Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #330005 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-31 18:48 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-11-04 04:06 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 155 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-10-31 18:48 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 02:45 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-11-01 03:10 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 04:17 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 21:34 -0700
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 10:45 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:47 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 16:16 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 00:53 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 19:48 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:27 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-03 08:52 +0100
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 08:50 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 15:37 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:55 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:27 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:05 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 15:46 -0700
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:37 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:04 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:06 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 09:09 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:25 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-03 00:34 +0100
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 01:09 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 01:41 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:54 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:51 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:07 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:24 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:38 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:49 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:46 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:16 -0800
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:51 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 19:49 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 10:44 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:39 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 14:49 -0700
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 16:13 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 01:07 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 19:52 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:27 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:37 +0000
@ronb is fucked in the head, big time. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-03 03:14 -0800
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:27 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:23 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 09:58 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 14:16 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:33 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 19:31 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:40 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 17:53 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:21 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 09:54 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 09:56 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:16 -0800
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 14:14 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:36 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 19:32 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:50 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-06 10:04 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-04 22:24 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:31 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-05 00:24 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 19:29 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 19:47 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:45 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:02 -0800
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:52 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:39 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:58 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:46 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:51 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:39 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:59 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:32 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:06 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:39 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:49 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 15:53 -0700
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 19:28 -0700
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 09:35 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 09:44 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:02 -0800
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 10:50 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 08:06 -0800
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 12:09 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 12:34 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 10:15 -0800
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-04 09:40 -0800
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 12:44 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 13:38 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-04 09:19 -0700
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-04 16:40 -0700
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere "vallor" <vallor@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 23:57 +0100
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-02 18:15 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 00:48 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:16 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-03 06:26 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:25 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:24 +0000
Women need choices, not enslavement. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-02 17:39 -0800
Re: Women need choices, not enslavement. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:56 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:14 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-03 06:45 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:07 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere "JEDIDIAH" <nomad@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 06:47 +0100
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-04 06:45 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:01 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 06:42 -0800
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:00 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-04 10:11 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:29 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-04 18:55 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:46 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:42 -0800
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 14:19 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 15:35 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:34 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-05 00:26 +0100
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:35 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 17:53 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 19:34 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:51 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-05 07:17 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-05 09:23 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-04 22:45 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 19:37 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 21:25 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-05 12:58 -0700
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 17:39 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:38 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:37 +0000
Evolution and the RC church vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-06 00:23 +0000
Re: Evolution and the RC church vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-06 00:30 +0000
Re: Evolution and the RC church Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-05 19:47 -0500
Re: Evolution and the RC church ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 04:15 +0000
Re: Evolution and the RC church vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-06 04:36 +0000
Re: Evolution and the RC church Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-06 06:04 -0500
Re: Evolution and the RC church chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-06 07:05 -0600
Re: Evolution and the RC church Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-06 08:14 -0500
Re: Evolution and the RC church Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-06 10:57 -0500
Re: Evolution and the RC church Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-06 11:06 -0500
Re: Evolution and the RC church ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 01:16 +0000
Re: Evolution and the RC church GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 16:14 -0700
Re: Evolution and the RC church Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-06 16:47 -0700
Re: Evolution and the RC church Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 15:53 -0800
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-06 01:34 +0000
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-05 20:37 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-06 09:13 +0100
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-06 09:39 -0600
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-06 09:19 -0700
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-06 06:02 -0500
Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:06 +0000
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 01:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n191bo$vr3$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330482 |
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:13:22 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:44:38 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> >>> He's not confused. Protestants didn't go batshit crazy about >>> abortion >>> until about 1980. Prior to 1980, that was reserved for Catholics. >> >> It's "batshit crazy" to defend life? Strangely enough, if a murderer > > Yup. Oddly enough a Catholic Nun has some nice things to say in this > area. It basically boils down to "you only care about life if it's a > fetus". > > [deletia] > > Unfortunately, there is an unfortunate correlation between those > that > merely want to make women a subservient class and those that choose to > "value life". They have no interest in actually solving this problem > beyond telling women to close their legs. They actively fight against > attempts to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Then they do all they can to > sabotage the result both in the womb and outside. Unfortunately modern society (with its return to paganism) is also returning to an age when women were sex symbols and rapist victims. When the Church came along, women were chattel, owned by their husbands or masters. The Church turned them into helpmates and mothers -- the heart of the family, which is the basic unit of society. To pine for the good old days of pagan debauchery (birth control, no control and no births) shows that you really don't understand what paganism did to women (and what it is doing to them again). The highest dignity to any human being can attain to is being a parent (father or mother). > They wage war on those that would render medical care to both mother > and > fetus. > > If you want to try and act morally superior, don't even go there. > > The humanity of a fetus is disputable. Although the real arbiter is > not > what you or I think, but what the mother thinks. It's a non-delegable > task that can be handed off to no mere man, and really something that no > one else has any business interfering with. So society shouldn't "interfere" with murder -- providing "all" (the mother and the paid abortionist) agree that it a "desirable" murder? Tell me more about this "great" modern society. How soon before infanticide returns -- where "post-born" babies are murdered should their parents decide they don't like the sex or the color of its eyes? How soon before euthanasia becomes mandatory? This is the slope we're slipping down -- especially as that adherents of that crazed ex-bitch Ayn Rand take control of more and more political offices. In their view, selfishness should be celebrated, the weak should not be tolerated? Whoa! Pinch me, I'm dreaming! The delights of a pagan/atheist society. -- Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 19:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn3g4rm.4s0.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #330552 |
On 2015-11-03, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:13:22 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:44:38 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>> He's not confused. Protestants didn't go batshit crazy about
>>>> abortion
>>>> until about 1980. Prior to 1980, that was reserved for Catholics.
