Kansas Voters Tell Rightwing Anti-Gay Bigots To Fuck Themselves.
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
TOPEKA, Kan. - Voters on Tuesday upheld an ordinance that prohibits
discrimination against homosexuals in municipal hiring, turning back a
repeal movement led by a minister known for picketing the funerals of
AIDS (news - web sites) victims.
One of the minister's granddaughters, meanwhile, fell far short in her
efforts to unseat an openly gay member of the City Council.
The Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. was seeking to remove from the books a city
ordinance that prohibits discrimination against gays in municipal
hiring. The repeal measure would also bar Topeka from reinstating such
protections for 10 years.
In final, unofficial results, 53 percent opposed the repeal, with
14,285 voting "no," and 12,795 voting "yes."
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka olek...@yahoo.com aka Yang's little poltregeist bitch)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1498 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,424 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=543401
>
>TOPEKA, Kan. - Voters on Tuesday upheld an ordinance that prohibits
>discrimination against homosexuals in municipal hiring, turning back a
>repeal movement led by a minister known for picketing the funerals of
>AIDS (news - web sites) victims.
>
>One of the minister's granddaughters, meanwhile, fell far short in her
>efforts to unseat an openly gay member of the City Council.
>
>The Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. was seeking to remove from the books a city
>ordinance that prohibits discrimination against gays in municipal
>hiring. The repeal measure would also bar Topeka from reinstating such
>protections for 10 years.
>
>In final, unofficial results, 53 percent opposed the repeal, with
>14,285 voting "no," and 12,795 voting "yes."
YES!!!!!!
ROTFL!!!!!
I **love** seeing the hateful and mindless RRR cult
getting its collective ass handed to it!! Just what they
deserved for being hateful, bigoted and ignorant losers
who espoused LOATHSOME agendas against personal
liberties.
>-----
>
>Yang
>a.a. #28
>AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
>a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
>EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
>Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka olek...@yahoo.com aka Yang's little poltregeist bitch)
>
>The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
>The Bush 'economic' policy: 12 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
>The Bush Iraq lie: -1498 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
>
>Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
-- Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Every time a person supports bigotry in public, and presents NO
relevant FACTS to back his/her stance in behalf of a loathsome
agenda against individual liberties and human rights, that person
has -- ironically -- further **damaged** the cause he/she supports.
And every time a fair-minded and sensible egalitarian opposes
such a bigot, publicly, and **presents** relevant FACTS that are
damaging to the bigot's agenda, that TOO is an additional nail in
the coffin lid of the agenda, and a push of that casket CLOSER
to the Drain of Extinction -- its well-deserved ultimate destination.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(E-Mail address is valid when removing _ from it.)
Mark Sebree
Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,424 days to BYE-BYE Bushie!
And what is even better is that this is TOPEKA, KANSAS, about as
conservative as you can get.
And to make even sweeter, that idiot Phelps lost twice. First, in his
bid to overturn a law that protected people from discrimination, and
second his granddaughter lost badly to an openly gay man for a city
council seat.
He got what he deserves.
Mark Sebree
Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,424 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!
Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
> in his bid to overturn a law that protected people from discrimin-
> ation, and second his granddaughter lost badly to an openly
> gay man for a city council seat.
>
> He got what he deserves.
Indeed he did, Mark! The tide finally is turning toward the
FAIR-mindedness that Americans have *always* traditionally
exhibited when they get FED UP with the hatefulness and
ignorance of a form of bigotry.
The loathsome agendas of the RRR cult **will** join all the
previous agendas of hate, in extinction. And during that process,
we need to keep up the pressure against those louts, relentlessly.
Just as happened to the segregationists before them -- who
were EQUALLY moronic and hateful.
And FUNNIEST of all is knowing that the high-profile antics
of the hateful bigots is sending their loathsome agendas into the
Drain of Extinction faster than any other single factor.
And they are so DUMB, they can't even figure that out!
(ROTFL!!!)
Works GREAT for US!!
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
wrote:
>
We may just have to welcome Kansas to the 20th century...
Rev. Donald Spitz
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:22-27
V22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, V23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
V24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
V25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen.
V26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
V27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1 Timothy 1:8-10
V8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
V9
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless
and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for
murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
V10 For
whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind,
for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other
thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life. http://www.ArmyofGod.com
--
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life. http://www.ArmyofGod.com
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message news:btvc21ha627n14njk...@4ax.com...
towelie
> Craig Chilton -- Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,424 days to BYE-BYE Bushie!
> Forever!! wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:28:00 -0800,
>> "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
>> <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=543401
>>>
>>> TOPEKA, Kan. - Voters on Tuesday upheld an ordinance that prohibits
>>> discrimination against homosexuals in municipal hiring, turning back a
>>> repeal movement led by a minister known for picketing the funerals of
>>> AIDS (news - web sites) victims.
>>>
>>> One of the minister's granddaughters, meanwhile, fell far short in her
>>> efforts to unseat an openly gay member of the City Council.
>>>
>>> The Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. was seeking to remove from the books a city
>>> ordinance that prohibits discrimination against gays in municipal
>>> hiring. The repeal measure would also bar Topeka from reinstating such
>>> protections for 10 years.
>>>
>>> In final, unofficial results, 53 percent opposed the repeal, with
>>> 14,285 voting "no," and 12,795 voting "yes."
It is quite distrubing that there are 12,795 bigots in Topeka that made it a
point to vote 'yes'.
>> YES!!!!!!
>>
>> ROTFL!!!!!
>>
>> I **love** seeing the hateful and mindless RRR cult
>> getting its collective ass handed to it!! Just what they
>> deserved for being hateful, bigoted and ignorant losers
>> who espoused LOATHSOME agendas against personal
>> liberties.
>>
>
> And what is even better is that this is TOPEKA, KANSAS, about as
> conservative as you can get.
Right up the road in Lawrence is about as liberal as you can get (at least
in the Midwest). It's an odd juxtaposition.
--
Jesus won't you fucking whistle something but the past and done? - Maynard
James Keenan
I'd rather die than give you control. - Trent Reznor
aa #2133
ap #19
Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, it'll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!
["IRRev. Donald Spitz"
<Glory2...@ArmyofBIGOTS.com>] spewed...
...a load of HATE-SWILL. (Moronic and bigoted tool.)
<flussshhhhhhhh!!!!!>
> Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Mark Sebree wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
>>>> <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>>>>> TOPEKA, Kan. - Voters on Tuesday upheld an ordinance that prohibits
>>>>> discrimination against homosexuals in municipal hiring, turning back a
>>>>> repeal movement led by a minister known for picketing the funerals of
>>>>> AIDS (news - web sites) victims.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the minister's granddaughters, meanwhile, fell far short in her
>>>>> efforts to unseat an openly gay member of the City Council.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. was seeking to remove from the books a city
>>>>> ordinance that prohibits discrimination against gays in municipal
>>>>> hiring. The repeal measure would also bar Topeka from reinstating such
>>>>> protections for 10 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> In final, unofficial results, 53 percent opposed the repeal, with
>>>>> 14,285 voting "no," and 12,795 voting "yes."
>>>> YES!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> ROTFL!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> I **love** seeing the hateful and mindless RRR cult
>>>> getting its collective ass handed to it!! Just what they
>>>> deserved for being hateful, bigoted and ignorant losers
>>>> who espoused LOATHSOME agendas against personal
>>>> liberties.
>>> And what is even better is that this is TOPEKA, KANSAS,
>>> about as conservative as you can get.
>>>
>>> And to make even sweeter, that idiot Phelps lost twice. First,
>>> in his bid to overturn a law that protected people from discrimin-
>>> ation, and second his granddaughter lost badly to an openly
>>> gay man for a city council seat.
>>>
>>> He got what he deserves.
>> Indeed he did, Mark! The tide finally is turning toward the
>> FAIR-mindedness that Americans have *always* traditionally
>> exhibited when they get FED UP with the hatefulness and
>> ignorance of a form of bigotry.
>>
>> The loathsome agendas of the RRR cult **will** join all the
>> previous agendas of hate, in extinction. And during that process,
>> we need to keep up the pressure against those louts, relentlessly.
>>
>> Just as happened to the segregationists before them -- who
>> were EQUALLY moronic and hateful.
>>
>> And FUNNIEST of all is knowing that the high-profile antics
>> of the hateful bigots is sending their loathsome agendas into the
>> Drain of Extinction faster than any other single factor.
>>
>> And they are so DUMB, they can't even figure that out!
>>
>> (ROTFL!!!)
>>
>> Works GREAT for US!!
-- Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com>
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
<Nothing of value>
>
Well, well, well, if it isn't America's favorite domestic enemy and
domestic terrorist, the Rev. Donald Shit's!
How's it hanging Don? Shot any doctors lately? Maimed any nurses in
the last few days? Threatened any women recently?
Go crawl back under you rock Don. Terrorist are not in good graces
these days, and sticking your head up, might not be the healthy choice
right now.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@getnet.net
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
Johnny
news:6okd21lgks5t3q9ne...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 01:21:14 -0500, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
> <Glory...@ArmyofGod.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <y1yVd.35788$755.1063@lakeread05> wrote:
>
>>Controlled by sex perverted fags which the Bible describes as being
>>reprobate.
