Christians claim foot-and-mouth is God's wrath over gays
Manic
homosexual age of consent brought on the foot-and-mouth crisis.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_273386.html
Alex Buell
LOL! Fscking bunch of freakoids.
--
I put a new engine in my car, but forgot to take the old one
out. Now my baby does 500 miles per hour.
ronnie biggs
WACKOS!!!
Manic <manic@deprčssivé.co.uk> wrote in message
news:988374406.13871.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
jof
manic@depr?ssiv?.co.uk wrote on 27/4/01 1:32 pm:
> A Christian newsletter has been distributed claiming that lowering the
> homosexual age of consent brought on the foot-and-mouth crisis.
> http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_273386.html
Good grief.
Changing the bestiality laws I could understand, but homosexual age of
consent!?1?!?!?!?
Some religious sects really do mess with your rationality...
--
j...@overhope.org.uk
"You're wasting bandwidth..."
Live and direct from the Overhope organisation: realer than real
hypertext malarkey now available at http://www.overhope.org.uk
Eric Jarvis
silly sods
I thought everyone knew it was Dog's revenge for S Club 7
--
eric
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Bill Davidson
ronnie biggs wrote in message ...
>I thought that they said aids was doing gods wrath....
>
>WACKOS!!!
>
Why? People *believe* in the Bible! You may recall what happened to the
population of Sodom for practising... errm... sodomy, I believe.
In those days, God's wrath was simpler and more direct. But nowadays, being
much more sophisticated, we expect God to send us more sophisticated
messages, and it is this that He is doing. You can hardly expect Him to send
thunderbolts from heaven, for with our artillery tracking radar, we could
trace exactly where it came from and send Him back a nuclear thunderbolt of
our own.
I am not a believer myself, but if I were, I'd say we were getting off light
in view of what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah. But it's easy to see why true
believers blame gays for the recent ills that have befallen us. God created
man and woman with a certain idea in mind. We can presume to know God's will
in this aspect because he created male and female; He could equally have
created two males had He so minded. We can extrapolate further: given the
various orifices that the male reproductive organ can penetrate on the
female body, it is a reasonable bet that God's intention was that the
orifice He had in mind was the vagina, if for no other reason than via this
orifice, God's creation can self-sustain itself; an example of mass
production that pre-dates the Model T.
With gays, that is, male on male, the options of what to do with the male
reproductive organ are more restricted. Sticking one's cock up another man's
bum is probably not what God had in mind. I don't pretend to know what He
was thinking - after all, the fact He created first Man and then Woman is
circumstantial and, well to some, hearsay - but looking at the evidence in
the animal world, where females are inseminated by males, it would seem that
God was following a general plan.
It is obvious therefore that gays are not following God's plan. To
believers, every pestilence that afflicts humanity is due to not following
God's plan. If you're a believer, it's logical.
BD
Alistair Mann
>
>ronnie biggs wrote in message ...
>>I thought that they said aids was doing gods wrath....
>>
>>WACKOS!!!
>>
>
>Why? People *believe* in the Bible!
Believing in something doesn't ipso facto make it true.
--
Alistair Mann
Alex Buell
> It is obvious therefore that gays are not following God's plan. To
> believers, every pestilence that afflicts humanity is due to not
> following God's plan. If you're a believer, it's logical.
You're a moron, but as you like cats, that's just about the only nice
thing I'll say about you.
Alex.
Rogi
<brazi...@lineone.net> wrote:
<lotsa snipping>
>You can hardly expect Him to send thunderbolts from heaven, for with our artillery tracking radar, we could
>trace exactly where it came from and send Him back a nuclear thunderbolt of
>our own.
LOL!
--
Rob.
São Miguel, Açores.
Antonomasia
> population of Sodom for practising... errm... sodomy, I believe.
>
> In those days, God's wrath was simpler and more direct. But nowadays, being
> much more sophisticated, we expect God to send us more sophisticated
> messages, and it is this that He is doing.
It's quite as simple as paticular groups being punished for particular sins.
The whole universe is in a poor state because of sin and in the end everybody
gets judged for their part in it (with the one escape being salvation provided
by the Lord Jesus). All disease and death arises ultimately from sin, but
not in a way that's easy to trace.
