingly tell others that there are things
that
>> exist in their world that they could never hope to understand. The
saddest
>> and cruellest twist on this tale is that these people are not doing so
out
>> of malice.
>
>+ So true.
>+ The saddest people are those who are stupid, don't know they are
>stupid, think that they are normal and maybe even intelligent, but don't
>have a clue bag to hold a clue in -- if someone gave them a clue.
>+ Because of this, I am unsure as to whether to hand you a clue....
You should not prejudge someone. Give the answer and then judge on how the
person handles it. Don't hide the truth.
Kahn
Haraslee wrote in message <20001221004302...@ng-mn1.aol.com>...
he was always a human being, but since according to the Serpent and to
Yahweh we are gods he was a god himself, and accepted this. Ye are gods
(Psalms 82:6 and John 10:34 and Genesis 3 )
Karen
"Kahn" <kah...@teenagewildlife.com> wrote:
> You should not prejudge someone. Give the answer and then judge on
how the
> person handles it. Don't hide the truth.
>
> Kahn, age 16
>
This reply shows more maturity that Pattie has ever shown.
Karen
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Scout Lady
"Kahn" <kah...@teenagewildlife.com> wrote in message
news:3a426...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
Kahn, this man has to ask a dignified question to get a dignified answer.
Talking about the unused clitoris of a nun does not earn him any respect in
my book. If he is looking for truth, why such a disrespectful remark?
Cathy
PBarker
> PBarker wrote ...
> >"Martin Willett" < wrote
> Do angels have breasts and genitalia? If so why and for whose benefit?
> Moreover how do you know and why do you believe your sources?
> >> >
> >> > + Why do you think you have a need to know?
> >> > + If it were explained to you, would you understand?
> >> > + And... how could you understand something beyond your intellect?
> >>
> >> I have a need to know. Why I do not know. Why do you need to doubt it?
> >
> >+ If you do not know why you need to know, then perhaps you are
> >mistaken, and you don't have a need to know. I do not doubt your
> >needs or wants. I am merely inquiring why you feel you have a need?
>
>
> All need answers, to all questions.
+ Huh?
+ Perhaps you are unaware of people who merely
ask questions to make noise. Perhaps you are too
young to understand that all people who post
here on this newsgroup does so for their own
entertainment value, not to seek the truth.
+ However, I believe you already know this.....
> If you are not able to supply them, then
> just say you cannot.
+ OK, youngster.
+ We will ask you, since you are so wise....
+ Do angels have genitalia? And why?
> For then he will seek and find and ask and receive in
> another place.
+ Where can one find the answer to this lifelong question?
> When you ask Christ for salvation I bet he doesn't respond
> with "well, do you really need salvation...?"
+ I don't have to ask Christ for salvation.
+ Christ already died on the cross for me and all humanity.
+ It is up to me and others to live our lives in acordance
with our belief systems in order to earn heaven.
> >> If it was explained to me I would understand. If it was told to me and
it
> >> was not the truth I probably would understand better than the person
who
> >> told me.
> >
> >+ Do you really want an explanation, or a simple "yes" or "no?"
> >+ Either and both are available.
>
>
> Then give them both if they are available.
+ Do you think these answers are available?
+ Why do you think they are available?
+ Where might a person obtain the answers to these questions?
> You should not prejudge someone. Give the answer and then judge on how
the
> person handles it. Don't hide the truth.
> Kahn, age 16
+ Perhaps you do not wish to prejudge another person.
+ However, that is how I got where I am in life.
+ I have learned to separate the wheat from the chaff early on,
and will act accordingly. I am pretty accurate.
+ For example, your signature block screams volumes about
yourself. Would you like to know what you are trying to tell
everyone with your posted age, young Kahn?
+ As for your simple addage of "Don't hide the truth.".....
+ I don't ever hide anything.
PBarker
> "Kahn" <kah...@teenagewildlife.com> wrote:
> You should not prejudge someone. Give the answer and then judge on
> how the person handles it. Don't hide the truth.
> > Kahn, age 16
> >
> This reply shows more maturity that Pattie has ever shown.
+ Oh, Karen,
+ If you wish to talk with me, just address me.
+ Use this e-mail address. I have kill-filed all
your others and don't see them anymore.
+ Do you have something you wish to discuss,
or are you still looking for revenge because I
have shown you up to be a slobbering troll?
PBarker
> >> >> True dat, Alan.
> >
> >> >+ I guess Alan may have answered my post.
> >> >+ Since I have killfiled him, I don't always see his stupid quips.
> >> >+ However, harassed le:
> >> >+ I see yours.
> >> >+ Do you have a point to make, do you have a question, or...
> >> >+ Are you trying to be pals with Karen's butt-buddy, Alan?
> >> >+ I will be glad to answer any legitimate questions you have....
> >> >
> >>
> >> Damn man, are you always this pissed off? Do you get off on trying to
> >insult
> >> others? By the way, funny use of words with that "harassed le" thing.
It
> >was
> >> hilarious.
>
> >+ Thanks. It is a gift.
>
> Apparently you had trouble detecting the sarcasm in that statement.
+ There was no sarcasm.