>
> is valid?
Why do you call it a myth without proving it is a myth?
Johnny
If not, it is not enforceable.
Somewriter
wrote:
Men wrote it - anything's possibly bullshit.
Christopher A. Lee
Why does he imagine that we should treat it any differently than the
similar books from other cultural beliefs systems that he himself
calls myths?
wcb
> Controlled by sex perverted fags which the Bible describes as being
> reprobate. Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with
> womankind: it is abomination.
>
> Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
> both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to
> death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:10
And the man that commiteth adultery with another man's wife,
even he who commiteth adultery with his neigbor's wife,
the adulter an the adulteress shall be put to death.
So, how many adultering right winger politicians
will you right wingers keep voting for to send to Washington?
Seems during the Clinton impeachments shenanigans a
lot of adulterers were spot lighted in Washington
trying to impeach Clinton.
--
Cheerful Charlie
EggNog
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
news:j49d21h5mbom0ifg9...@4ax.com...
You are a brite cookie. 20th century ?
Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, it'll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!
"EggNog" <NotRea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
> You are a brite cookie. 20th century ?
I almost mentioned that to him -- until I realized that he
probably was indicating that Kansas has made progress out
of the 19th century, to the point where it has reached 20th
century levels. It still has a way to go, in some places, to
reach the 21st.
Frank J Warner
Countdown to 1/20/09: 1,424 days to BYE-BYE Bushie! Forever!!
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:28:00 -0800,
> "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
> <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=543401
> >
> >TOPEKA, Kan. - Voters on Tuesday upheld an ordinance that prohibits
> >discrimination against homosexuals in municipal hiring, turning back a
> >repeal movement led by a minister known for picketing the funerals of
> >AIDS (news - web sites) victims.
> >
> >One of the minister's granddaughters, meanwhile, fell far short in her
> >efforts to unseat an openly gay member of the City Council.
> >
> >The Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. was seeking to remove from the books a city
> >ordinance that prohibits discrimination against gays in municipal
> >hiring. The repeal measure would also bar Topeka from reinstating such
> >protections for 10 years.
> >
> >In final, unofficial results, 53 percent opposed the repeal, with
> >14,285 voting "no," and 12,795 voting "yes."
>
> YES!!!!!!
>
> ROTFL!!!!!
>
> I **love** seeing the hateful and mindless RRR cult
> getting its collective ass handed to it!! Just what they
> deserved for being hateful, bigoted and ignorant losers
> who espoused LOATHSOME agendas against personal
> liberties.
You don't get it. Forty-seven percent voted to repeal the prohibitions
against discrimination. Forty-seven. fucking. percent. That's nearly
half the voters in Topeka who agree with the scumbag Phelps and his
skank offspring.
-Frank
--
fwarner1-at-franksknives-dot-com
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/
Frank J Warner
<wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
> Was the ordinance enacted via a vote?
> If not, it is not enforceable.
Recommend you move to Topeka, suck somebody's dick, then try to get a
job with the city, to test the enforceability of the ordinance.
hal9000
Kansas will vote in April on an amendment to the state constitution to ban
gay marriage.
Wait until you see that vote to welcome Kansas to the 20th let alone the
21st century.
I suspect it will pass easily. Somewhere around 60/40.
"Frank J Warner" <war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote in message
news:030320050818144635%war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net...
Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, it'll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!
Frank J. Warner <war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Ah, but Frank... just a very SHORT time ago, it would have
gone the OTHER way. And in the '70s, it probably would have
been around 90%! As society has had its consciousness raised
that sexual orientation is NO big deal, and is NO excuse for
discriminating against people, it has been maturing very quickly,
and is FAST leaving its morinic and childish bigotries behind.
JUST as happened in the South, as segregation was becoming
extinct.
So just keep fighting the good fight. And fair-minded people
will keep on WINNING. And homophobia will ultimately swirl
down the Drain of Extinction to join its first cousin in hateful and
mindless bigotry, segregation -- never to be heard from again.
Then -- GOOD RIDDANCE to it! NO loss!!
-- Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com>
Frank Dwyer
What's to prove? Look up myth. It's a myth.
Dubh Ghall
Snorting Ass" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=543401
>
>TOPEKA, Kan. - Voters on Tuesday upheld an ordinance that prohibits
>discrimination against homosexuals in municipal hiring, turning back a
>repeal movement led by a minister known for picketing the funerals of
>AIDS (news - web sites) victims.
>
>One of the minister's granddaughters, meanwhile, fell far short in her
>efforts to unseat an openly gay member of the City Council.
>
>The Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. was seeking to remove from the books a city
>ordinance that prohibits discrimination against gays in municipal
>hiring. The repeal measure would also bar Topeka from reinstating such
>protections for 10 years.
>
>In final, unofficial results, 53 percent opposed the repeal, with
>14,285 voting "no," and 12,795 voting "yes."
>
>
>-----
Perhaps America *will* survive Bush, after all.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
January 27th
Na bister 500,000
Ash
> Controlled by sex perverted fags which the Bible describes as being
> reprobate.
>
> Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
> is abomination.
>
> Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
> woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be
> put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
>
Christianity supposed to have abolished the ritual requirements?
Sam
Ash wrote:
no, it means say what you want to the chicks but always be honest with
your bros
--
Sam
Johnny
> aside from a few geographical locations that exist and a few people
> that can be proven to have existed.
With the proof of physical evidence you still call it a myth?
You choose to side with mythology when you have already mentioned that there
is proof?
> The majority of what it says is
> totally unsupported,
By who?
Unsupoorted by who?
< especially the more unlikely events and people
> mentioned.
Name the unlikely events and people you are alluding to.
>
> Many of it's parts can be traced back to the myths of other and older
> religions.
Myths?
You are burdened with the burden of proof to show that what you say is myth
is myth.
Johnny
> In article <hcEVd.28266$hd6....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
> <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Was the ordinance enacted via a vote?
>> If not, it is not enforceable.
>
> Recommend you move to Topeka,
Why?
> suck somebody's dick,
GOD DAMN YOU!
> then try to get a
> job with the city, to test the enforceability of the ordinance.
Why?
Natalie Clifford Barney
Half of the voters in Topeka are probably related to Phelps, also, the
Catholic Church, smarting under Phelp's lash with the scandals, cannot
help but support his efforts when it comes to gays........
>
> --
> fwarner1-at-franksknives-dot-com
> Here's some of my work:
> http://www.franksknives.com/
--
"If I suffer any more, Mel Gibson is going to make a freakin movie out
of me.."
Francesca, (eventually the next Lady Carrigaholt)
Natalie Clifford Barney
hal9000 wrote:
>
> This primary was ignored by most.
> Kansas will vote in April on an amendment to the state constitution to ban
> gay marriage.
> Wait until you see that vote to welcome Kansas to the 20th let alone the
> 21st century.
> I suspect it will pass easily. Somewhere around 60/40.
You are probably correct, though at the same time NY, Washington,
Conneticut and California will probably be legalising either civil
unions or gay marriages........
We will once again be a house divided, half the country with sex police
snooping in bedrooms, half without......
--
BOB
wrote in news:422790C0...@LesbianSalonHostess.20RueJacob.fr:
>
>
> hal9000 wrote:
>>
>> This primary was ignored by most.
>> Kansas will vote in April on an amendment to the state constitution to
>> ban gay marriage.
>> Wait until you see that vote to welcome Kansas to the 20th let alone
>> the 21st century.
>> I suspect it will pass easily. Somewhere around 60/40.
>
> You are probably correct, though at the same time NY, Washington,
> Conneticut and California will probably be legalising either civil
> unions or gay marriages........
>
> We will once again be a house divided, half the country with sex police
> snooping in bedrooms, half without......
In Saudi Arabia, I believe the religious police are called the "Mutawa".
I wonder how long before a similar group of fanatics, probably xtian, will
become prevalent in the U.S.?
Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, it'll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!
Mindless bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
> Frank J Warner <war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
>> Bigoted Loser, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> Was the ordinance enacted via a vote?
>>> If not, it is not enforceable.
>> Recommend you move to Topeka, ...
> Why?
>> ...suck somebody's dick,
> GOD DAMN YOU!
ROTFL!!!!!!! Frank just got poor widdle immature
bigot, John Wentzky's goat. LOL!!!!!
Funnier than hell !!
Good going, Frank!!
-- Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com>
Mark Sebree
Because it fits the definition of a myth perfectly.
"A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural
beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the
worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or
delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society"
The Bible is certainly "traditional" and "ancient stories". It is
loaded with supernatural beings, ancestors, and heroes. It explains
provides a worldview of the a people by explaining aspects of the
natural world and delineates the psychology, customs, and ideals of a
society. It is loaded with magic and impossible events and feats.
Basically, it is obvious to anyone with a brain and an education that
it is a book of myths. It has been proven to be a book of myths to you
in the past, but you are either too dishonest or to stupid to remember.
Mark Sebree
Doc Smartass
news:y1yVd.35788$755.1063@lakeread05:
> Controlled by sex perverted fags which the Bible describes as being
> reprobate. Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with
> womankind: it is abomination.
>
> Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
> woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely
> be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Ezek. 4:12
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung
that cometh out of man, in their sight.
Ezek. 4:15
Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and
thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.