>>>
>>> It's "batshit crazy" to defend life? Strangely enough, if a murderer
>>
>> Yup. Oddly enough a Catholic Nun has some nice things to say in this
>> area. It basically boils down to "you only care about life if it's a
>> fetus".
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> Unfortunately, there is an unfortunate correlation between those
>> that
>> merely want to make women a subservient class and those that choose to
>> "value life". They have no interest in actually solving this problem
>> beyond telling women to close their legs. They actively fight against
>> attempts to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Then they do all they can to
>> sabotage the result both in the womb and outside.
>
> Unfortunately modern society (with its return to paganism) is also
> returning to an age when women were sex symbols and rapist victims. When
It's like you're making my argument for me. You're really too much.
[deletia]
...at this point I am starting to wonder if it's all just a big put
on. We're starting to get into talk.origins territory here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 04:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1c1fq$d8b$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330569 |
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 19:52:54 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: > ...at this point I am starting to wonder if it's all just a big put on. > We're starting to get into talk.origins territory here. Probably so. -- Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 07:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <56386434$0$4222$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #330552 |
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 01:07:04 +0000, ronb wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:13:22 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: > >> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:44:38 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> >>>> He's not confused. Protestants didn't go batshit crazy about >>>> abortion >>>> until about 1980. Prior to 1980, that was reserved for Catholics. >>> >>> It's "batshit crazy" to defend life? Strangely enough, if a murderer >> >> Yup. Oddly enough a Catholic Nun has some nice things to say in >> this >> area. It basically boils down to "you only care about life if it's a >> fetus". >> >> [deletia] >> >> Unfortunately, there is an unfortunate correlation between those >> that >> merely want to make women a subservient class and those that choose to >> "value life". They have no interest in actually solving this problem >> beyond telling women to close their legs. They actively fight against >> attempts to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Then they do all they can to >> sabotage the result both in the womb and outside. > > Unfortunately modern society (with its return to paganism) is also > returning to an age when women were sex symbols and rapist victims. When > the Church came along, women were chattel, owned by their husbands or > masters. The Church turned them into helpmates and mothers -- the heart > of the family, which is the basic unit of society. To pine for the good > old days of pagan debauchery (birth control, no control and no births) > shows that you really don't understand what paganism did to women (and > what it is doing to them again). The highest dignity to any human being > can attain to is being a parent (father or mother). > >> They wage war on those that would render medical care to both >> mother and >> fetus. >> >> If you want to try and act morally superior, don't even go there. >> >> The humanity of a fetus is disputable. Although the real arbiter is >> not >> what you or I think, but what the mother thinks. It's a non-delegable >> task that can be handed off to no mere man, and really something that >> no one else has any business interfering with. > > So society shouldn't "interfere" with murder It's not murder. You are trying to frame the discussion in emotive terms. -- providing "all" (the > mother and the paid abortionist) What is an "abortionist"? > agree that it a "desirable" murder? It's not murder. You are trying to frame the discussion in emotive terms. > Tell me more about this "great" modern society. How soon before > infanticide returns According to you, it's already here. Except, it isn't, because it's not infantcide to abort a fetus in the first trimester. > -- where "post-born" babies are murdered should > their parents decide they don't like the sex or the color of its eyes? I'm sure you'll be showing evidence of such a thing any time now. Here's a clue: human beings, by and large, have consciences, and would not allow that to happen. Your device of referring to non-Catholics as "atheist/pagan" implies that only Catholics have such consciences -- thankfully that is easily proved false. > How soon before euthanasia becomes mandatory? This doesn't even make any sense. > This is the slope we're > slipping down No, the slope we're slipping down is your slippery-slope argument -- a logical fallacy. Kindly return to the realm of logic and reason, so that we can discuss this. > -- especially as that adherents of that crazed ex-bitch > Ayn Rand take control of more and more political offices. Rand's ideas were awful. Fortunately, most people already know that, even if they don't know who Rand was. > In their view, > selfishness