+ You liked it, and you know it....
> >+ Nope, not always mad.
> >+ Only when someone agrees with an atheist whom
> >I have kill-filed. I answer any and all posts until they
> >become a millstone around my neck trying to talk to
> >a wall. Alan Ferris is a troll. If you find his words
> >worthy of your time, then I feel you do not have much in
> >common with me. No brag. Just fact.
>
> Well, here's what I find pathetic: you, first of all, do not find Alan's
words
> worthy of your time, so you apparently ignore him, which is all fine and
good.
> Then I come along and support something that Alan says, (I can't even
remember
> what it was), in a kinda joking way, one that nobody in their right mind
would
> respond to. You, however, who gets off on insulting others, feels the
need to
> actually *respond* to my "true dat" statement, for god knows what reason.
To
> make it worse, you make a total *ass* out of yourself by trying to be
funny
> about it. Get a fucking life.
+ Ooooh.
+ A cusser.
+ Look back harrassed le,...
+ See what comment you made.
+ And then try and figure out why I decided to confront you.
+ If this is too much for you, just let me know and I'll
spell it out for you real slow.
> >> Oh, and dickface,
> >
> >+ Now, that isn't funny at all.
> >+ I am a little disappointed in you, but then....
> >+ If you and Alan Ferris are BB's, then so be it.
>
> Ha. Yeah...was that supposed to be a joke? It didn't even make sense.
+ Gee.
+ You have a worse memory than I do.
+ And I thought mine was horrible.
+ Perhaps you do need it spelled out for you.
> Who I am is none of your concern, and I'm here because I have many valid
> opinions. You, one can assume, are here to jack-off while insulting
(poorly, I
> might add) other people, catholic and atheist alike. Maybe I'm not
catholic,
> but I am here to give my opinions, not to simply insult others, unless, of
> course, they attempt to insult me first.
+ I am here to listen and learn.
+ However, instead of finding interesting Catholic topics to discuss,
it appears I have to spend 90 percent of my time trying to explain
to catholic bashers the real truth about the Catholic faith.
+ You are obviously not a catholic.
+ You insulted me first.
+ I'm here mainly to tell you not to agree too quickly
with the troll - Ferris - especially if the post was meant as
a personal insult to me.
+ I don't take insults lightly.
+ GO back - harrassed le - and look what you said about me
before you make stupid statements about not insulting people first.
+ Your silence will be taken as an apology.
Scout Lady
> "Kahn" wrote ...
> > PBarker wrote ...
> yourself. Would you like to know what you are trying to tell
> everyone with your posted age, young Kahn?
That maybe he's trying to meet up with another sophomoric teenager here? ;o)
Cathy
Haraslee
>> >
>> >> >+ I guess Alan may have answered my post.
>> >> >+ Since I have killfiled him, I don't always see his stupid quips.
>> >> >+ However, harassed le:
>> >> >+ I see yours.
>> >> >+ Do you have a point to make, do you have a question, or...
>> >> >+ Are you trying to be pals with Karen's butt-buddy, Alan?
>> >> >+ I will be glad to answer any legitimate questions you have....
>> >> Damn man, are you always this pissed off? Do you get off on trying to
>> >insult
>> >> others? By the way, funny use of words with that "harassed le" thing.
>It
>> >was
>> >> hilarious.
>> >+ Thanks. It is a gift.
>> Apparently you had trouble detecting the sarcasm in that statement.
>+ There was no sarcasm.
>+ You liked it, and you know it....
>
You're *still* not funny. Shut up before you make even more of an ass of
yourself.
I don't see why you'd waste your time. I agreed with something Alan said, and
you obviously felt the need to attack someone, namely me, because you were
angry at Alan. That's pathetic.
>
>> >> Oh, and dickface,
>> >
>> >+ Now, that isn't funny at all.
>> >+ I am a little disappointed in you, but then....
>> >+ If you and Alan Ferris are BB's, then so be it.
>> Ha. Yeah...was that supposed to be a joke? It didn't even make sense.
>+ Gee.
>+ You have a worse memory than I do.
>+ And I thought mine was horrible.
>+ Perhaps you do need it spelled out for you.
JESUS CHRIST NOW WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? Do you just make this
all up in your head?? Does *anyone* ever have any idea what the hell you're
talking about? I thought you only got off on insulting people, but apperantly
you get hot for confusing the hell out of people as well.
>> Who I am is none of your concern, and I'm here because I have many valid
>> opinions. You, one can assume, are here to jack-off while insulting
>(poorly, I
>> might add) other people, catholic and atheist alike. Maybe I'm not
>catholic,
>> but I am here to give my opinions, not to simply insult others, unless, of
>> course, they attempt to insult me first.
>+ I am here to listen and learn.
>+ However, instead of finding interesting Catholic topics to discuss,
>it appears I have to spend 90 percent of my time trying to explain
>to catholic bashers the real truth about the Catholic faith.
You Catholics don't even seem to agree among yourselves. A lot of it seems up
to individual interpretation.
>+ You are obviously not a catholic.
>+ You insulted me first.
Correction: Alan insulted you. I merely agreed with him.