Go make you a sammich, bitch, and shut the fuck up.
--
Dr. Smartass -- BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
Hurl, hurl, door gong's oil hair!
Wart inhale dough way cur?
Wart inhale dough way cur?
Hurl, hurl, door gong's oil hair!
Wart inhale dough way cur, nor?
Doc Smartass
news:tikd2198lh71a2uuc...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:28:00 -0800, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
> Cocaine Snorting Ass" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> in alt.abortion
> with message-id <btvc21ha627n14njk...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=543401
>>
>>TOPEKA, Kan. - Voters on Tuesday upheld an ordinance that prohibits
>>discrimination against homosexuals in municipal hiring, turning back a
>>repeal movement led by a minister known for picketing the funerals of
>>AIDS (news - web sites) victims.
>>
>>One of the minister's granddaughters, meanwhile, fell far short in her
>>efforts to unseat an openly gay member of the City Council.
>>
>>The Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. was seeking to remove from the books a city
>>ordinance that prohibits discrimination against gays in municipal
>>hiring. The repeal measure would also bar Topeka from reinstating such
>>protections for 10 years.
>>
>>In final, unofficial results, 53 percent opposed the repeal, with
>>14,285 voting "no," and 12,795 voting "yes."
>>
>>
> Is this nut still dodging squirrels? I thought he had come down with
> something fatal.
One can hope. Unfortunately the bastard reproduced.
Doc Smartass
news:HQKVd.670$%Y4....@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
> "Frank J Warner" <war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote in message
> news:030320050825039258%war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net...
>> In article <hcEVd.28266$hd6....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
>> <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Was the ordinance enacted via a vote?
>>> If not, it is not enforceable.
>>
>> Recommend you move to Topeka,
>
> Why?
Because you'd be able to satisfy your man-lust with Sweaty Freddy Phelps.
>> suck somebody's dick,
>
> GOD DAMN YOU!
Hah! Frank musta hit a nerve. Keep your closet clean, johnny.
>
>> then try to get a
>> job with the city, to test the enforceability of the ordinance.
>
> Why?
Asked and answered.
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:28:00 -0800, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine
>Snorting Ass" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=543401
>>
>>TOPEKA, Kan. - Voters on Tuesday upheld an ordinance that prohibits
>>discrimination against homosexuals in municipal hiring, turning back a
>>repeal movement led by a minister known for picketing the funerals of
>>AIDS (news - web sites) victims.
>>
>>One of the minister's granddaughters, meanwhile, fell far short in her
>>efforts to unseat an openly gay member of the City Council.
>>
>>The Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. was seeking to remove from the books a city
>>ordinance that prohibits discrimination against gays in municipal
>>hiring. The repeal measure would also bar Topeka from reinstating such
>>protections for 10 years.
>>
>>In final, unofficial results, 53 percent opposed the repeal, with
>>14,285 voting "no," and 12,795 voting "yes."
>>
>>
>>-----
>Perhaps America *will* survive Bush, after all.
I'm cautiously optimistic...
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka olek...@yahoo.com aka Yang's little poltregeist bitch)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1501 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
Johnny
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:56:01 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com>
> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <XPKVd.661$%Y4....@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>"Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
>>news:bhge211v83cfbgc0u...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:25:43 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com>
>>> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>> <maEVd.28256$hd6....@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
>>>>news:6okd21lgks5t3q9ne...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 01:21:14 -0500, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
>>>>> <Glory...@ArmyofGod.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>>>> <y1yVd.35788$755.1063@lakeread05> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Controlled by sex perverted fags which the Bible describes as being
>>>>>>reprobate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Spitzie - why do you quote from your book of myth before you prove it
>>>>> is valid?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why do you call it a myth without proving it is a myth?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because there is no independent evidence that it contains any truth
>>> aside from a few geographical locations that exist and a few people
>>> that can be proven to have existed.
>>
>>With the proof of physical evidence you still call it a myth?
>
You mentioned it.
>
>>You choose to side with mythology when you have already mentioned that
>>there
>>is proof?
>
> Fine. Trot it out.
>
You already mentioned it.
>>
>>> The majority of what it says is
>>> totally unsupported,
>>
>>
>>By who?
>>Unsupported by who?
>
> By any independence evidence.
>
Another unproven assertion of yours?
>>
>>< especially the more unlikely events and people
>>> mentioned.
>>
>>Name the unlikely events and people you are alluding to.
>
> Any of the so-called 'miracles' and most of the people.
>
Unlikely means untrue?
>>
>>>
>>> Many of it's parts can be traced back to the myths of other and older
>>> religions.
>>
>>Myths?
>>You are burdened with the burden of proof to show that what you say is
>>myth
>>is myth.
>>
>
> Not at all.
Yes, you are.
You made the assertion, now you must PROVE IT!
> If there is any independent evidence of it's validity no
> one has ever been able to find it.
You mentioned physical proof and are still denying it?
> That is well known.
That you are really stupid.
Johnny
news:1109894492.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I do not call it a book of myths.
You do.
Johnny
<xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:422a9bca...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:56:50 -0500,
> Mindless bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>> Frank J Warner <war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
>>> Bigoted Loser, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Was the ordinance enacted via a vote?
>>>> If not, it is not enforceable.
>
>>> Recommend you move to Topeka, ...
>
>> Why?
>
>>> ...suck somebody's dick,
>
>> GOD DAMN YOU!
>
> ROTFL!!!!!!! Frank just got poor widdle immature
> bigot, John Wentzky's goat. LOL!!!!!
No, he didn;t.
I told him, "GOD DAMN YOU."
>
> Funnier than hell !!
>
What is so funny about it?
Wouldn't be me who is laughing now?
> Good going, Frank!!
But I told him, "GOD DAMN YOU."
That makes you happy?
Well, you can be damned, too.
Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, it'll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!
"Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
>> The Bible is certainly "traditional" and "ancient stories". It is
>> loaded with supernatural beings, ancestors, and heroes. It explains
>> provides a worldview of the a people by explaining aspects of the
>> natural world and delineates the psychology, customs, and ideals of a
>> society. It is loaded with magic and impossible events and feats.
>>
>> Basically, it is obvious to anyone with a brain and an education that
>> it is a book of myths. It has been proven to be a book of myths to you
>> in the past, but you are either too dishonest or to stupid to remember.
> I do not call it a book of myths. You do.
The IMPORTANT thing is that both of you, and everone else
in the world, has the right to *regard* it any way they choose.
-- Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com>
Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, it'll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!
Immature Little Bigot, John Wentzky wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> Frank J Warner <war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
>>>> Bigoted Loser, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>> Was the ordinance enacted via a vote?
>>>>> If not, it is not enforceable.
>>>> Recommend you move to Topeka, ...
>>> Why?
>>>> ...suck somebody's dick,
>>> GOD DAMN YOU!
>> ROTFL!!!!!!! Frank just got poor widdle immature
>> bigot, John Wentzky's goat. LOL!!!!!
> No, he didn;t. I told him, "GOD DAMN YOU."
Wrong. You *shouted* it at him. Exclamation point
and all. Just like the foot-stamping little immature retard
that you are. Because he got your childish little goat.
LOL!!!!! ---
>> Funnier than hell !!
> What is so funny about it?
It's **always** hilarious to watch you RRR-cult-lemming
retards self-destructing in public. Some of the BEST enter-
tainment in all of Usenet.
>> Good going, Frank!!
> But I told him, "GOD DAMN YOU."
> That makes you happy?
> Well, you can be damned, too.
ROTFL!!!!!!
[[[ READERS: Can't you just see him going
"WAAaaaahhhh!!" as he whines those
words? LOL!!! ]]]
-- Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com>
Mark Sebree
That does not change that fact that it is a book of myths, and it is
rightly called such because it fulfills the definitions of "book" and
"myths".
You asked why he called it a book of myths, and I answered your
question. If you cannot accept the answer and the facts that support
that answer, then I cannot do anything to help your idiocy and your
willful ignorance. People who insist in remaining ignorant only have
themselves to blame for their own lack of knowledge. And that includes
you.
Mark Sebree
Johnny
<xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 21:07:03 -0500,
> Immature Little Bigot, John Wentzky wrote:
>> Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> Mindless bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>> Frank J Warner <war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
>>>>> Bigoted Loser, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>> Was the ordinance enacted via a vote?
>>>>>> If not, it is not enforceable.
>
>>>>> Recommend you move to Topeka, ...
>
>>>> Why?
>
>>>>> ...suck somebody's dick,
>
>>>> GOD DAMN YOU!
>
>>> ROTFL!!!!!!! Frank just got poor widdle immature
>>> bigot, John Wentzky's goat. LOL!!!!!
>
>> No, he didn;t. I told him, "GOD DAMN YOU."
>
> Wrong. You *shouted* it at him.
Hey, liar.
I did not shout at him.
All caps does not exclusively mean that someone is shouting, lamebrain.
> Exclamation point
> and all.
Got a problem with punctuation, too?
> Just like the foot-stamping little immature retard
> that you are. Because he got your childish little goat.
>
> LOL!!!!! ---
Is that *shouting* with excalamtion marks?
>
>>> Funnier than hell !!
>
>> What is so funny about it?