Luke 13
1 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans,
whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were
sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think
ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
John 9
1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his
parents, that he was born blind?
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the
works of God should be made manifest in him.
In John 9 it is neither the baby (who has done nothing yet) nor the parents
(who can still see) who have caused the specific situation by sin.
> I am not a believer myself, but if I were, I'd say we were getting off light
> in view of what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah. But it's easy to see why true
> believers blame gays for the recent ills that have befallen us. God created
> man and woman with a certain idea in mind.
There was a certain idea in mind and the importance of it persists from
Genesis right to the end of the New Testament.
Rogi
Especially if it's a complete load of old bollox.
;-)
--
Rob.
São Miguel, Azores.
Rogi
<a...@notatla.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Why? People *believe* in the Bible! You may recall what happened to the
>> population of Sodom for practising... errm... sodomy, I believe.
>>
>> In those days, God's wrath was simpler and more direct. But nowadays, being
>> much more sophisticated, we expect God to send us more sophisticated
>> messages, and it is this that He is doing.
>
>It's quite as simple as paticular groups being punished for particular sins.<snip>
What a complete load of old cobblers. Go away before we set the Dog of
ULL on you and your idiotic brainwashed god-squad bollox.
HTH.
Smudger
look right.. ok.. lets make summat up here..
Satan is supposed to be cloven hoofed ? yup
Foot and mouth only affects cloven hoofed things? yup
God is trying to kill satan QED
obviously his aim is a bit wankered.. prolly cus of all these madmen caling
themselves religious who are putting him off.
--
Matt
-------
"We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare.
Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."
"Manic" <manic@deprčssivé.co.uk> wrote in message
news:988374406.13871.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Quicksilver27
P.S> there is NO god
Manic <manic@deprčssivé.co.uk> wrote in message
news:988374406.13871.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Eric Jarvis
>
> Why? People *believe* in the Bible! You may recall what happened to the
> population of Sodom for practising... errm... sodomy, I believe.
>
nope
according to the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for being
generally heretical and specifically for not being hospitable to
visitors
in a Middle Eastern context, where water is scarce, inhospitability
is a serious thing just a step or two from murder
the bit about homosexuality all comes later as anti-Greek propaganda
when the Christian church was being established as part of a fight
for control between the Eastern and Westerm branches
in other words, it may be a common interpretation but it's total
b*ll*cks
Bill Davidson
Eric Jarvis wrote in message ...
Or in the words of the song: "The things that you're liable, to read in the
bible, they ain't necessarily so."
As the bit about homosexuality is propaganda, so too is the allegation that
the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were inhospitable. The Israelites
invented this fiction after sacking the cities and wiping out the
inhabitants. The Old Testament is based on the Torah and the Israelites were
hardly going to paint themselves as the villains. Those who win get to write
the history books.
BD
Eric Jarvis
now that I can agree with
it's always been the unforgiveable crime, losing a war
however...the actual Bible story states quite clearly that Sodom and
Gomorrah were destroyed for generally being wicked and if the story
of Lot is seen as the trigger event that is about the citizens of
Sodom being aggressively "suspicious" of Lot's visitors...
...reminds me of somewhere in the present day
but I'm not expecting the UK to be destroyed...though the idea of
ickle being turned into a pillar of salt because he turned back to
check his email is rather amusing
Manic
news:Pine.LNX.4.30.01042...@lgeezer.demon.co.uk...
Also the 'all true' edition of the Bible has yet to be released. It is,
after all, a collected set of anecdotes written in reaction to current
happenings.
The Deja Archive could also be described in similar terms.
--
Manic
~ this is just a phrase I'm going through ~
http://www.bible-basher.com
Bill Davidson
Manic wrote in message
<988619155.18237.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>"Alistair Mann" <alis...@3legsbandit.com> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.30.01042...@lgeezer.demon.co.uk...
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Bill Davidson wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >ronnie biggs wrote in message ...
>> >>I thought that they said aids was doing gods wrath....
>> >>
>> >>WACKOS!!!
