On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> > > > -snips-
> > > > > Whatever the reason for taking another's property, its stealing.
> > > > Not legally, certainly.
> > > > Off the top of my head, I can come up with at least a half a dozen
> > > > scenarios where taking the property of another is not "stealing"
> > > > under the law.
> > > Hmmm, An example or two if you please.
> > Well, on the government side we've eminient domain and impressment.
> Under the Absolute Moral Law this is stealing.
Glad to hear that God has delivered The Absolute Moral Law into
your keeping. And that That Particular Moral Law trumps the thousands
of other Absolute Moral Laws which various other self-proclaimed
prophets have advanced over the years.
Did you receive the Absolute Moral Law in the form of engraved stone
tablets handed down on some mountain top or did a burning bush speak
to you? Or was it a more New World revelation which came in a vision
during a peyote-induced episode?
Fie!
-snips-
> > Iffen my house is on fire, there's nothing morally wrong about
> > taking my neighbor's garden hose.
> There is if your neighbor doesn't permit.. Anyhoo, I think
> you meant "borrow" not "take".
"Take" is take and the morality is not affected if I'm unable
to return to hose. Moreover, theft is not less 'theft' just
'cause the thief "intends" to return the stolen property someday.
> > And if my neighbor is starting the fires, there's nothing morally
> > wrong with taking his matches away.
> I don't believe depriving a criminal of his tools for
> committing crime is stealing.
That would be under yer Particular Brand of The Absolute Moral
Law, eh?
It is, none the less, "taking the property of another". Which
apparently is one situational ethic which your Particular Brand
of The Absolute Moral Law recognizes as something other than
"stealling".
Progress, of a sort, I suppose.
-snips-
Peace and justice,
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
-snips-
> > > I don't believe depriving a criminal of his tools for
> > > committing crime is stealing.
> > That would be under yer Particular Brand of The Absolute Moral
> > Law, eh?
> > It is, none the less, "taking the property of another". Which
> > apparently is one situational ethic which your Particular Brand
> > of The Absolute Moral Law recognizes as something other than
> > "stealling".
> Taking away the criminal's means to commit crime is not stealing.
> Nor is executing a criminal, stealing his life. Criminals have no
> rights of possession, thus they can not be stolen from.
So, iffen my neighbor is a drug dealer or a sex offender, I've license
under yer Absolute Morality to take whatever I wish from him? And Michael
Jackson's fortune is morally mine to claim iffen I'm strong enough or
crafty enough to take it?
How criminal must he be before he and all he owns is fair game under
yer Absolute Moral Law? Need it be a felony or will just a misdemenor
do? How 'bout a traffic ticket? Need I await a guilty verdict before
helping myself to his things or is my Absolute Moral conviction that he
is, in fact, a criminal sufficient?
'Course felonies/misdemeanors/traffic offenses are all human created
distinctions and criminal convictions are not only human constructs
but subject to human error from time to time. As such, they'd seem
a bit outa place in a scheme of Absolute Moral Law but what the heck.
> There are no relativistic gray areas in Absolute Morality. It
> covers all contingencies, all situations, and circumstances.
There is no Absolute Morality, 'cept in yer mind. Iffen it works
for you and isn't illegal, go for it. But it's not anything anyone
else either need or should subscribe to.
Peace and justice,
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> > > You persist in disingenuously confusing man made
> > > law with Absolute Morality.
> > And you persist in insisting that there is such a thing
> > as Absolute Morality without suggesting any means of objectively
> > determining either its existance or its perameters.
> I repeat: That which challenges human desire is
> Absolutely Moral... that which panders to
> human desire, is not.
'Cause you say so? Or because you claim yer particular
version of god sezs so?
That is simply circular reasoning and of absolutely no
utility at all.
I say exactly the opposite of what you say. And MY god
sez exactly the opposite of what you claim yer god sez.
-I- say that what is moral is that which increases human
happiness and welfare and that which does not, is not.
Now, just how are we to determine which of us (if either)
is correct? Or which of our gods (if either) has the
straight scoop on this sort of thing?
Pronouncements ex cathedra simply won't do. There is
no particular reason at all why anyone should accept
-your- pronouncements on the subject in preferrance to
the literally thousands of pronouncements made by others
on the same subject over the past three millenia or so.
Many of those pronouncements differ quite greatly from
yours and almost all were pronounced with equal conviction
but a similar lack of substantiation.