>+ I'm here mainly to tell you not to agree too quickly
>with the troll - Ferris - especially if the post was meant as
>a personal insult to me.
>+ I don't take insults lightly.
It wasn't meant as an insult to you. I was just agreeing with Alan. But hey,
if I insulted you in the process, then cool.
>+ GO back - harrassed le - and look what you said about me
>before you make stupid statements about not insulting people first.
>+ Your silence will be taken as an apology.
HA HA. Yeah, dickface, whatever.
~Haraslee
Karen H Jarvis
--
Karen
My knowledge is no match for your ignorance.
dorot...@my-deja.com
"Martin Willett" <Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote:
> Angels seem to be some kind of non-sexual species directly created by
God as
> individuals, correct me if I'm wrong. (A superfluous addition if ever
there
> was one)
>
> Moreover how do you know and why do you believe your sources?
>
nipples. That
> same logic does not seem to apply to angels who have no evolutionary
clitorises
> (same thing as a penis but less plumbing) All mammals have a penis or
> clitoris, even nuns, how's that for a redundant organ, it knocks the
> appendix into a cocked hat.
Your logic is flawed in that you are assuming Angels are female. Ever
heard of the Angels Gabriel, Michael, etc.
PBarker
> >> >> >> True dat, Alan.
+ Let's do this real slow.
+ I'm typing with only one hand so you canunderstand better.
+ Alan made some sort of insult towards me.
+ I didn't see it since I have kill-filed him.
+ However, you agreed with the insult that was meant toward me.
+ Therefore, I considered it an insult from you to me.
+ Since you have elected to insult me, you have become
fair game to play mind games with.
+ I played them.
+ You bought into it, since your intellect was unable to
comprehend the game, and you lost.
+ You have lost your temper.
+ You have xussed at me.
+ You have screamed at me.
+ The game is over.
+ I win.
+ You lose.
> Shut up before you make even more of an ass of yourself.
+ Oh, contraire - I believe everyone can see who is upset...
> >> Get a fucking life.
> That's pathetic.
> Oh, and dickface,
> JESUS CHRIST NOW WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? Do you just make
this
> all up in your head?? Does *anyone* ever have any idea what the hell
you're
> talking about? I thought you only got off on insulting people, but
apperantly
> you get hot for confusing the hell out of people as well.
+ Don't get so upset.
+ Take your Lithium pill.
+ Hum to yourself, close your eyes.
+ You'll feel better soon.
> >+ You insulted me first.
> Correction: Alan insulted you. I merely agreed with him.
+ So, was your comment an insult, or wasn't it an insult?
+ If it was, then you insulted me first.
+ If it wasn't, methinks you are lying to yourself.
+ Ah, but.... that is OK.
+ Mental patients cannot always distinguish the difference
between truth and non-truth. Tell me more.
> It wasn't meant as an insult to you. I was just agreeing with Alan. But
hey,
> if I insulted you in the process, then cool.
+ Then perhaps it was an insult after all.
> HA HA. Yeah, dickface, whatever.
+ I forgive you, my son.
+ Say a prayer and maybe Jesus will forgive your arrogance as well.
Karen H Jarvis
Oh look, Pattie can't remember what he wrote!!
+ Either and both are available.
>+ Why do you think they are available?
+ Either and both are available.
>+ Where might a person obtain the answers to these questions?
>
+ Either and both are available.
Karen H Jarvis
Subject: Re: Angel breasts
From: "PBarker" <bark...@erinet.com>
From: "Karen H Jarvis" <kjne...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> Oh look, Pattie can't remember what he wrote!!
+ Why do you continue to write to me at home?
+ Do you miss my answers so much that you
feel you can't get enough of that sugar crisp?
+ Would you like to start our own little discussion group?
+ Just you and me?
+ OK. You first.
+ Tell me about your three kids....
Karen H Jarvis
>+ Since you have elected to insult me, you have become
>fair game to play mind games with.
>+ I played them.
But Pattie, Alan did that to you.........and *you* lost!!
Christopher Beattie
"Martin Willett" <Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote:
> Angels seem to be some kind of non-sexual
> species directly created by God as individuals,
> correct me if I'm wrong. (A superfluous addition
> if ever there was one)
What is a "superfluous addition?"
> Do angels have breasts and genitalia?
Angels are beings of pure spirit. When they appear before men and
women they have to "appear." They could I imagine appear as amorphus
blobs of jello, but instead they mostly appear as men. Artists love to
depict them as cute little babies and women, however.
Fallen angels on the other hand, have had some interesting legends
among the popular media during the middle ages, especially during the
witch trial craze which rocked Europe and touched the United States.
The sexual prowess of these demons can take up an entire hardcover work.
> Men have nipples because they are mammals and all mammals
> have nipples. That same logic does not seem to apply to
> angels who have no evolutionary inheritance.
Wrong argument. It has nothing to do with evolution, man
never "evolved" from woman or vice versa, it has to do with genetics,
and the common mechanism within the body of activation by hormonal
stimulation.
> They have never needed nipples, breasts, penises or
> clitorises (same thing as a penis but less plumbing)
> All mammals have a penis or clitoris, even nuns,
> how's that for a redundant organ, it knocks the
> appendix into a cocked hat.