>
> It's **always** hilarious to watch you RRR-cult-lemming
> retards self-destructing in public. Some of the BEST enter-
> tainment in all of Usenet.
Why do you label me a RRR-cult-lemming?
Where is your proof?
>
>>> Good going, Frank!!
>
>> But I told him, "GOD DAMN YOU."
>> That makes you happy?
>> Well, you can be damned, too.
>
> ROTFL!!!!!!
>
> [[[ READERS: Can't you just see him going
> "WAAaaaahhhh!!" as he whines those
> words? LOL!!! ]]]
Not whining, Craig.
You're Negro, right?
Johnny
Your opinion is not my belief.
Myths are not truthful accounts, which differs significantly with your
definition of myth.
>
> You asked why he called it a book of myths, and I answered your
> question.
Who cares?
Your answer is inadequate and opinionated.
> If you cannot accept the answer and the facts that support
> that answer, then I cannot do anything to help your idiocy and your
> willful ignorance.
Willful ignorance and idiocy are characteristics you possess.
> People who insist in remaining ignorant only have
> themselves to blame for their own lack of knowledge.
Blame yourself then.
> And that includes
> you.
Sorry.
I am not in the willfully ignorant or idiotic category.
Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, it'll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!
Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Immature Little Bigot, John Wentzky wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> Mindless bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>> Frank J Warner <war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Bigoted Loser, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Was the ordinance enacted via a vote?
>>>>>>> If not, it is not enforceable.
>>>>>> Recommend you move to Topeka, ...
>>>>> Why?
>>>>>> ...suck somebody's dick,
>>>>> GOD DAMN YOU!
>>>> ROTFL!!!!!!! Frank just got poor widdle immature
>>>> bigot, John Wentzky's goat. LOL!!!!!
>>> No, he didn;t. I told him, "GOD DAMN YOU."
>> Wrong. You *shouted* it at him.
> Hey, liar.
Wrong. Unlike you, I don't lie in my posts.
> I did not shout at him.
Yes you did. An entire sentence in all caps, *with* an
explanation point, is *literally* shouting, crybaby.
> All caps does not exclusively mean that someone is
> shouting, lamebrain.
See above.
>> Exclamation point and all.
> Got a problem with punctuation, too?
What do you mean, "too?" The only one of us who has
a problem is *you.*
>> Just like the foot-stamping little immature retard
>> that you are. Because he got your childish little goat.
>>
>> LOL!!!!! ---
> Is that *shouting* with excalamtion marks?
No. That's laughing out loud with *exclamation* marks.
>>>> Funnier than hell !!
>>> What is so funny about it?
>> It's **always** hilarious to watch you RRR-cult-lemming
>> retards self-destructing in public. Some of the BEST enter-
>> tainment in all of Usenet.
> Why do you label me a RRR-cult-lemming? Where is
> your proof?
There are only two types of RRR cultists: leaders and
lemmings. The leaders are cunning and intelligent, very hateful
people. The lemmings are dumber than dead rocks, or they
couldn't fall for the leaders' **clueless** propaganda and lies.
ALL of the RRR cultists are busybodyish bigots who attack the
harmless and benefical personal liberties of same-sex marriage
and the remedy of abortion.
You're an RRR cult lemming. And you prove it in here with
regularity.
>>>> Good going, Frank!!
>>> But I told him, "GOD DAMN YOU."
>>> That makes you happy?
>>> Well, you can be damned, too.
>> ROTFL!!!!!!
>>
>> [[[ READERS: Can't you just see him going
>> "WAAaaaahhhh!!" as he whines those
>> words? LOL!!! ]]]
> Not whining, Craig.
Yeah. You're a whiner. An immature little crybaby.
> You're Negro, right?
Nope. White. Why? What does race have to do with
any of this? Were you looking for yet *another* excuse to
make a bigoted loser of yourself in public?
(What a tool.)
-- Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com>
Patrick Lee Humphrey
>"Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
>news:6okd21lgks5t3q9ne...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 01:21:14 -0500, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
>> <Glory...@ArmyofGod.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
>> <y1yVd.35788$755.1063@lakeread05> wrote:
>>>Controlled by sex perverted fags which the Bible describes as being
>>>reprobate.
>> Spitzie - why do you quote from your book of myth before you prove it
>> is valid?
>Why do you call it a myth without proving it is a myth?
Why are you claiming it's true without proving its truth?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 3 (OT) (March 2)
NEXT GAME: Friday, March 4 vs. Hartford, 7:35
Matty
> Natalie Clifford Barney <NCBa...@LesbianSalonHostess.20RueJacob.fr>
> wrote in news:422790C0...@LesbianSalonHostess.20RueJacob.fr:
>>
>>
>> hal9000 wrote:
>>>
>>> This primary was ignored by most.
>>> Kansas will vote in April on an amendment to the state constitution to
>>> ban gay marriage.
>>> Wait until you see that vote to welcome Kansas to the 20th let alone
>>> the 21st century.
>>> I suspect it will pass easily. Somewhere around 60/40.
>>
>> You are probably correct, though at the same time NY, Washington,
>> Conneticut and California will probably be legalising either civil
>> unions or gay marriages........
>>
>> We will once again be a house divided, half the country with sex police
>> snooping in bedrooms, half without......
>
> In Saudi Arabia, I believe the religious police are called the
> "Mutawa". I wonder how long before a similar group of fanatics,
> probably xtian, will become prevalent in the U.S.?
Why not? US citizens love their religion so much they export people
overseas, and now they're going to have their own religious police.
Maybe in a few years time, you'll see people fleeing from the US to
Iran, because they long for freedom.
Matt
Patrick Lee Humphrey
You're the one claiming it's true -- so where's your proof, Psycho Boy?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 3 (OT) (March 3)
Johnny
news:szkd5ug...@eris.io.com...
> "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com> writes:
>
>>"Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
>>news:6okd21lgks5t3q9ne...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 01:21:14 -0500, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
>>> <Glory...@ArmyofGod.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>> <y1yVd.35788$755.1063@lakeread05> wrote:
>
>>>>Controlled by sex perverted fags which the Bible describes as being
>>>>reprobate.
>
>>> Spitzie - why do you quote from your book of myth before you prove it
>>> is valid?
>
>>Why do you call it a myth without proving it is a myth?
>
> Why are you claiming it's true without proving its truth?
Where did I say that?
Now, try to step out of the muck you stepped into.
Johnny
<xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:14:06 -0500,
> Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>> Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> Immature Little Bigot, John Wentzky wrote:
>>>> Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>> Mindless bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Frank J Warner <war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Bigoted Loser, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>> Was the ordinance enacted via a vote?
>>>>>>>> If not, it is not enforceable.
>
>>>>>>> Recommend you move to Topeka, ...
>
>>>>>> Why?
>
>>>>>>> ...suck somebody's dick,
>
>>>>>> GOD DAMN YOU!
>
>>>>> ROTFL!!!!!!! Frank just got poor widdle immature
>>>>> bigot, John Wentzky's goat. LOL!!!!!
>
>>>> No, he didn;t. I told him, "GOD DAMN YOU."
>
>>> Wrong. You *shouted* it at him.
>
>> Hey, liar.
>
> Wrong. Unlike you, I don't lie in my posts.
You are too proud.
>
>> I did not shout at him.
>
> Yes you did.
Sorry, liar.
> An entire sentence in all caps, *with* an
> explanation point, is *literally* shouting, crybaby.
You are a liar, proven by your sentence there.
>
>> All caps does not exclusively mean that someone is
>> shouting, lamebrain.
>
> See above.
>
I saw it. Yet, you failed to observe anything other than your opinionated
position.
>>> Exclamation point and all.
>
>> Got a problem with punctuation, too?
>
> What do you mean, "too?" The only one of us who has
> a problem is *you.*
You are the liar.
>
>>> Just like the foot-stamping little immature retard
>>> that you are. Because he got your childish little goat.
>>>
>>> LOL!!!!! ---
>
>> Is that *shouting* with exclaamation marks?
>
> No. That's laughing out loud with *exclamation* marks.
>
It fits your definition of shouting.
Therefore, by your own measure you are judged.
>>>>> Funnier than hell !!
>
>>>> What is so funny about it?
>
>>> It's **always** hilarious to watch you RRR-cult-lemming
>>> retards self-destructing in public. Some of the BEST enter-
>>> tainment in all of Usenet.
>
>> Why do you label me a RRR-cult-lemming? Where is
>> your proof?
>
> There are only two types of RRR cultists: leaders and
> lemmings. The leaders are cunning and intelligent, very hateful
> people. The lemmings are dumber than dead rocks, or they
> couldn't fall for the leaders' **clueless** propaganda and lies.
> ALL of the RRR cultists are busybodyish bigots who attack the
> harmless and benefical personal liberties of same-sex marriage
> and the remedy of abortion.
>
> You're an RRR cult lemming. And you prove it in here with
> regularity.
You are a liar.
>
>>>>> Good going, Frank!!
>
>>>> But I told him, "GOD DAMN YOU."
>>>> That makes you happy?
>>>> Well, you can be damned, too.
>
>>> ROTFL!!!!!!
>>>
>>> [[[ READERS: Can't you just see him going
>>> "WAAaaaahhhh!!" as he whines those
>>> words? LOL!!! ]]]
>
>> Not whining, Craig.