Peace and justice,
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FF0BC8A.3E4D1BD4@no-spam
>
>
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >
> > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> >
> > > > On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >
> > > > > You persist in disingenuously confusing man made
> > > > > law with Absolute Morality.
> >
> > > > And you persist in insisting that there is such a thing
> > > > as Absolute Morality without suggesting any means of objectively
> > > > determining either its existance or its perameters.
> >
> > > I repeat: That which challenges human desire is
> > > Absolutely Moral... that which panders to
> > > human desire, is not.
> >
> > 'Cause you say so? Or because you claim yer particular
> > version of god sezs so?
> >
> > That is simply circular reasoning and of absolutely no
> > utility at all.
> >
> > I say exactly the opposite of what you say. And MY god
> > sez exactly the opposite of what you claim yer god sez.
> >
> > -I- say that what is moral is that which increases human
> > happiness and welfare and that which does not, is not.
>
> How is this opposite of what I say?
>
> >
> >
> > Now, just how are we to determine which of us (if either)
> > is correct?
>
> What you said above agrees with what I say.
>
> > Or which of our gods (if either) has the
> > straight scoop on this sort of thing?
>
> My God is the God of Moses, which one is yours?
Your god is a figment of your imagination.
But go ahead and prove me otherwise.
Dave Thompson wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3FF0BC8A.3E4D1BD4@no-spam
> >
> >
> > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > >
> > > > > On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > You persist in disingenuously confusing man made
> > > > > > law with Absolute Morality.
> > >
> > > > > And you persist in insisting that there is such a thing
> > > > > as Absolute Morality without suggesting any means of objectively
> > > > > determining either its existance or its perameters.
> > >
> > > > I repeat: That which challenges human desire is
> > > > Absolutely Moral... that which panders to
> > > > human desire, is not.
> > >
> > > 'Cause you say so? Or because you claim yer particular
> > > version of god sezs so?
> > >
> > > That is simply circular reasoning and of absolutely no
> > > utility at all.
> > >
> > > I say exactly the opposite of what you say. And MY god
> > > sez exactly the opposite of what you claim yer god sez.
> > >
> > > -I- say that what is moral is that which increases human
> > > happiness and welfare and that which does not, is not.
> >
> > How is this opposite of what I say?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Now, just how are we to determine which of us (if either)
> > > is correct?
> >
> > What you said above agrees with what I say.
> >
> > > Or which of our gods (if either) has the
> > > straight scoop on this sort of thing?
> >
> > My God is the God of Moses, which one is yours?
>
> Your god is a figment of your imagination.
>
> But go ahead and prove me otherwise.
Repeat: Absolute Morals existing in an
amoral world proves God.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FF37802.A065AF8C@no-spam
>
>
> Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FF0BC8A.3E4D1BD4@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > You persist in disingenuously confusing man made
> > > > > > > law with Absolute Morality.
> > > >
> > > > > > And you persist in insisting that there is such a thing
> > > > > > as Absolute Morality without suggesting any means of objectively
> > > > > > determining either its existance or its perameters.
> > > >
> > > > > I repeat: That which challenges human desire is
> > > > > Absolutely Moral... that which panders to
> > > > > human desire, is not.
> > > >
> > > > 'Cause you say so? Or because you claim yer particular
> > > > version of god sezs so?
> > > >
> > > > That is simply circular reasoning and of absolutely no
> > > > utility at all.
> > > >
> > > > I say exactly the opposite of what you say. And MY god
> > > > sez exactly the opposite of what you claim yer god sez.
> > > >
> > > > -I- say that what is moral is that which increases human
> > > > happiness and welfare and that which does not, is not.
> > >
> > > How is this opposite of what I say?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now, just how are we to determine which of us (if either)
> > > > is correct?
> > >
> > > What you said above agrees with what I say.
> > >
> > > > Or which of our gods (if either) has the
> > > > straight scoop on this sort of thing?
> > >
> > > My God is the God of Moses, which one is yours?
> >
> > Your god is a figment of your imagination.
> >
> > But go ahead and prove me otherwise.
>
> Repeat: Absolute Morals existing in an
> amoral world proves God.
So you've proved nothing.
Dave Thompson wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3FF37802.A065AF8C@no-spam
> >
> >
> > Dave Thompson wrote:
> >
> > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3FF0BC8A.3E4D1BD4@no-spam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > You persist in disingenuously confusing man made
> > > > > > > > law with Absolute Morality.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > And you persist in insisting that there is such a thing
> > > > > > > as Absolute Morality without suggesting any means of objectively
> > > > > > > determining either its existance or its perameters.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I repeat: That which challenges human desire is
> > > > > > Absolutely Moral... that which panders to
> > > > > > human desire, is not.