It shows your lack of command of the English language.
1 a : exceeding what is necessary or normal : SUPERFLUOUS b :
characterized by or containing an excess; specifically : using more
words than necessary c : characterized by similarity or repetition <a
group of particularly redundant brick buildings> d chiefly British : no
longer needed for a job and hence laid off
2 : PROFUSE, LAVISH
3 : serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of an entire system
(as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single component
I can't see how it could be "redundant." What's it duplicating?
(Especially in anyone who has taken vows of celebacy.)
By the way, I'd be rude if I said, "all mammals have brains ... even
you ... how's that for a vestigal organ," so I won't. (vestigal: a
bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly
developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage
of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms)
--
Peace & Good!
Christopher Beattie SFO
KOC, SPEBSQSA, et.al.
Christopher Beattie
"Martin Willett" <Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote:
> Where is the evidence of good design in people?
I think there is a lot of "good design" in men and women. We wouldn't
be where we are today without those designs.
> We have hundreds of features that are quite unsuitable
> to our current lifestyle, just look at our spines
> and our appetites for fatty and sugary foods for
> a start.
What's wrong with our spines? I'd certanly would not want to
be "spineless." As for our lifestyle, perhaps it is the lifestyle
which has "evolved." We're quite efficient for what we should be
doing, good solid days of working, long nights for sleeping (sleeping
is essencial for advanced higher brain functions such as learning,
scientists have recently discovered) and an adequate diet will lead to
a very healthy life. Being a coutch potato, unfortunately, is going to
give an early death to all animals on this planet, look at how poorly
animals behaved in caged zoos.
> If we have been
> designed by an all wise God he must
> think suffering is good for us.
Well I guess so. He became man just to get whipped, beaten and nailed
to a tall piece of wood. And you I see seem to be complaining about
how you have to suffer not to eat all that fat and sugar.
leslie...@my-deja.com
dieties, are archetypes of the Unconscious, according to Carl Jung.
This means that whenever someone "perceives" and angel, spirit, or
deity, the manifestations appears in a form that is symbolic of its
powers or pupose or place in the Unconscious Universe. Some such
manifestations have genitalia, or multiple genitalia, if they symbolize
the principles of fertility or the powers of the Sun. If an angel
symbolized any of those powers, it might have genitalia. A good
reference book on Kabbalistic Hebrew or Golden Dawn angels might be a
good place to start if you want to get specific about what a particular
angel might look like symbolically.
In article <kDO%5.8537$y5.39406@news2-hme0>,
"Martin Willett" <Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote:
> Angels seem to be some kind of non-sexual species directly created by
God as
> individuals, correct me if I'm wrong. (A superfluous addition if ever
there
> was one)
>
> Do angels have breasts and genitalia? If so why and for whose benefit?
> Moreover how do you know and why do you believe your sources?
>
> Men have nipples because they are mammals and all mammals have
nipples. That
> same logic does not seem to apply to angels who have no evolutionary
> inheritance. They have never needed nipples, breasts, penises or
clitorises
> (same thing as a penis but less plumbing) All mammals have a penis or
> clitoris, even nuns, how's that for a redundant organ, it knocks the
> appendix into a cocked hat.
>
> Martin
>
> Author of
>
> Shoot the Nuns First
>
> http://www.mememachine.cwc.net/nunsfirst/
>
>
Karen
>
>>+ Since you have elected to insult me, you have become
>>fair game to play mind games with.
>>+ I played them.
>
>But Pattie, Alan did that to you.........and *you* lost!!
Subject: Re: Angel breasts
From: "PBarker" <bark...@erinet.com>
From: "Karen H Jarvis" <kjne...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> "PBarker" <bark...@nospam.erinet.com> wrote: ...
>
> >+ Since you have elected to insult me, you have become
> >fair game to play mind games with.
> >+ I played them.
>
> But Pattie, Alan did that to you.........and *you* lost!!
+ Yes, I lost to one of the great trolls of all time.
+ He suckered me in one too many times.
+ Oh, say ga-bye now.
+ I've kill-filed your second e-mail address.
Martin Willett
> "Martin Willett" < wrote
> > "PBarker" <wrote in message
> > > "Martin Willett" wrote
benefit?
> > > > Moreover how do you know and why do you believe your sources?
> > >
> > > + If it were explained to you, would you understand?
> > > + And... how could you understand something beyond your intellect?
> >
> > I have a need to know. Why I do not know. Why do you need to doubt it?
>
> + If you do not know why you need to know, then perhaps you are
> mistaken, and you don't have a need to know. I do not doubt your
> needs or wants. I am merely inquiring why you feel you have a need?
Not particularly logical. It is not necessary to explain a need in order to
have one. Man did not know why breathing was important until very recently.
Certainly nobody in biblical times had the slightest clue as to what
breathing was all about but I am sure they all would have been upset if you
denied them the right to do what they could not explain. Surely the moral
thing to do is to supply the need if you can do so easily.
So why not explain to me whether angels have breasts and genitalia, if they
do what are they for? In either case why do you trust your sources? Have you
verified them in any way or do you just take everything about your faith on
faith?