>> >>
>> >
>> >Why? People *believe* in the Bible!
>>
>> Believing in something doesn't ipso facto make it true.
>
>Also the 'all true' edition of the Bible has yet to be released. It is,
>after all, a collected set of anecdotes written in reaction to current
>happenings.
Let's not exclude the Koran in that description.
BD
Eric Jarvis
> "Alistair Mann" <alis...@3legsbandit.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.30.01042...@lgeezer.demon.co.uk...
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Bill Davidson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >ronnie biggs wrote in message ...
> > >>I thought that they said aids was doing gods wrath....
> > >>
> > >>WACKOS!!!
> > >>
> > >
> > >Why? People *believe* in the Bible!
> >
> > Believing in something doesn't ipso facto make it true.
>
> Also the 'all true' edition of the Bible has yet to be released. It is,
> after all, a collected set of anecdotes written in reaction to current
> happenings.
>
> The Deja Archive could also be described in similar terms.
>
I sincerely hope you aren't implying that the Deja archive is not
100% truthful in it's entirety?
those of us who keep faith with the fundamentals of Usenet* would
find that very offensive and may be forced to sell you into slavery,
rape all your possessions, hang your children and burn your wife**
* ie everyone talks out of their fundament
** IIRC...the punishing unbelievers and heretics FAQ was last posted
in 1995*** so I can't look it up
*** due to an unfortunate exclamation of "I don't believe it" the
last FAQ maintainer was sold to a Lithuainian slave trader...nobody
has volunteered to take over the job
jof
>>>> Why? People *believe* in the Bible!
>>>
>>> Believing in something doesn't ipso facto make it true.
>>
>> Also the 'all true' edition of the Bible has yet to be released. It is,
>> after all, a collected set of anecdotes written in reaction to current
>> happenings.
>
> Let's not exclude the Koran in that description.
Before too many fatwahs get issued, I'd like to say that there's truth in
most religious texts, filtered through the eyes of various editors over the
years (they've had 2500 years to play with the Old Testament now, at any
rate), depending on what you're looking for.
Now, I'm not a believer of any sort, but I'd hate to see whole tracts of
human history trashed because some parts of some texts are obviously
propaganda skewed to fit a particular worldview...
--
j...@overhope.org.uk
"Whatever the hell it is, it sure ain't rocket science."
Bill Davidson
jof wrote in message ...
>Bill Davidson, aka <brazi...@lineone.net>:
>
>>>>> Why? People *believe* in the Bible!
>>>>
>>>> Believing in something doesn't ipso facto make it true.
>>>
>>> Also the 'all true' edition of the Bible has yet to be released. It is,
>>> after all, a collected set of anecdotes written in reaction to current
>>> happenings.
>>
>> Let's not exclude the Koran in that description.
>
>Before too many fatwahs get issued, I'd like to say that there's truth in
>most religious texts, filtered through the eyes of various editors over the
>years (they've had 2500 years to play with the Old Testament now, at any
>rate), depending on what you're looking for.
>
>Now, I'm not a believer of any sort, but I'd hate to see whole tracts of
>human history trashed because some parts of some texts are obviously
>propaganda skewed to fit a particular worldview...
>--
The events in the Old Testament hardly contribute anything to human history.
It supposedly chronicles the history of Semitic tribes in a small area of
the globe.
BD
jof
> The events in the Old Testament hardly contribute anything to human history.
> It supposedly chronicles the history of Semitic tribes in a small area of
> the globe.
Hmm, there's a good deal of Egyptian history in there too, not to mention
some of the earliest documented oppression of one race by another. True,
it's very localised, but the beliefs of these Semitic tribes had a large
bearing on a lot of what was to follow globally as the Roman Empire died
out. I suppose the Iliad's no cop as history either?
Bill Davidson
jof wrote in message ...
>
>> The events in the Old Testament hardly contribute anything to human
history.
>> It supposedly chronicles the history of Semitic tribes in a small area of
>> the globe.
>
>Hmm, there's a good deal of Egyptian history in there too, not to mention
>some of the earliest documented oppression of one race by another. True,
>it's very localised, but the beliefs of these Semitic tribes had a large
>bearing on a lot of what was to follow globally as the Roman Empire died
>out.