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Cause you say so? Or because you claim yer particular
> > > > > version of god sezs so?
> > > > >
> > > > > That is simply circular reasoning and of absolutely no
> > > > > utility at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > I say exactly the opposite of what you say. And MY god
> > > > > sez exactly the opposite of what you claim yer god sez.
> > > > >
> > > > > -I- say that what is moral is that which increases human
> > > > > happiness and welfare and that which does not, is not.
> > > >
> > > > How is this opposite of what I say?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, just how are we to determine which of us (if either)
> > > > > is correct?
> > > >
> > > > What you said above agrees with what I say.
> > > >
> > > > > Or which of our gods (if either) has the
> > > > > straight scoop on this sort of thing?
> > > >
> > > > My God is the God of Moses, which one is yours?
> > >
> > > Your god is a figment of your imagination.
> > >
> > > But go ahead and prove me otherwise.
> >
> > Repeat: Absolute Morals existing in an
> > amoral world proves God.
>
> So you've proved nothing.
Babbling is good.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
Baxter wrote:
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Huh??" <liberals.suck@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:vv91ka57kn2c75@no-spam
> >
> > "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0401011207290.6162-100000@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> > >
> > > > In God's image does not mean man was made
> > > > to be like God but that God made man as He
> > > > imagined him. The evil is yours (man's}, not
> > > > God's.
> > >
> > > Damn poor god iffen that's the best he can conjure up.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Peace and justice,
> > >
> >
> >
> > Pssssttt..... Stupid. Have ya heard of freedom of choice? Or maybe you
> > thought he only made puppets.
> >
> > Choice is ours
> >
> > If you have children, and you tell them not to touch a hot stove because
> it
> > will burn them. Doesn't your heart rip when they do it anyway and get
> hurt?
> > The child made the wrong choice but it was a lesson learned. Be it a hard
> > lesson. Now, think about it.
> >
> Actually, the Old Testament god is the source of both all good and all evil.
Both of which are moral, not material phenomena.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
"Huh??" <liberals.suck@no-spam> wrote in
news:vvbct57dobet09@no-spam
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:U%hJb.39138$E17.22017@no-spam
>> Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in
>> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0401012237350.12773-100000@no-spam
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Huh?? wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0401011207290.6162-100000@no-spam
>> >
>> >> > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>> >
>> >> > > In God's image does not mean man was made
>> >> > > to be like God but that God made man as He
>> >> > > imagined him. The evil is yours (man's}, not
>> >> > > God's.
>> >
>> >> > Damn poor god iffen that's the best he can conjure up.
>> >
>> >> Pssssttt..... Stupid. Have ya heard of freedom of choice? Or maybe
>> >> you thought he only made puppets.
>> >
>> > Damn poor god who chooses Auschwitz over no Auschwitz.
>> >
>> >> Choice is ours
>> >
>> > The folks at Auschwitz had damn little choice in the matter.
>>
>> That was a Test, Bill.
>>
>> For the majority of folks at Aschwicz, God was *That* God. The OT One
>> and Only. He of Sacrifices, Plagues, and Arson. Not to mention total
>> destruction of cities and turning folk into salt.
>
>
> Are you referring to Sodom and Gomorrah slobby? Might want to mention
> to the folks here why that was done.
>
> Celebrate Life
The OT God Doesn't.
>
>
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in message =
news:tOjJb.18947$nK2.8134@no-spam
> "Huh??" <liberals.suck@no-spam> wrote in
> news:vvbct57dobet09@no-spam
>=20
> >=20
> > "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:U%hJb.39138$E17.22017@no-spam
> >> Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in
> >> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0401012237350.12773-100000@no-spam
> >>=20
> >> >=20
> >> >=20
> >> >=20
> >> >=20
> >> > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Huh?? wrote:
> >> >=20
> >> >> "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> >> =
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0401011207290.6162-100000@no-spam
> >> >=20
> >> >> > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >> >=20
> >> >> > > In God's image does not mean man was made
> >> >> > > to be like God but that God made man as He
> >> >> > > imagined him. The evil is yours (man's}, not
> >> >> > > God's.
> >> >=20
> >> >> > Damn poor god iffen that's the best he can conjure up.
> >> >=20
> >> >> Pssssttt..... Stupid. Have ya heard of freedom of choice? Or =
maybe
> >> >> you thought he only made puppets.