>
> > If it was explained to me I would understand. If it was told to me and
it
> > was not the truth I probably would understand better than the person who
> > told me.
>
> + Do you really want an explanation, or a simple "yes" or "no?"
> + Either and both are available.
Why not let me have both. It always better to give more than one is asked
for, don't you think?
>
> > I cannot understand things beyond my intellect. I do not tell stories of
> > things that are supposed to be beyond human understanding, I would not
> have
> > the nerve to do such a thing. Unfortunately many millions of people do
not
> > share that inhibition and willingly tell others that there are things
that
> > exist in their world that they could never hope to understand. The
saddest
> > and cruellest twist on this tale is that these people are not doing so
out
> > of malice.
>
> + So true.
> + The saddest people are those who are stupid, don't know they are
> stupid, think that they are normal and maybe even intelligent, but don't
> have a clue bag to hold a clue in -- if someone gave them a clue.
> + Because of this, I am unsure as to whether to hand you a clue....
>
That's alright, don't let me put you out. If it is too much trouble you can
keep quiet. Perhaps if you pray to the big pixie in the sky somebody might
send you a clue bag, whatever that is. As for me if I want some clues I go
to my library.
By the way, those kewl anti-spam measures you take, do they do any good or
do they just show everybody that you consider yourself hip to the ways of
the net? I can't imagine any programmer worth his pay would have any
difficulty in turning that address into a form usable by spammers without
ever engaging any human in the process. To me spam is just a way to prove to
myself that my e-mail account is working.
Martin Willett
Very sensible advice. Very Christian too.
Martin (age 37 1/2)
Martin Willett
"taxdude" <taxm...@mediaone.net> asked in message
> Do you believe that the spirit/soul can exist separate from the body?
No. I reject the label of spirit and soul. My consciousness cannot be
separated from my brain, at least not with the current state of technology.
I am the current state of my brain, the result of my experience and the
ideas, including self-replicating ideas, that I have been exposed to
jockeying for my attention. A shifting series of paradoxes seeking a
conclusion and some bodily gratification along the way.
Martin
Martin Willett
> "Kahn" wrote ...
> > PBarker wrote ...
> > >"Martin Willett" < wrote
> > Do angels have breasts and genitalia? If so why and for whose benefit?
> > Moreover how do you know and why do you believe your sources?
> > >> >
> > >> > + Why do you think you have a need to know?
> > >> > + If it were explained to you, would you understand?
> > >> > + And... how could you understand something beyond your intellect?
> > >>
> > >> I have a need to know. Why I do not know. Why do you need to doubt
it?
> > >
> > >+ If you do not know why you need to know, then perhaps you are
> > >mistaken, and you don't have a need to know. I do not doubt your
> > >needs or wants. I am merely inquiring why you feel you have a need?
> >
> >
> > All need answers, to all questions.
>
> + Huh?
> + Perhaps you are unaware of people who merely
> ask questions to make noise. Perhaps you are too
> young to understand that all people who post
> here on this newsgroup does so for their own
> entertainment value, not to seek the truth.
> + However, I believe you already know this.....
Are suggesting that I am just asking this question to make noise? The very
idea! Yes, I suppose I probably am one of those people your priest warned
you about (no not the sodomites, the atheists) and I am resigned to the fact
that very few people really question the ideas they are born into but I like
to have a go at making people think. I cannot see how this should cause any
problems to anybody. Do not millions of young Catholics pray to have their
faith tested? I am just asking people to challenge their own ideas, I have
no intention of persecuting people, only confronting their beliefs and
gently mocking them.
If you fancy a challenge you know where to reach me.
Martin Willett
<dorot...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:920anb$o21$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Of course I have, that is why I did not ask whether angels have clitorises,
vaginas and wombs. Were Gabriel and Michael male? I want to know your
theories.
Are angels sexless beings with no need of any reproductive equipment or are
they a true species, capable of separate reproduction, or are they some kind
of manifestation of an idea and so have breasts that give no milk for the
same reason they have wings that they do not need to fly? Are these
questions too hard? Do you want to go 50-50 or phone a friend?
Scout Lady
>
>
> Of course I have, that is why I did not ask whether angels have
clitorises,
> vaginas and wombs. Were Gabriel and Michael male? I want to know your
> theories.
>
> Are angels sexless beings with no need of any reproductive equipment or
are
> they a true species, capable of separate reproduction, or are they some
kind
> of manifestation of an idea and so have breasts that give no milk for the
> same reason they have wings that they do not need to fly? Are these
> questions too hard? Do you want to go 50-50 or phone a friend?
>
> Martin
>
the meaning of life instead of trolling a Catholic newsgroup? Why waste
your time? I find you to be a foolish little man trying to convince himself
that he is more intelligent than Christians. Your website is a joke.
"I came up with the idea that when the glorious atheist revolution comes we
should adopt the motto of Shoot the Nuns First. This was a form of irony. I
have noticed in the past that many people on the Internet, especially
Americans, seem to think that irony is just an adjective for ferrous metals.
They seem unaware that it is the foundation stone of English culture."