>
> Yeah. You're a whiner. An immature little crybaby.
You're a liar.
>
>> You're Negro, right?
>
> Nope. White. Why? What does race have to do with
> any of this?
You are so easy to set off into another ill-conceived direction.
You jump so fast, you more often than not stumble into the realm of unproven
lies and fantasies.
> Were you looking for yet *another* excuse to
> make a bigoted loser of yourself in public?
I thought you mentioned that you are black.
> (What a tool.)
You are decieved and a liar.
Johnny
I am asking for Proof from those who call it lies or myth.
Where did I claim it to be true?
You are assuming too much.
Patrick Lee Humphrey
>Was the ordinance enacted via a vote? If not, it is not enforceable.
Are you that stupid? If it was on the books, it was enacted by the city
council -- by a vote. Still pretending you're a judge, eh? Too bad reality
keeps ignoring your fantasy...
Johnny
> "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com> writes:
>
>>Was the ordinance enacted via a vote? If not, it is not enforceable.
>
> Are you that stupid? If it was on the books, it was enacted by the city
> council -- by a vote. Still pretending you're a judge, eh? Too bad
> reality
> keeps ignoring your fantasy...
Too bad you do NOT understand reality.
In your case, reality sucks because it is against you.
BOB
kaiwainz@yahoocomau:
That seems to be the direction the U.S. is headed in at present.
Mark Sebree
But your belief is your opinion. And your opinion does not change the
truth that the Bible is a book of myths.
> Myths are not truthful accounts, which differs significantly with
your
> definition of myth.
And the Bible is a book of myths, because it fulfills the definition
perfectly. And I detailed how it does. It contains supernatural
creatures and events, tales of heroes, they are ancient stories, and
they talk about the customs, ideals, and psychology of a
people/culture. There is no other way to look at it.
And there is no reason to believe that any of the supernatural events
or creatures actually exist or happened, since they are clearly
impossible by all the known laws of science and nature.
And the definition is from Dictionary.com, so it is not even mine.
>
> >
> > You asked why he called it a book of myths, and I answered your
> > question.
>
> Who cares?
You do, it would seem.
> Your answer is inadequate and opinionated.
My answer is accurate and complete, and does not include any opinions.
You are the one with an inadequate and opinionated answer, not to
mention a closed mind.
>
> > If you cannot accept the answer and the facts that support
> > that answer, then I cannot do anything to help your idiocy and your
> > willful ignorance.
>
> Willful ignorance and idiocy are characteristics you possess.
No, those are most definitely YOUR characteristics, since you cannot
accept the facts when they are handed to on a silver platter, which I
did.
>
> > People who insist in remaining ignorant only have
> > themselves to blame for their own lack of knowledge.
>
> Blame yourself then.
Why? You are the one that is ignorant here, as you insist on proving.
I cannot force you to learn if you are determined to remain ignorant.
>
> > And that includes
> > you.
>
> Sorry.
> I am not in the willfully ignorant or idiotic category.
Yes, you are. You insist on proving that constantly. I have stated
clearly the definition of "myth", and stated why the Bible falls into
the category of a collection of myths. You have stated that I am
wrong, but you cannot show that I am. That shows idiocy and/or
ignorance. I have supported my position, but you cannot support yours.
The fact that IN YOUR OPINION the Bible is not a book of myths does not
change the fact that it is. It fits the definition perfectly, down to
the last detail. The fact that it fits the definition of a collection
of myths means that it is a collection of myths. Your opinion does not
change that fact.
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
And you got it. Unfortunately, you cannot handle it.
Mark Sebree
Patrick Lee Humphrey
>"Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
>news:bhge211v83cfbgc0u...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:25:43 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com>
>> in alt.abortion with message-id
>> <maEVd.28256$hd6....@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>"Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
>>>news:6okd21lgks5t3q9ne...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 01:21:14 -0500, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
>>>> <Glory...@ArmyofGod.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>>> <y1yVd.35788$755.1063@lakeread05> wrote:
>>>>>Controlled by sex perverted fags which the Bible describes as being
>>>>>reprobate.
>>>> Spitzie - why do you quote from your book of myth before you prove it
>>>> is valid?
>>>Why do you call it a myth without proving it is a myth?
>> Because there is no independent evidence that it contains any truth
>> aside from a few geographical locations that exist and a few people
>> that can be proven to have existed.
>With the proof of physical evidence you still call it a myth?
Physical evidence, you say? Where is the evidence that there was a worldwide
flood, precisely? (Never mind that would require quite a few times the volume
of the world's oceans to accomplish it, aside from the fact such a flood would
leave evidence all over every land mass, yet nothing supporting such an event
has ever been found.
>You choose to side with mythology when you have already mentioned that there
>is proof?
The irony is priceless. (You're also dumber than a bag of hair, but that's
not news.)
>> The majority of what it says is totally unsupported,
>By who?
>Unsupoorted by who?
Unsupported by the evidence.
>> especially the more unlikely events and people mentioned.
>Name the unlikely events and people you are alluding to.
You mean like the sea splitting, so the Hebrews could bail out of Egypt?
>> Many of it's parts can be traced back to the myths of other and older
>> religions.
>Myths? You are burdened with the burden of proof to show that what you say
>is myth is myth.
For someone who supposedly attended a university, you evidently never got
within miles of a debate course -- otherwise, you'd know better than to make
such moronic assertions.
Patrick Lee Humphrey
>"Frank J Warner" <war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote in message
>news:030320050825039258%war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net...
>> In article <hcEVd.28266$hd6....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
>> <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> Was the ordinance enacted via a vote?
>>> If not, it is not enforceable.
>> Recommend you move to Topeka,
>Why?
Because you might learn something you're afraid of knowing -- that you don't
dictate reality for anyone (or anything) else.
>> suck somebody's dick,
>GOD DAMN YOU!
If you're so sure your bible is true, why are you going out of your way to do
precisely what your alleged deity doesn't like?
>> then try to get a
>> job with the city, to test the enforceability of the ordinance.
>Why?
If nothing else, it'd show you your're nowhere near as omniscient as you think
you are. (Whether you'd understand that concept is an entirely different can
of worms, though.)
Patrick Lee Humphrey
>"Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, it'll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!"
><xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>news:422a9bca...@netnews.mchsi.com...
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:56:50 -0500,
>> Mindless bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> Frank J Warner <war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
>>>> Bigoted Loser, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>> Was the ordinance enacted via a vote?
>>>>> If not, it is not enforceable.
>>>> Recommend you move to Topeka, ...
>>> Why?
>>>> ...suck somebody's dick,
>>> GOD DAMN YOU!
>> ROTFL!!!!!!! Frank just got poor widdle immature
>> bigot, John Wentzky's goat. LOL!!!!!
>No, he didn;t. I told him, "GOD DAMN YOU."
>> Funnier than hell !!
>What is so funny about it? Wouldn't be me who is laughing now?
It's funny to the rest of us, since we're not insane like you.
>> Good going, Frank!!
>But I told him, "GOD DAMN YOU." That makes you happy? Well, you can be
>damned, too.
So? No one cares if a certified psychotic -- you -- damns anyone. Here's a
clue for you: you don't speak for your god. If he exists at all, he's got
that responsibility, and I seriously doubt he'd appoint a known lunatic such
as you to that position.
Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, it'll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!
"Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> Immature Little Bigot, John Wentzky wrote:
>>>>> Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Mindless bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Frank J Warner <war...@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bigoted Loser, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Was the ordinance enacted via a vote?
>>>>>>>>> If not, it is not enforceable.
>>>>>>>> Recommend you move to Topeka, ...
>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>> ...suck somebody's dick,
>>>>>>> GOD DAMN YOU!
>>>>>> ROTFL!!!!!!! Frank just got poor widdle immature
>>>>>> bigot, John Wentzky's goat. LOL!!!!!
>>>>> No, he didn;t. I told him, "GOD DAMN YOU."
>>>> Wrong. You *shouted* it at him.
>>> Hey, liar.
>> Wrong. Unlike you, I don't lie in my posts.
> You are too proud.
No. Just *truthful.* A concept that's probably ALIEN to you,
given the huge quantity of lying you do in your posts.
>>> I did not shout at him.
>> Yes you did.
<LIE-snip>
>> An entire sentence in all caps, *with* an
>> explanation point, is *literally* shouting, crybaby.
> You are a liar, proven by your sentence there.
Everybody except those stupid enough to be as mindless
as you, knows better. (LOL!!! What a tool.)
>>> All caps does not exclusively mean that someone is
>>> shouting, lamebrain.
>> See above.
> I saw it. Yet, you failed to observe anything other than
> your opinionated position.
Naw. I saw the *obvious*, and reported it as such.
>
>>>> Exclamation point and all.
>>
>>> Got a problem with punctuation, too?
>>
>> What do you mean, "too?" The only one of us who has
>> a problem is *you.*
>
> You are the liar.
There you go again. You wouldn't know the truth if you fell
over it. Thus, the *only* people you would have any credibility
with would be bigots as moronic as you are. And you're meant
for each other. You should start a group called, "Sociopaths
Anonymous."