> >> >=20
> >> > Damn poor god who chooses Auschwitz over no Auschwitz.
> >> >=20
> >> >> Choice is ours
> >> >=20
> >> > The folks at Auschwitz had damn little choice in the matter.
> >>=20
> >> That was a Test, Bill.=20
> >>=20
> >> For the majority of folks at Aschwicz, God was *That* God. The OT =
One
> >> and Only. He of Sacrifices, Plagues, and Arson. Not to mention =
total
> >> destruction of cities and turning folk into salt.=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Are you referring to Sodom and Gomorrah slobby? Might want to =
mention
> > to the folks here why that was done.=20
> >=20
> > Celebrate Life
>=20
> The OT God Doesn't.
God doesn't mention why it was destroyed. How about a couple of homos =
wanting to get busy with the Angels (messengers) from God. Or all the =
other thanks that were takeing place before Lot and his family got to =
town. Care to guess why today we have a word commonly used called =
sodomy?
=20
Gen 19:4-13
4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both =
old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. =
5 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to =
you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." 6 So =
Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 =
and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have =
two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to =
you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, =
since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof." 9 =
And they said, "Stand back!" Then they said, "This one came in to stay =
here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you =
than with them." So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near =
to break down the door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and =
pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they =
struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both =
small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door.=20
12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Son-in-law, =
your sons, your daughters, and whomever you have in the city--take them =
out of this place! 13 For we will destroy this place, because the outcry =
against them has grown great before the face of the LORD, and the LORD =
has sent us to destroy it."
NKJV
"Huh??" <liberals.suck@no-spam> wrote in
news:vvcgu6fs9vmu40@no-spam
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:tOjJb.18947$nK2.8134@no-spam
>> "Huh??" <liberals.suck@no-spam> wrote in
>> news:vvbct57dobet09@no-spam
>>
>> >
>> > "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in message
>> > news:U%hJb.39138$E17.22017@no-spam
>> >> Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in
>> >> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0401012237350.12773-100000@no-spam
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Huh?? wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >> >>
> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0401011207290.6162-100000@no-spam
>> >> >
>> >> >> > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > > In God's image does not mean man was made
>> >> >> > > to be like God but that God made man as He
>> >> >> > > imagined him. The evil is yours (man's}, not
>> >> >> > > God's.
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Damn poor god iffen that's the best he can conjure up.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Pssssttt..... Stupid. Have ya heard of freedom of choice? Or
> maybe
>> >> >> you thought he only made puppets.
>> >> >
>> >> > Damn poor god who chooses Auschwitz over no Auschwitz.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Choice is ours
>> >> >
>> >> > The folks at Auschwitz had damn little choice in the matter.
>> >>
>> >> That was a Test, Bill.
>> >>
>> >> For the majority of folks at Aschwicz, God was *That* God. The OT
> One
>> >> and Only. He of Sacrifices, Plagues, and Arson. Not to mention
> total
>> >> destruction of cities and turning folk into salt.
>> >
>> >
>> > Are you referring to Sodom and Gomorrah slobby? Might want to
> mention
>> > to the folks here why that was done.
>> >
>> > Celebrate Life
>>
>> The OT God Doesn't.
>
> God doesn't mention why it was destroyed. How about a couple of homos
> wanting to get busy with the Angels (messengers) from God. Or all the
> other thanks that were takeing place before Lot and his family got to
> town. Care to guess why today we have a word commonly used called
> sodomy?
>
>
> Gen 19:4-13
>
> 4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom,
> both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the
> house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men
> who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them
> carnally." 6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the
> door behind him, 7 and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so
> wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man;
> please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you
> wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have
> come under the shadow of my roof." 9 And they said, "Stand back!" Then
> they said, "This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a
> judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them." So they
> pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the
> door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the
> house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck the men who
> were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great,
> so that they became weary trying to find the door.
>
> 12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Son-in-law,
> your sons, your daughters, and whomever you have in the city--take
> them out of this place! 13 For we will destroy this place, because the
> outcry against them has grown great before the face of the LORD, and
> the LORD has sent us to destroy it." NKJV
>
>
Hey, if Lot blundered into a Bath House, sounds like it was His problem.
We do believe that God made thos Sodomites in His Image, right?