"For now I suggest merely that we tackle them whenever we can and do not
play by their rules of religious tolerance and obsequious respect."
There will be no glorious atheist revolution. The real irony is true
atheists do not care about the religious beliefs of others. Anyone will half
a brain can see right through your asinine attempts to be witty. Your
narcissistic personality is comical. Sorry dude, but you will not get to
play general in the great atheist army.
I quick glimpse at your posting history is downright funny. Seems the
atheists don't want you making noise in their forum either!
alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The ultimate criminal
Date: 08/31/2000
Author: perk97
Then why are you posting messages at this group?
Are you missing something in your life?
Grow up Martin, if you want to be an atheist, at least learn how to do it
with style. You will never be a good troll, it takes cleverness and you are
just too transparent.
Cathy
PBarker
> Are suggesting that I am just asking this question to make noise? The very
> idea! Yes, I suppose I probably am one of those people your priest warned
> you about (no not the sodomites, the atheists) and I am resigned to the
fact
> that very few people really question the ideas they are born into but I
like
> to have a go at making people think. I cannot see how this should cause
any
> problems to anybody. Do not millions of young Catholics pray to have their
> faith tested? I am just asking people to challenge their own ideas, I have
> no intention of persecuting people, only confronting their beliefs and
> gently mocking them.
+ Thank you for being honest.
+ Perhaps some Catholics pray to have their faith tested?
+ Hmmmm.
+ That is something I have never thought about.
+ I am a curious fellow, but....
+ I do not question things that have no answers.
+ Time is one of the most precious things that we have.
+ I am one who doesn't waste it on contemplating angel belly buttons.
> If you fancy a challenge you know where to reach me.
> Martin
+ Thank you.
+ I'll be watching for more of your gentile mocking.
Martin Willett
<leslie...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9217hl$dke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Angels, like other spirit "beings" or manifestations, such as Pagan
> dieties, are archetypes of the Unconscious, according to Carl Jung.
> This means that whenever someone "perceives" and angel, spirit, or
> deity, the manifestations appears in a form that is symbolic of its
> powers or pupose or place in the Unconscious Universe. Some such
> manifestations have genitalia, or multiple genitalia, if they symbolize
> the principles of fertility or the powers of the Sun. If an angel
> symbolized any of those powers, it might have genitalia. A good
> reference book on Kabbalistic Hebrew or Golden Dawn angels might be a
> good place to start if you want to get specific about what a particular
> angel might look like symbolically.
>
Thank you for a good answer.
My own opinions are that naturally angels are mythical symbols and have no
real external existence. They are manifestations of concepts in individual
minds which reflect shared images across a culture. Over time the form and
type of angels has changed. They are in some ways the dreams of a committee.
Individual weird images of angels that do not sit the existing stereotypes
are ignored, those that largely fit existing patterns are granted permission
to fuse with the existing myths. Similar processes can be seen today with
the evolution of various types of aliens and UFOs. If you claimed you saw a
500 foot pulsating pepperoni pizza in the sky you would be dismissed as a
fruitcake, but if your story is suitably similar to existing stories then
people will want to hear about any unique features, which can then become
part of the pattern that newer experiences are compared with.
Some angel stories are dreams that are confused with reality, some are the
result of deliberately induced visions, some are made up to order, many are
dreams that are embellished, some might be real events misinterpreted. Some
are probably the result of specific seizure-like brain events that can
produce very strong, more-vivid-than-reality illusions in the brain that
bypass the normal senses. Similar impressions of presences and the like can
be induced in laboratory experiments, the subjective impression received is
totally convincing, only the fact that they can be turned on and off at the
discretion of the experimenter sets them aside from "spiritual" experiences.
Martin Willett
"Scout Lady" <scou...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:924tst$55v6$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Martin Willett" <Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote in message
> news:GW916.33112$Ig.122602@news1-hme0...
> >
> >
> > Of course I have, that is why I did not ask whether angels have
> clitorises,
> > vaginas and wombs. Were Gabriel and Michael male? I want to know your
> > theories.
> >
> > Are angels sexless beings with no need of any reproductive equipment or
> are
> > they a true species, capable of separate reproduction, or are they some
> kind
> > of manifestation of an idea and so have breasts that give no milk for
the
> > same reason they have wings that they do not need to fly? Are these
> > questions too hard? Do you want to go 50-50 or phone a friend?
> >
> > Martin
> >
> You really think you are intellectual don't you? Shouldn't you be
pondering
> the meaning of life instead of trolling a Catholic newsgroup? Why waste
> your time? I find you to be a foolish little man trying to convince
himself
> that he is more intelligent than Christians. Your website is a joke.
As for the meaning of life I have already pondered it. The full explanation
of the meaning of life can be found on my website. Go to the atheist zone
and click on "The Meaning of Life". (A bit of a give-away).
You obviously have not seen much of my site if you consider me to be a
foolish little man. Nobody who knows me would ever call me little.
>
> "I came up with the idea that when the glorious atheist revolution comes
we
> should adopt the motto of Shoot the Nuns First. This was a form of irony.
I
> have noticed in the past that many people on the Internet, especially
> Americans, seem to think that irony is just an adjective for ferrous
metals.