>>>> Just like the foot-stamping little immature retard
>>>> that you are. Because he got your childish little goat.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!!!! ---
>>
>>> Is that *shouting* with exclaamation marks?
>>
>> No. That's laughing out loud with *exclamation* marks.
> It fits your definition of shouting. Therefore, by your own
> measure you are judged.
(ROTFL!!!! Stupid tool can't even distinguish between
a hearty laugh and his own inane shout.)
>>>>>> Funnier than hell !!
>>>>> What is so funny about it?
>>>> It's **always** hilarious to watch you RRR-cult-lemming
>>>> retards self-destructing in public. Some of the BEST enter-
>>>> tainment in all of Usenet.
>>> Why do you label me a RRR-cult-lemming? Where is
>>> your proof?
>> There are only two types of RRR cultists: leaders and
>> lemmings. The leaders are cunning and intelligent, very hateful
>> people. The lemmings are dumber than dead rocks, or they
>> couldn't fall for the leaders' **clueless** propaganda and lies.
>> ALL of the RRR cultists are busybodyish bigots who attack the
>> harmless and benefical personal liberties of same-sex marriage
>> and the remedy of abortion.
>>
>> You're an RRR cult lemming. And you prove it in here with
>> regularity.
> You are a liar.
ROTFL!!! Keep it up! You may get yourself elected
president of the Liars Club!
>>>>>> Good going, Frank!!
>>>>> But I told him, "GOD DAMN YOU."
>>>>> That makes you happy?
>>>>> Well, you can be damned, too.
>>>> ROTFL!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> [[[ READERS: Can't you just see him going
>>>> "WAAaaaahhhh!!" as he whines those
>>>> words? LOL!!! ]]]
>>> Not whining, Craig.
>> Yeah. You're a whiner. An immature little crybaby.
> You're a liar.
Nope. You've already PROVEN that what I said is
true, ignoramus.
>>> You're Negro, right?
>> Nope. White. Why? What does race have to do with
>> any of this?
> You are so easy to set off into another ill-conceived direction.
> You jump so fast, you more often than not stumble into the realm
> of unproven lies and fantasies.
Several lies in two sentences. No truth. And nothing
that has to do with racial issues.
>> Were you looking for yet *another* excuse to
>> make a bigoted loser of yourself in public?
> I thought you mentioned that you are black.
Nope. But you may recall incorrectly where I said in a
recent post that I was white ALLY of the blacks during Civil
Rights Movement I. Just as I am a straight ALLY of the gays
in Civil Rights Movement II.
>> (What a tool.)
> You are decieved and a liar.
Neither. I'm the exact OPPOSITE of you.
-- Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com>
Patrick Lee Humphrey
You're attacking anyone who questions you as being untruthful -- therefore,
you're effectively claiming that your bible is truthful.
>Now, try to step out of the muck you stepped into.
I'm not in your neighborhood, moron.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 3 (OT) (March 3)
Patrick Lee Humphrey
>"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:szk8y54...@eris.io.com...
>> "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com> writes:
[...]
>>>I do not call it a book of myths. You do.
>> You're the one claiming it's true -- so where's your proof, Psycho Boy?
>I am asking for Proof from those who call it lies or myth.
It's your responsibility to prove YOUR claims (including those you've made but
are too stupid to understand).
>Where did I claim it to be true? You are assuming too much.
You're attacking anyone who points out that it's not true. Connect the dots,
Psycho Boy.
Patrick Lee Humphrey
>"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:szk4qfs...@eris.io.com...
>> "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com> writes:
>>>Was the ordinance enacted via a vote? If not, it is not enforceable.
>> Are you that stupid? If it was on the books, it was enacted by the city
>> council -- by a vote. Still pretending you're a judge, eh? Too bad
>> reality keeps ignoring your fantasy...
>Too bad you do NOT understand reality.
Funny -- I'm not the one refusing to work because my employers supposedly
ripped me off.
>In your case, reality sucks because it is against you.
You wouldn't know reality if it kicked your psychotic posterior, sonny.
(It apparently does on a regular basis, judging from your responses.)
Matty
Yeap, and too bad the left can't get the jaded ass public off their
sodding asses and back into the voting booth - like how the religious
right have mobilised their lemmings.
Matt
Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, it'll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!
Attila <proc...@here.now> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Mindless Bigot, John Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>> The Bible is certainly "traditional" and "ancient stories". It is
>>>> loaded with supernatural beings, ancestors, and heroes. It explains
>>>> provides a worldview of the a people by explaining aspects of the
>>>> natural world and delineates the psychology, customs, and ideals of a
>>>> society. It is loaded with magic and impossible events and feats.
>>>>
>>>> Basically, it is obvious to anyone with a brain and an education that
>>>> it is a book of myths. It has been proven to be a book of myths to you
>>>> in the past, but you are either too dishonest or to stupid to remember.
>>> I do not call it a book of myths. You do.
>> The IMPORTANT thing is that both of you, and everyone else
>> in the world, has the right to *regard* it any way they choose.
> Only as long as they do not expect anyone else to agree with their
> position, try to convince others to agree with them, or force others
> to live their lives according to it's dictates.
Precisely!! It's one thing to believe a certain way. As long
as no repressive measures are exerted upon others as a result
of that belief, the believing -- either way -- is harmless. It's
another thing entirely to be actively control-freakish, and to seek to
deny or curtail the personal liberties of others. THAT is sociopathic.
And unconscionable. And profoundly STUPID.
-- Craig Chilton <xanad...@mchsi.com>
Johnny
What about the known world at that time?
Or, the known world to the people in that area?
Also, what about independent accounts of a great flood in other society's
ancient writings?
>
>>You choose to side with mythology when you have already mentioned that
>>there
>>is proof?
>
> The irony is priceless. (You're also dumber than a bag of hair, but
> that's
> not news.)
>
>>> The majority of what it says is totally unsupported,
>
>>By who?
>>Unsupoorted by who?
>
> Unsupported by the evidence.
>
>>> especially the more unlikely events and people mentioned.
>
>>Name the unlikely events and people you are alluding to.
>
> You mean like the sea splitting, so the Hebrews could bail out of Egypt?
And, you think that is untrue?
Is that because you were not there to witness it yourself?
>
>>> Many of it's parts can be traced back to the myths of other and older
>>> religions.
>
>>Myths? You are burdened with the burden of proof to show that what you
>>say
>>is myth is myth.
>
> For someone who supposedly attended a university, you evidently never got
> within miles of a debate course -- otherwise, you'd know better than to
> make
> such moronic assertions.
Moronic?
A statement was made.
Asking for proof is not unreasonable.
BOB
kaiwainz@yahoocomau:
Sadly, you are correct.
Johnny
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:21:49 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com>
> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <fqQVd.727$6g7...@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>>news:1109905972.3...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1109894492.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>> >
>>>> >> "Attila" <proc...@here.now> wrote in message
>>>> >> news:6okd21lgks5t3q9ne...@4ax.com...
>>>> >> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 01:21:14 -0500, "Rev. Donald Spitz"
>>>> >> > <Glory...@ArmyofGod.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
>>>> >> > <y1yVd.35788$755.1063@lakeread05> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >>Controlled by sex perverted fags which the Bible describes as
>>> being
>>>> >
>>>> >> >>reprobate.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Spitzie - why do you quote from your book of myth before you
>>> prove
>>>> > it
>>>> >> > is valid?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Why do you call it a myth without proving it is a myth?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural
>>>> > beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in
>>> the
>>>> > worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural
>>> world or
>>>> > delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society"
>>>> >
>>>> > loaded with supernatural beings, ancestors, and heroes. It
>>> explains
>>>> > provides a worldview of the a people by explaining aspects of the
>>>> > natural world and delineates the psychology, customs, and ideals of
>>> a
>>>> > society. It is loaded with magic and impossible events and feats.
>>>> >
>>>> > Basically, it is obvious to anyone with a brain and an education
>>> that
>>>> > it is a book of myths. It has been proven to be a book of myths to
>>> you
>>>> > in the past, but you are either too dishonest or to stupid to
>>> remember.
>>>>
>>>> I do not call it a book of myths.
>>>> You do.
>>>
>>> rightly called such because it fulfills the definitions of "book" and
>>> "myths".
>>
>>Your opinion is not my belief.
>
>
>>Myths are not truthful accounts, which differs significantly with your
>>definition of myth.
>
> accounts.
Israel.
>
>>
>>>
>>> You asked why he called it a book of myths, and I answered your
>>> question.
>>
>>Who cares?
>>Your answer is inadequate and opinionated.
>
> You are avoiding the issue.
>
Not so.
>>
>>> If you cannot accept the answer and the facts that support
>>> that answer, then I cannot do anything to help your idiocy and your
>>> willful ignorance.
>>
>>Willful ignorance and idiocy are characteristics you possess.
>
> You are avoiding the issue.
Not so.
>
>>
>>> People who insist in remaining ignorant only have
>>> themselves to blame for their own lack of knowledge.
>>
>>Blame yourself then.
>>
>>> And that includes
>>> you.
>>
>>Sorry.
>>I am not in the willfully ignorant or idiotic category.
>>
>
> You are the poster boy for both.
Not so.
Johnny
> "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com> writes:
>
>>"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>>news:szk8y54...@eris.io.com...