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in message =
news:HctJb.20878$nK2.19002@no-spam
> "Huh??" <liberals.suck@no-spam> wrote in
> news:vvcgu6fs9vmu40@no-spam
>=20
> >=20
> > "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:tOjJb.18947$nK2.8134@no-spam
> >> "Huh??" <liberals.suck@no-spam> wrote in
> >> news:vvbct57dobet09@no-spam
> >>=20
> >> >=20
> >> > "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> > news:U%hJb.39138$E17.22017@no-spam
> >> >> Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in
> >> >> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0401012237350.12773-100000@no-spam =
> >> >>=20
> >> >> >=20
> >> >> >=20
> >> >> >=20
> >> >> >=20
> >> >> > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Huh?? wrote:
> >> >> >=20
> >> >> >> "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> >> >>=20
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0401011207290.6162-100000@no-spam
> >> >> >=20
> >> >> >> > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >> >> >=20
> >> >> >> > > In God's image does not mean man was made
> >> >> >> > > to be like God but that God made man as He
> >> >> >> > > imagined him. The evil is yours (man's}, not
> >> >> >> > > God's.
> >> >> >=20
> >> >> >> > Damn poor god iffen that's the best he can conjure up.
> >> >> >=20
> >> >> >> Pssssttt..... Stupid. Have ya heard of freedom of choice? Or=20
> > maybe
> >> >> >> you thought he only made puppets.
> >> >> >=20
> >> >> > Damn poor god who chooses Auschwitz over no Auschwitz.
> >> >> >=20
> >> >> >> Choice is ours
> >> >> >=20
> >> >> > The folks at Auschwitz had damn little choice in the matter.
> >> >>=20
> >> >> That was a Test, Bill.=20
> >> >>=20
> >> >> For the majority of folks at Aschwicz, God was *That* God. The =
OT=20
> > One
> >> >> and Only. He of Sacrifices, Plagues, and Arson. Not to mention=20
> > total
> >> >> destruction of cities and turning folk into salt.=20
> >> >=20
> >> >=20
> >> > Are you referring to Sodom and Gomorrah slobby? Might want to=20
> > mention
> >> > to the folks here why that was done.=20
> >> >=20
> >> > Celebrate Life
> >>=20
> >> The OT God Doesn't.
> >=20
> > God doesn't mention why it was destroyed. How about a couple of =
homos
> > wanting to get busy with the Angels (messengers) from God. Or all =
the
> > other thanks that were takeing place before Lot and his family got =
to
> > town. Care to guess why today we have a word commonly used called
> > sodomy?=20
> > =20
> >=20
> > Gen 19:4-13
> >=20
> > 4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom,
> > both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded =
the
> > house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men
> > who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them
> > carnally." 6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the
> > door behind him, 7 and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so
> > wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man;
> > please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you
> > wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they =
have
> > come under the shadow of my roof." 9 And they said, "Stand back!" =
Then
> > they said, "This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a
> > judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them." So they
> > pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the
> > door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the
> > house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck the men who
> > were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and =
great,
> > so that they became weary trying to find the door.=20
> >=20
> > 12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Son-in-law,
> > your sons, your daughters, and whomever you have in the city--take
> > them out of this place! 13 For we will destroy this place, because =
the
> > outcry against them has grown great before the face of the LORD, and
> > the LORD has sent us to destroy it." NKJV
> >=20
> >=20
>=20
> Hey, if Lot blundered into a Bath House, sounds like it was His =
problem.=20
> We do believe that God made thos Sodomites in His Image, right?
Aaaa...., slobby somehow, you keep forgetting what your being told or, =
you choose to ignore it. Try real hard this time. Free will, free will, =
free will
Try it, it's easy :)
"Huh??" <liberals.suck@no-spam> wrote in
news:vvcpqh7snjfq3c@no-spam
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:HctJb.20878$nK2.19002@no-spam
>> "Huh??" <liberals.suck@no-spam> wrote in
>> news:vvcgu6fs9vmu40@no-spam
>>
>> >
>> > "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in message
>> > news:tOjJb.18947$nK2.8134@no-spam
>> >> "Huh??" <liberals.suck@no-spam> wrote in
>> >> news:vvbct57dobet09@no-spam
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in
>> >> > message news:U%hJb.39138$E17.22017@no-spam
>> >> >> Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in
>> >> >> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0401012237350.12773-100000@no-spam
>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Huh?? wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>
>> > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0401011207290.6162-100000@no-spam
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > In God's image does not mean man was made
>> >> >> >> > > to be like God but that God made man as He
>> >> >> >> > > imagined him. The evil is yours (man's}, not
>> >> >> >> > > God's.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Damn poor god iffen that's the best he can conjure up.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Pssssttt..... Stupid. Have ya heard of freedom of choice? Or
>> > maybe
>> >> >> >> you thought he only made puppets.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Damn poor god who chooses Auschwitz over no Auschwitz.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Choice is ours
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The folks at Auschwitz had damn little choice in the matter.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That was a Test, Bill.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For the majority of folks at Aschwicz, God was *That* God. The
> OT
>> > One
>> >> >> and Only. He of Sacrifices, Plagues, and Arson. Not to mention
>> > total
>> >> >> destruction of cities and turning folk into salt.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Are you referring to Sodom and Gomorrah slobby? Might want to
>> > mention
>> >> > to the folks here why that was done.