> They seem unaware that it is the foundation stone of English culture."
> "For now I suggest merely that we tackle them whenever we can and do not
> play by their rules of religious tolerance and obsequious respect."
>
> There will be no glorious atheist revolution. The real irony is true
> atheists do not care about the religious beliefs of others. Anyone will
half
> a brain can see right through your asinine attempts to be witty. Your
> narcissistic personality is comical. Sorry dude, but you will not get to
> play general in the great atheist army.
Of course there will be no glorious atheist revolution. This is irony. How
much more specific do I need to be?
>
> I quick glimpse at your posting history is downright funny. Seems the
> atheists don't want you making noise in their forum either!
>
> alt.atheism
> Subject: Re: The ultimate criminal
> Date: 08/31/2000
> Author: perk97
> Then why are you posting messages at this group?
> Are you missing something in your life?
>
> Grow up Martin, if you want to be an atheist, at least learn how to do it
> with style. You will never be a good troll, it takes cleverness and you
are
> just too transparent.
>
> Cathy
You seem to think that I have some kind of obvious agenda. If you know what
it is please let me know.
True atheists? What a joke! There are no rules in atheism, apart from not
believing in a god or gods. It is not a creed, a faith, a bandwagon, a
movement or anything of that kind. It is only defined by its opposite. If
the religious people didn't believe in god or gods anymore then my atheism
would be meaningless. There are thousands of different ways to be an
atheist. The very idea that it is a coherent belief system is farcical.
Atheism needs no leaders, it has no way to go.
As for being an intellectual I prefer it to the opposite. I see no virtue in
being dumb and happy with the other idiots and agreeing to differ and not to
rock the boat by expressing anything controversial. Given a choice between
being wrong and quietly going along with the consensus and right in a
minority of one I have no hesitation in going for being right. In order to
soften the impact of the clash with accepted views I try to make allies when
I can, but if there were no allies I would still keep on doing it as long as
I was enjoying it.
As for trolling, well I don't care what label you chose to give this
activity. I simply enjoy tilting at a few windmills every once in a while.
To clear up the confusion caused by your quoting of one reply to one of my
posts here are a few important points. The post came from a cross-posting to
multiple groups, predominantly Christian, not atheist. alt.atheism,
alt.christnet.atheism, alt.christnet.calvinist, alt.christnet.evangelical
and alt.religion.christian.amish - a useful group for a busy cross-poster to
use. It was listed as if it went to alt.atheism because it is first
alphabetically. I do not know who perk97 is but I would be very surprised to
find them regularly on an atheist newsgroup. I am open to challenge on this
point as for any other.
I have included my reply to that post. Yes, like all megalomaniacs I keep
meticulous records in the interests of defending myself. When I was at
university I studied the Presidency of Richard Nixon, taping everything was
a tip he had picked up from LBJ, if you need tips on paranoia they are good
models to follow. If you combine meticulous records with not doing anything
worth hiding then that is an even better combination.
2 September 2000
Why am I posting in your newsgroup?
Good question. I am an atheist (yes really!) so why do I post in Christian
newsgroups? Because I want to reach the people who are lurking here who
agree with me. I used to post a lot on the atheist newsgroups but half the
replies were from rather pushy and well motivated Christians. So that got me
thinking, if the shock troops of Christianity are lurking on atheist groups
and I want to be noticed by the shock troops of atheism, perhaps I will find
them on Christian groups. The hunch paid off.
Posting on Christian groups not only gets an entertaining response but it
also gets my posts, and therefore my URL, noticed by people who are
interested in atheism and challenging established beliefs. I have little
expectation of converting people who are fervent enough to be interested in
these groups because they are members of those particular churches.
I also enjoy a little intellectual free for all. As long as the arguments
are only in text message form and they don't get personal and deliberately
offensive I don't see how much harm can be done. I think we have all moved
on from the days when this kind of free speech would be denounced as
blasphemy and deserving of legal sanction.
I don't really mind too much what other people believe. I will have a go at
putting people right when I can but if people want to believe that their
God, one of several thousand that man has invented, is the only true God
then I am sure they will continue to do so. Dozens of religions have been
passed on for centuries and still people keep falling for them, I expect
they always will.
================
Martin Willett
"Christopher Beattie" <tz...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:920k5a$vhp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <kDO%5.8537$y5.39406@news2-hme0>,
> "Martin Willett" <Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Angels seem to be some kind of non-sexual
> > species directly created by God as individuals,
> > correct me if I'm wrong. (A superfluous addition
> > if ever there was one)
>
> What is a "superfluous addition?"
Tautology territory. What I meant was that I hardly need to ask people to
correct me, anything to do with religion will generate a whole series of
corrections from fundamentalists of various kinds. I admit is seems a little
inelegant but neither word alone would convey the intended meaning.
>
> > Do angels have breasts and genitalia?
>
> Angels are beings of pure spirit. When they appear before men and
> women they have to "appear." They could I imagine appear as amorphus
> blobs of jello, but instead they mostly appear as men. Artists love to
> depict them as cute little babies and women, however.