>>> "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>I do not call it a book of myths. You do.
>
>>> You're the one claiming it's true -- so where's your proof, Psycho Boy?
>
>>I am asking for Proof from those who call it lies or myth.
>
> It's your responsibility to prove YOUR claims (including those you've made
> but
> are too stupid to understand).
What claims?
The claims that were made here are of those who call it lies or myth.
I am only asking them to prove their statements.
>
>>Where did I claim it to be true? You are assuming too much.
>
> You're attacking anyone who points out that it's not true. Connect the
> dots,
> Psycho Boy.
And, they are failing to prove their assertions.
Johnny
You think you have proved that the Bible is a book of myths?
When did the Bible become classified as a book of mythology?
I understand mythology to be such as Roman and Greek mythology.
Johnny
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 23:05:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com>
> in alt.abortion with message-id
> Is that your position? You just denied you ever claimed it is true.
>
>
> Is it true or not?
>
Sir, I am certain of its truthfulness.
Again, the example you need to start a verification of it is the nation
which is called Israel.
Patrick Lee Humphrey
What about it? That's not relevant to your claim that it was a worldwide
flood. (Remember, you're the one attacking those who claim it's not true --
which means you're making the positive assertion.)
>Or, the known world to the people in that area?
>Also, what about independent accounts of a great flood in other society's
>ancient writings?
What about it? Any civilization in an area with agriculture would obviously
depend on rainfall to grow crops...and anywhere with regular rainfall will
flood, sooner or later. Now, all you have to do is demonstrate that all their
flood stories happened at the same time. Too bad there's no credible physical
evidence to back _that_ fantasy up, either.
[...]
>>>> especially the more unlikely events and people mentioned.
>>>Name the unlikely events and people you are alluding to.
>> You mean like the sea splitting, so the Hebrews could bail out of Egypt?
>And, you think that is untrue?
>Is that because you were not there to witness it yourself?
The odds are, something happened in reality to inspire the story. Meanwhile,
you're claiming it's true, so where's your proof?
>>>> Many of it's parts can be traced back to the myths of other and older
>>>> religions.
>>>Myths? You are burdened with the burden of proof to show that what you say
>>>is myth is myth.
>> For someone who supposedly attended a university, you evidently never got
>> within miles of a debate course -- otherwise, you'd know better than to
>> make such moronic assertions.
>Moronic? A statement was made. Asking for proof is not unreasonable.
Asking to prove a negative is unreasonable. Thanks for confirming you never
got near a debate of any kind.
Patrick Lee Humphrey
>"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:szk8y53...@eris.io.com...
>> "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com> writes:
>>>"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>>>news:szk8y54...@eris.io.com...
>>>> "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>>>>I do not call it a book of myths. You do.
>>>> You're the one claiming it's true -- so where's your proof, Psycho Boy?
>>>I am asking for Proof from those who call it lies or myth.
>> It's your responsibility to prove YOUR claims (including those you've made
>> but are too stupid to understand).
>What claims?
>The claims that were made here are of those who call it lies or myth.
>I am only asking them to prove their statements.
...which amounts to asserting that the myths are actually fact.
>>>Where did I claim it to be true? You are assuming too much.
>> You're attacking anyone who points out that it's not true. Connect the
>> dots, Psycho Boy.
>And, they are failing to prove their assertions.
Debate is foreign to you...you don't prove a negative.
Mark Sebree
Yes.
> When did the Bible become classified as a book of mythology?
Since always. It has all the elements of a mythology, as I have
already shown. The fact that you and others use that mythology as an
excuse for your "morals" and behavior does not change the fact that it
is a mythology.
> I understand mythology to be such as Roman and Greek mythology.
Which have EXACTLY the same elements as the Bible. They are both an
ancient series of stories. They both center around supernatural
elements, beings, and heroes. They both try to teach a culture through
though allegory and impossible events. And they both draw on even
older stories to explain what the respective cultures of the time did
not understand, usually erroneously.
Just as the ancient Greek and Roman religions are mythologies, the
ancient Hebrew religion is a mythology, and for exactly the same
reasons. How many people happen to believe in that mythology does not
change the fact that it is a mythology.
If you think that the Bible is true, then it is up to you prove it by
proving that the most unlikely and impossible events and elements of
the Bible actually happened WITHOUT using the Bible. (Look up
"circular argument", since you seem to be unfamiliar with the rules of
debate.)
You have presented nothing to give any indication that the Bible is not
a book of mythology. I have completely supported that it is, by giving
the definition of mythology, and then pointing out that the Bible fits
that definition perfectly. Just because you do not like it does not
change this fact.
Mark Sebree
Dionisio
>Kansas will vote in April on an amendment to the state constitution to ban
>gay marriage.
>
>
<smile> Wait until they get word of what is going to happen in Ohio in a
month or so...
They better make sure they word things carefully. But oops...
<quote>
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. 1601
A PROPOSITION to amend article 15 of the constitution of the state of
Kansas by adding a new section thereto, concerning marriage.
Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Kansas, two-thirds of
the members elected (or appointed) and qualified to the Senate and
two-thirds of the members elected (or appointed) and qualified to the
House of Representatives concurring therein:
Section 1. The following proposition to amend the constitution of the
state of Kansas shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the
state for their approval or rejection: Article 15 of the constitution of
the state of Kansas is amended by adding a new section thereto to read
as follows:
‘‘§ 16. Marriage. (a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law
as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one
woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the
public policy of this state and are void.
‘‘(b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the
state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.’’
</quote>
Oh dear. Defining marriage as a civil contract? No religion? Uh, oh.
Article 15, Section 6. Lesbians to the rescue! ("Rights of women. The
legislature shall provide for the protection of the rights of women, in
acquiring and possessing property, real, personal and mixed, separate
and apart from the husband; and shall also provide for their equal
rights in the possession of their children.")
Article 7, Section 1: "1: Benevolent institutions. Institutions for the
benefit of mentally or physically incapacitated or handicapped persons,
and such other benevolent institutions as the public good may require,
shall be fostered and supported by the state, subject to such
regulations as may be prescribed by law." A singularly interesting
little item.
Kansas Bill of Rights: 1 "Equal rights. All men are possessed of equal
and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness." Unless one is gay...
Kansas Bill of Rights: 2 "Political power; privileges. All political
power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on
their authority, and are instituted for their equal protection and
benefit. No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted by
the legislature, which may not be altered, revoked or repealed by the
same body; and this power shall be exercised by no other tribunal or
agency."
Kansas Bill of Rights: 7 "Religious liberty. The right to worship God
according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor
shall any person be compelled to attend or support any form of worship;
nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience
be permitted, nor any preference be given by law to any religious
establishment or mode of worship. No religious test or property
qualification shall be required for any office of public trust, nor for
any vote at any elections, nor shall any person be incompetent to
testify on account of religious belief." No control of or intereference
with the rights of conscience... Hammer. Nail. Coffin.
Kansas Bill of Rights: 20 "Powers retained by people. This enumeration
of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by
the people; and all powers not herein delegated remain with the people."
Icing on the cake.
Let the bruhaha begin!
--
Why is it that heterosexuals blame the homosexuals for homosexuality when the genes and/or environment are predominantly provided by heterosexuals?
-- jsta...@gate.net, 02 Jan 1996
Matty
Maybe they should rebrand all the anti-communist propaganda - like that
huge octopus sitting on the world, with a caption relating to the
religious rights influence over public policy.
Matt
BOB
news:2005030517324664440%kaiwainz@yahoocomau:
Unfortunately, that might be very appropriate.
David W. Barnes
<wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
> > You mean like the sea splitting, so the Hebrews could bail out of Egypt?
>
> And, you think that is untrue?
> Is that because you were not there to witness it yourself?
Science.
Johnny
Damn, Patrick. Why are you acting as if I made all these claims?
You sure are using the Scientologist's tactic a lot, huh?
Why are you attacking me personally?
> (Remember, you're the one attacking those who claim it's not true --
> which means you're making the positive assertion.)
>
Am I attacking them?
Nah.
If they make a claim I want to see proof.
>>Or, the known world to the people in that area?
>>Also, what about independent accounts of a great flood in other society's
>>ancient writings?
>
> What about it? Any civilization in an area with agriculture would
> obviously
> depend on rainfall to grow crops...and anywhere with regular rainfall will
> flood, sooner or later. Now, all you have to do is demonstrate that all
> their
> flood stories happened at the same time. Too bad there's no credible
> physical
> evidence to back _that_ fantasy up, either.
I have to?
You are sick.
>
> [...]
>
>>>>> especially the more unlikely events and people mentioned.
>
>>>>Name the unlikely events and people you are alluding to.
>
>>> You mean like the sea splitting, so the Hebrews could bail out of Egypt?
>
>>And, you think that is untrue?
>>Is that because you were not there to witness it yourself?
>
> The odds are, something happened in reality to inspire the story.
> Meanwhile,
> you're claiming it's true, so where's your proof?
>
I just claimed it's true?
Who is claiming it is not true?
Get a grip and realize who is claiming what. Then ask those who are making
claims for evidence.
>>>>> Many of it's parts can be traced back to the myths of other and older
>>>>> religions.