Judaism (as codified by Moses) was known to neighbouring civilisations for
1,300 years without having any influence whatsoever. Similarly, Christianity
was a fringe belief until it was taken up by Constantine the Great in AD
313. In AD 325, he convened the Council of Nicea, and the New Testament as
we know it today came into being. Anyone who disagreed with it was branded a
heretic and lost their titles, possessions, and sometimes their lives. So it
was not the beliefs that shaped history but, as always, those in power.
I suppose the Iliad's no cop as history either?
>--
Schliemann got a clue to the whereabouts of Troy from the Iliad but nobody
in their right mind would suggest that Cyclops, Sirens, or Poseidon ever
existed merely because one verifiable fact was sifted from Homer's story.
Yet whenever someone digs up anything to corroborate the Biblical story, the
Holy Joes jump on it as proof positive that everything in the Bible is true.
BD
jof
> the New Testament as we know it today came into being. Anyone who disagreed
> with it was branded a heretic and lost their titles, possessions, and
> sometimes their lives. So it was not the beliefs that shaped history but, as
> always, those in power.
Sorry, I don't follow that. Surely if you're punished for not following a
set of beliefs, those beliefs are shaping your destiny, regardless of who's
enforcing them?
> I suppose the Iliad's no cop as history either?
>
> Yet whenever someone digs up anything to corroborate the Biblical story, the
> Holy Joes jump on it as proof positive that everything in the Bible is true.
Ah, I didn't meaning in the sense of physical artefacts and remnants, but in
terms of the culture and belief-system of the people who were around at the
time. As my history teacher always said, it's not what happened, but why,
that's important. Events from the past shape the present, just as those in
the here and now affect the future.
The stories of a culture's beliefs and their physical achievements are
inherently intertwined: you can't study the one without the other.
--
j...@overhope.org.uk
"You're wasting bandwidth..."
Bill Davidson
jof wrote in message ...
>
>> the New Testament as we know it today came into being. Anyone who
disagreed
>> with it was branded a heretic and lost their titles, possessions, and
>> sometimes their lives. So it was not the beliefs that shaped history but,
as
>> always, those in power.
>
>Sorry, I don't follow that. Surely if you're punished for not following a
>set of beliefs, those beliefs are shaping your destiny, regardless of who's
>enforcing them?
Let's start again. I start from the point of view that everything in the
Bible is but fiction wound round verifiable geography, and in the case of
the New Testament, some historically verifiable figures. Those in power use
these fictions as it suits them. Moses wanted to unify the tribes of Israel,
so he invented the fiction of recieving the Ten Commandments from God, and
proceeded to purge all dissenters and Animist elements within Judaism.
Constantine saw the "one god" idea of Christianity as a useful unifying
force and so "converted". Arabian chiefs saw themselves being threatened by
the spread of the unifying force of Christianity with a headquarters in
Rome, and promptly invented their own prophet to counter the threat. This
prophet they called Mohammed and the religion became known as Islam, and of
course, with a headquarters in Mecca. The idea that Islam is a tolerant
religion is just another fiction since they, like Crusading Christians, gave
invaded populations a simple choice: convert or die.
All this comes from a few individuals imposing a new order on millions of
people as a whole. It was not Judaism that changed the world: it was Moses
who changed Judaism. Christianity didn't change the Roman Empire:
Constantine did. It was not Arianism that changed Germany: Adolf Hitler did.
In other words, individuals shape history. The writings of Karl Marx would
mean nothing if Lenin had not implemented them.
>
>> I suppose the Iliad's no cop as history either?
>>
>> Yet whenever someone digs up anything to corroborate the Biblical story,
the
>> Holy Joes jump on it as proof positive that everything in the Bible is
true.
>
>Ah, I didn't meaning in the sense of physical artefacts and remnants, but
in
>terms of the culture and belief-system of the people who were around at the
>time. As my history teacher always said, it's not what happened, but why,
>that's important. Events from the past shape the present, just as those in
>the here and now affect the future.