>> >> >
>> >> > Celebrate Life
>> >>
>> >> The OT God Doesn't.
>> >
>> > God doesn't mention why it was destroyed. How about a couple of
> homos
>> > wanting to get busy with the Angels (messengers) from God. Or all
> the
>> > other thanks that were takeing place before Lot and his family got
> to
>> > town. Care to guess why today we have a word commonly used called
>> > sodomy?
>> >
>> >
>> > Gen 19:4-13
>> >
>> > 4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom,
>> > both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded
> the
>> > house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men
>> > who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them
>> > carnally." 6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the
>> > door behind him, 7 and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so
>> > wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man;
>> > please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you
>> > wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they
> have
>> > come under the shadow of my roof." 9 And they said, "Stand back!"
> Then
>> > they said, "This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a
>> > judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them." So they
>> > pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the
>> > door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into
>> > the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck the men
>> > who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and
> great,
>> > so that they became weary trying to find the door.
>> >
>> > 12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here?
>> > Son-in-law, your sons, your daughters, and whomever you have in the
>> > city--take them out of this place! 13 For we will destroy this
>> > place, because
> the
>> > outcry against them has grown great before the face of the LORD,
>> > and the LORD has sent us to destroy it." NKJV
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Hey, if Lot blundered into a Bath House, sounds like it was His
> problem.
>> We do believe that God made thos Sodomites in His Image, right?
>
> Aaaa...., slobby somehow, you keep forgetting what your being told or,
> you choose to ignore it. Try real hard this time. Free will, free
> will, free will
>
> Try it, it's easy :)
So for Exercising Free Will you get Punished. Osiris is a better deal.
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Huh??" <liberals.suck@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vvcgu6fs9vmu40@no-spam
>God doesn't mention why it was destroyed.
Yet most people assume it's homosexuality.
>How about a couple of homos wanting to
>get busy with the Angels (messengers) from God. Or all the other thanks
that were
>takeing place before Lot and his family got to town. Care to guess why
today we
>have a word commonly used called sodomy?
Because of prudes in the 16th Century. Do remember that the story of Sodom
was supposed to have taken place several thousand years ago, yet the term
has only been in our language since the KKJ. Ever really look at the
original?
>Gen 19:4-13
>4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old
and
>young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they
called
> to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring
them
> out to us that we may know them carnally."
Really? My bible does not include the word "carnally". Is there a chance
that word was added by someone with an agenda?
> 6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7
and
>said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two
daughters
>who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may
do
>to them as you wish;
Now isn't that special!? Lot offers up his underage daughters for the crowd
to rape.
"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@no-spam> wrote in
news:vvdvusj85sq670@no-spam
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>
> "Huh??" <liberals.suck@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:vvcgu6fs9vmu40@no-spam
>
>
>>God doesn't mention why it was destroyed.
>
> Yet most people assume it's homosexuality.
>
>>How about a couple of homos wanting to
>>get busy with the Angels (messengers) from God. Or all the other
>>thanks
> that were
>>takeing place before Lot and his family got to town. Care to guess
>>why
> today we
>>have a word commonly used called sodomy?
>
> Because of prudes in the 16th Century. Do remember that the story of
> Sodom was supposed to have taken place several thousand years ago, yet
> the term has only been in our language since the KKJ. Ever really
> look at the original?
>
>
>>Gen 19:4-13
>
>>4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom,
>>both old
> and
>>young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And
>>they
> called
>> to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight?
>> Bring
> them
>> out to us that we may know them carnally."
>
> Really? My bible does not include the word "carnally". Is there a
> chance that word was added by someone with an agenda?
>
>> 6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind
>> him, 7
> and
>>said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have
>>two
> daughters
>>who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and
>>you may
> do
>>to them as you wish;
>
> Now isn't that special!? Lot offers up his underage daughters for the
> crowd to rape.
God told him to do it.
>
>
>
>