>
>>>>Myths? You are burdened with the burden of proof to show that what you
>>>>say
>>>>is myth is myth.
>
>>> For someone who supposedly attended a university, you evidently never
>>> got
>>> within miles of a debate course -- otherwise, you'd know better than to
>>> make such moronic assertions.
>
>>Moronic? A statement was made. Asking for proof is not unreasonable.
>
> Asking to prove a negative is unreasonable.
Bullshit.
> Thanks for confirming you never
> got near a debate of any kind.
Your logic skills are that inferior that you know nothing about proof of
assertions whether they be assertions in the affirmative or negative?
Johnny
news:040320052231050954%dba...@aol.com...
Cite the proof.
Your irascible, impulsive blurting is quite unbecoming.
Johnny
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:11:17 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com>
> in alt.abortion with message-id
Check reality.
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> You asked why he called it a book of myths, and I answered your
>>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>>Who cares?
>>>>Your answer is inadequate and opinionated.
>>>
>>> You are avoiding the issue.
>>>
>>
>>Not so.
>
> Yes you are.
>
Not even a little.
Johnny
The Bible is NOT classified as mythology.
>
>> I understand mythology to be such as Roman and Greek mythology.
>
> Which have EXACTLY the same elements as the Bible. They are both an
> ancient series of stories.
The Bible predates bioth Roman and Greek mythology.
> They both center around supernatural
> elements, beings, and heroes. They both try to teach a culture through
> though allegory and impossible events. And they both draw on even
> older stories to explain what the respective cultures of the time did
> not understand, usually erroneously.
>
> Just as the ancient Greek and Roman religions are mythologies, the
> ancient Hebrew religion is a mythology, and for exactly the same
> reasons. How many people happen to believe in that mythology does not
> change the fact that it is a mythology.
>
> If you think that the Bible is true, then it is up to you
Sorry, bucko. You don't get the luzury of laying the burden of proof of the
Bibel in its entirety on me.
You do get the burden of proving your assertions which you yourself make
upon yourself.
> prove it by
> proving that the most unlikely and impossible events and elements of
> the Bible actually happened WITHOUT using the Bible. (Look up
> "circular argument", since you seem to be unfamiliar with the rules of
> debate.)
Circular argument?
You mean what you are doing.
>
> You have presented nothing to give any indication that the Bible is not
> a book of mythology.
It is you who is making a claim that it is a book opf mythology.
So, you must prove your statement.
Sicnce I and millions, billions, of others will not agree with you, your
task is daunting, and the group I am in is unphazed by you and we are not
afraid of you are willing to bow to your lies.
> I have completely supported that it is, by giving
> the definition of mythology, and then pointing out that the Bible fits
> that definition perfectly.
Your opinionated definition which is not validated by knowledge or wisdom
which predates both your opinion and the definition you CHOSE to cite are
entirely insufficent to constitute proof of your assertion.
> Just because you do not like it does not
> change this fact.
I see no fact in your attempt to prove that the Bible is mythology.
>
> Mark Sebree
>
Osprey
"Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:uNhWd.1012$Q83...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
You'll have to stand in line. He has a long list of claims and lies he has
yet to provide proof for.
Johnny
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 07:46:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprof...@msn.com>
> in alt.abortion with message-id
Liar.
Responsive and meaningful is what my statement to you was.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You asked why he called it a book of myths, and I answered your
>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Who cares?
>>>>>>Your answer is inadequate and opinionated.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are avoiding the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not so.
>>>
>>> Yes you are.
>>>
>>
>>Not even a little.
>>
> The truth is apparent.
That Israel exists; and that the Bible is largely an account of Israel.
David W. Barnes
David W. Barnes
<wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
You are real big on making stupid statements without support. If the
Bible is mythology, what is it? Science Fiction?
>
> >
> >> I understand mythology to be such as Roman and Greek mythology.
> >
> > Which have EXACTLY the same elements as the Bible. They are both an
> > ancient series of stories.
>
> The Bible predates bioth Roman and Greek mythology.
He didn't say it is Roman or Greek Mythology.
>
> > They both center around supernatural
> > elements, beings, and heroes. They both try to teach a culture through
> > though allegory and impossible events. And they both draw on even
> > older stories to explain what the respective cultures of the time did
> > not understand, usually erroneously.
> >
> > Just as the ancient Greek and Roman religions are mythologies, the
> > ancient Hebrew religion is a mythology, and for exactly the same
> > reasons. How many people happen to believe in that mythology does not
> > change the fact that it is a mythology.
> >
> > If you think that the Bible is true, then it is up to you
>
> Sorry, bucko. You don't get the luzury of laying the burden of proof of the
> Bibel in its entirety on me.
<Yawn> Another religious loon who doesn't even know why he believe what
he believes.
> You do get the burden of proving your assertions which you yourself make
> upon yourself.
What's to prove?
>
> > prove it by
> > proving that the most unlikely and impossible events and elements of
> > the Bible actually happened WITHOUT using the Bible. (Look up
> > "circular argument", since you seem to be unfamiliar with the rules of
> > debate.)
>
> Circular argument?
> You mean what you are doing.
No - circular argument - like claiming the Bible is the word of God
because the Bible says so.
> >
> > You have presented nothing to give any indication that the Bible is not
> > a book of mythology.
>
> It is you who is making a claim that it is a book opf mythology.
As opposed to what? It is axiomatic.
> So, you must prove your statement.
> Sicnce I and millions, billions, of others will not agree with you, your
> task is daunting, and the group I am in is unphazed by you and we are not
> afraid of you are willing to bow to your lies.
Illogical. Millions believe in ghosts, too.
>
>
> > I have completely supported that it is, by giving
> > the definition of mythology, and then pointing out that the Bible fits
> > that definition perfectly.
>
> Your opinionated definition which is not validated by knowledge or wisdom
> which predates both your opinion and the definition you CHOSE to cite are
> entirely insufficent to constitute proof of your assertion.
>
> > Just because you do not like it does not
> > change this fact.
>
> I see no fact in your attempt to prove that the Bible is mythology.
You moron, a "myth" is a legendary narrative explaining a belief or
phenomenon. A legend is a story handed down from the past. The Bible
is a number of stories handed down from the past explaining a belief
that God exists and is responsible for the universe. Therefore, the
Bible is a book of myths notwithstanding your denial.
David W. Barnes
<wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
Here is your proof:
Patrick Lee Humphrey
Because you did.
>You sure are using the Scientologist's tactic a lot, huh?
>Why are you attacking me personally?
Because you're the psychotic loon who's making the assertions. I'm asking for
nothing more than proof of your assertions, and you're running away.
>> (Remember, you're the one attacking those who claim it's not true --
>> which means you're making the positive assertion.)
>Am I attacking them? Nah.
You don't decide that, any more than you decide anything for anyone else.
>If they make a claim I want to see proof.
...but you make a claim and then refuse to provide proof, which explains the
lack of respect you get.
>>>Or, the known world to the people in that area?
>>>Also, what about independent accounts of a great flood in other society's
>>>ancient writings?
>> What about it? Any civilization in an area with agriculture would
>> obviously depend on rainfall to grow crops...and anywhere with regular
>> rainfall will flood, sooner or later. Now, all you have to do is
>> demonstrate that all their flood stories happened at the same time. Too
>> bad there's no credible physical evidence to back _that_ fantasy up,
>> either.
>I have to? You are sick.
What are you going to do about it? You're the one making the claim and
refusing to back up your claim with evidence, and I'm sick because I ask you
to back up your ravings, for once?
>> [...]
>>>>>> especially the more unlikely events and people mentioned.
>>>>>Name the unlikely events and people you are alluding to.
>>>> You mean like the sea splitting, so the Hebrews could bail out of Egypt?
>>>And, you think that is untrue?
>>>Is that because you were not there to witness it yourself?
>> The odds are, something happened in reality to inspire the story.
>> Meanwhile, you're claiming it's true, so where's your proof?
>I just claimed it's true?
You did just that, whether you realize it or not.
>Who is claiming it is not true? Get a grip and realize who is claiming
>what. Then ask those who are making claims for evidence.
You're proving that you are certifiably insane. You can't keep track of what
side of an argument you're on, much less who's on which side.
>>>>>> Many of it's parts can be traced back to the myths of other and older
>>>>>> religions.
>>>>>Myths? You are burdened with the burden of proof to show that what you
>>>>>say is myth is myth.
>>>> For someone who supposedly attended a university, you evidently never got
>>>> within miles of a debate course -- otherwise, you'd know better than to
>>>> make such moronic assertions.
>>>Moronic? A statement was made. Asking for proof is not unreasonable.
>> Asking to prove a negative is unreasonable.
>Bullshit.
Go back to Furman and tell *that* to whatever faculty had to deal with you.
I'm sure they'll be impressed.
>> Thanks for confirming you never got near a debate of any kind.
>Your logic skills are that inferior that you know nothing about proof of
>assertions whether they be assertions in the affirmative or negative?
Your mental ability to discern anything is obviously massively damaged. (Not
enough that you can keep from running away from assertions that you know you
can't support, though.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 3, Hartford 1 (March 4)
NEXT GAME: Monday, March 7 vs. Grand Rapids (at St. Paul), 7:35