I can see that babies and women have more appeal to people who create
theology for the masses with oil paints. By the way is or was jello a brand
name? (Jell-O, says my spellchecker)
What is this spirit that you talk of? This is an alien concept to me. I am
unaware of any spirit. To me such talk is mystical mumbo-jumbo, I reject it
along with ether and ectoplasm. If that means that you and I can never
understand each other I feel sorry for your lost opportunity.
>
> Fallen angels on the other hand, have had some interesting legends
> among the popular media during the middle ages, especially during the
> witch trial craze which rocked Europe and touched the United States.
> The sexual prowess of these demons can take up an entire hardcover work.
>
> > Men have nipples because they are mammals and all mammals
> > have nipples. That same logic does not seem to apply to
> > angels who have no evolutionary inheritance.
>
> Wrong argument. It has nothing to do with evolution, man
> never "evolved" from woman or vice versa, it has to do with genetics,
> and the common mechanism within the body of activation by hormonal
> stimulation.
What?? Who said women evolved from men or vice versa? We are mammals and so
we have the common tissues that can become breasts and nipples and the
common tissues that can develop into a penis or clitoris and the tissues
that can develop into testes or ova. This has everything to do with
evolution, every woman has evolved from men and vice versa, everybody has an
ancestry that is 50% female and 50% male. The shape of your penis could have
been determined by genes carried by your mother. The genes we carry that
code for these organs must be useful to the sex that uses them and not
harmful to the other sex. The organs that we think of as being particular to
our sex have their analogues in the opposite sex, they grow from common
foetal tissues. This can be easily demonstrated by comparing the head of the
penis and clitoris, this can be quite an enjoyable science experiment, I
recommend it to everybody with curiosity, and Catholics too.
>
> > They have never needed nipples, breasts, penises or
> > clitorises (same thing as a penis but less plumbing)
> > All mammals have a penis or clitoris, even nuns,
> > how's that for a redundant organ, it knocks the
> > appendix into a cocked hat.
>
> It shows your lack of command of the English language.
>
> 1 a : exceeding what is necessary or normal : SUPERFLUOUS b :
> characterized by or containing an excess; specifically : using more
> words than necessary c : characterized by similarity or repetition <a
> group of particularly redundant brick buildings> d chiefly British : no
> longer needed for a job and hence laid off
> 2 : PROFUSE, LAVISH
> 3 : serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of an entire system
> (as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single component
>
> I can't see how it could be "redundant." What's it duplicating?
> (Especially in anyone who has taken vows of celebacy.)
Since when has a word got to be justified by all its meanings? I think
definition 1 a and 1 d covers my usage reasonably accurately.
>
> By the way, I'd be rude if I said, "all mammals have brains ... even
> you ... how's that for a vestigal organ," so I won't. (vestigal: a
> bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly
> developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage
> of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms)
>
And I might suggest that such childish point-scoring was unchristian, but I
won't either.
Martin
Author of
Shoot the Nuns First
http://www.mememachine.cwc.net/nunsfirst/
PS My spellchecker prefers vestigial to vestigal.
vestigial adj.
1 being a vestige or trace.
2 Biol. (of an organ etc.) degenerate or atrophied, having become
functionless in the course of evolution (a vestigial wing).
This is a good word
So is this
redundant / adj.
1 superfluous; not needed.
2 that can be omitted without any loss of significance.
3 Brit. (of a person) no longer needed at work and therefore unemployed.
4 Engin. & Computing (of a component) not needed but included in case of
failure in another component.
Superfluous and not needed. A nun's clitoris is not vestigial it is
redundant.
I think that has got the nun's clitoris problem well and truly licked.
Scout Lady
Cathy
fin...@my-deja.com
"student" <stu...@bctimes.net> wrote:
> All this talk about whether angels have breasts is meaningless since
> they have no body. So they have no anus either.
>
> But it does raise an interesting question. One of the Gospels tells
> us that Jesus ate food. So did he go to the toilet, a natural
> consequence. Yes or no? Eating food was told to make Him
> look fully human. So would going to the toilet.
>
Student,
Yes, Jesus was Human in virtually all ways (except for Original Sin).
The Gospel writers made that point again, and again, in part to assert
Jesus' Humanity/Divinity. At the time of the Gospels, there was a
Heretical group, the "Gnostics", who asserted that Jesus was not both
Human/Divine.
BTW, Jesus is mentioned as eating AFTER the Resurrection. This is
important, as it asserts his BODILY Resurrection, which many Gnostics
denied.
Scout Lady
> Angels seem to be some kind of non-sexual species directly created by God
as
> individuals, correct me if I'm wrong. (A superfluous addition if ever
there
> was one)
>
> Moreover how do you know and why do you believe your sources?
>
That
> same logic does not seem to apply to angels who have no evolutionary
clitorises
> (same thing as a penis but less plumbing) All mammals have a penis or
> clitoris, even nuns, how's that for a redundant organ, it knocks the
> appendix into a cocked hat.
>
Karen H Jarvis
>+ I am a "piece-o-shit".
>+ I love "sniffing and wiping butts".
>+ I like sniffing my "butt-buddy's bike seat".