>
>The stories of a culture's beliefs and their physical achievements are
>inherently intertwined: you can't study the one without the other.
>--
This is a contradiction of your website, which seems to suggest there are no
constants, no standards, in other words, no universal truths.
BD
jof
> Let's start again. I start from the point of view that everything in the
> Bible is but fiction wound round verifiable geography, and in the case of
> the New Testament, some historically verifiable figures.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on that point, I'm afraid. I've yet
to find smoke without a fire lurking in the vicinity...
Anyway, I'm not tyring to say that every religious text should be taken at
face value and treated as 100% reliable fact, but should be considered in
conjunction with other sources of information to build a cross-correlated
picture with more depth than any one source can provide independently.
Example: say we were all wiped out and future archaeologists started
excavating and cataloguing our buildings and cities. They come to a
Christian church, and note its orientation, layout, internal arrangement and
decoration. Those with a working knowledge of Christianity understand the
relevance and significance of these details, but to someone coming to it
cold, it would all be conjecture. At the same time they start looking at,
say, the flying buttresses and arched ceilings. To one without a knowledge
of building and engineering practice, such features are ostensibly
decorative. An architect, understanding the engineering behind them,
appreciates that they allow a large open space to be self-supporting, but
without an appreciation of the usage of that space it is not self-evident
why it would be so made. A stonemason or carpenter would appreciate that the
decorative aspects of the construction represent effort beyond the needs of
practicality, but wouldn't know why such lengths had been gone to. Upon
examining the statues, paintings and sculptures, an artist could appreciate
the workmanship and artistry, but without further information the people and
events depicted are devoid of meaning, and so on and so on... So many
aspects of life are inherently abstruse or peculiar unless the manifold
underlying effects are incorporated into a study of them
> All this comes from a few individuals imposing a new order on millions of
> people as a whole. It was not Judaism that changed the world: it was Moses
> who changed Judaism. Christianity didn't change the Roman Empire:
> Constantine did. It was not Arianism that changed Germany: Adolf Hitler did.
> In other words, individuals shape history. The writings of Karl Marx would
> mean nothing if Lenin had not implemented them.
OK, but would any of those individuals have wrought the changes they did
were the precepts they used not in prior existence? It's always easier to
take a generally-accepted point of view and bend it to one's own needs than
to set one up from scratch.
I would argue that the people who shape history act as a catalyst for a set
of idealogical and contextual circumstances that exist at one given time.
Should one factor not be present, or slightly different, that person
wouldn't have the opportunity to cause the same events to happen.
>> The stories of a culture's beliefs and their physical achievements are
>> inherently intertwined: you can't study the one without the other.
>
> This is a contradiction of your website, which seems to suggest there are no
> constants, no standards, in other words, no universal truths.
Criminy, didn't expect that to pop up in here! Those conclusions stem from
two core areas:
1: Quantum mechanics: essentially it is impossible to precisely say what a
given particle is up to, merely assign a probability to its behaviour. On
the macroscopic scale you're dealing with so many disparate particles that
the overall behaviour of the system tends toward the average probabilty
pattern for each individual particle. As ever with statistical analysis the
larger your sample, the more clearly marked that average will be.
2: Special relativity: no two observers will agree about a given event, but
will have a slghtly different perception of it. Again, the more observations
you have, the better a picture you have of what actually went on.
I think that's pretty self-consistent. That said, reading that website
without a tongue in your cheek is often misleading...
--
j...@overhope.org.uk
"Whatever the hell it is, it sure ain't rocket science."
Bill Davidson
jof wrote in message ...
>
>> Let's start again. I start from the point of view that everything in the
>> Bible is but fiction wound round verifiable geography, and in the case of
>> the New Testament, some historically verifiable figures.
>
>We're going to have to agree to disagree on that point, I'm afraid. I've
yet
>to find smoke without a fire lurking in the vicinity...
>
A good point to wind this thread up, I'd say.
BD
jof
> A good point to wind this thread up, I'd say.
Agreed. Cheers.
--
j...@overhope.org.uk
"Life should not be taken seriously. The Internet is a poor simulacrum
of life, and therefore the above goes double." Book of Overhope, Vol1