should be celebrated, the weak should not be tolerated? > Whoa! Pinch me, I'm dreaming! The delights of a pagan/atheist society. Which is it -- Pagan or Atheist? Can't be both. Here's a riddle-me-this: What would you say about a religion that personifies the "natural" order of the Cosmos? Because from c. 500BCE, the term "Logos" referred to the "divine order" -- but then, in early Christianity, _Jesus Christ_ was considered the personification of Logos. (In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) Not "pagan" enough for you? What about deification of great heroes of a religion? Hercules got this treatment -- and it could be argued, so did Jesus. Then you have the curious fact that anyone who tries to describe the Trinity in rational terms is considered heretical, and has been ever since the idea first came about. It's the thing-that-shall-not-be- defined. Don't believe me? Ask your priest some day how many minds God has. And I can go on and on with this sort of discussion (and I have, in other venues -- if it isn't obvious already). I don't begrudge you being a Roman Catholic, and I'll admit there are factions within the RC church that do a lot of good in this world. (Catholic Charities comes to mind.) Just don't pretend that Christianity (including the RC church) is somehow "pure" from "pagan" influences. Because when you scratch the surface, you'll see that Christianity is a pretty close synthesis of Hellenistic and Jewish thought, and there is a _lot_ of weirdness in the early church's genesis. -- -v Kernel:4.1.5-sd Desktop:Xfce 4.12.2 Distro:Linux Mint 17.2 Rafaela
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 03:14 -0800 |
| Subject | @ronb is fucked in the head, big time. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.3{3.14A.Seattle.2015}> |
| In reply to | #330602 |
@ronb is fucked in the head, big time. He's poorly educated, to say the least. I doubt he could be a functioning member of society.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 13:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn3i2l7.nca.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #330602 |
On 2015-11-03, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 01:07:04 +0000, ronb wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:13:22 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:44:38 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He's not confused. Protestants didn't go batshit crazy about
>>>>> abortion
>>>>> until about 1980. Prior to 1980, that was reserved for Catholics.
>>>>
>>>> It's "batshit crazy" to defend life? Strangely enough, if a murderer
>>>
>>> Yup. Oddly enough a Catholic Nun has some nice things to say in
>>> this
>>> area. It basically boils down to "you only care about life if it's a
>>> fetus".
>>>
>>> [deletia]
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, there is an unfortunate correlation between those
>>> that
>>> merely want to make women a subservient class and those that choose to
>>> "value life". They have no interest in actually solving this problem
>>> beyond telling women to close their legs. They actively fight against
>>> attempts to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Then they do all they can to
>>> sabotage the result both in the womb and outside.
>>
>> Unfortunately modern society (with its return to paganism) is also
>> returning to an age when women were sex symbols and rapist victims. When
>> the Church came along, women were chattel, owned by their husbands or
>> masters. The Church turned them into helpmates and mothers -- the heart
>> of the family, which is the basic unit of society. To pine for the good
>> old days of pagan debauchery (birth control, no control and no births)
>> shows that you really don't understand what paganism did to women (and
>> what it is doing to them again). The highest dignity to any human being
>> can attain to is being a parent (father or mother).
>>
>>> They wage war on those that would render medical care to both
>>> mother and
>>> fetus.
>>>
>>> If you want to try and act morally superior, don't even go there.
>>>
>>> The humanity of a fetus is disputable. Although the real arbiter is
>>> not
>>> what you or I think, but what the mother thinks. It's a non-delegable
>>> task that can be handed off to no mere man, and really something that
>>> no one else has any business interfering with.
>>
>> So society shouldn't "interfere" with murder
>
> It's not murder. You are trying to frame the discussion in emotive terms.
>
> -- providing "all" (the
>> mother and the paid abortionist)
>
> What is an "abortionist"?
>
>> agree that it a "desirable" murder?
>
> It's not murder. You are trying to frame the discussion in emotive terms.
As a pragmatic matter it is a bad idea to "force a woman". The process
requires cooperation of the woman to a greater degree than merely being an
enslaved vessel. There's no subtitute for maternal instinct.
Also, meddling in matters of a citizen's body is fundementally problematic
as a matter of governance in a modern democracy. It's the very essence of
unacceptably intrusive government.
It's a person when the mother says it is.
>
>
>> Tell me more about this "great" modern society. How soon before
>> infanticide returns
>
> According to you, it's already here.
>
> Except, it isn't, because it's not infantcide to abort a fetus in the
> first trimester.
>
>> -- where "post-born" babies are murdered should
>> their parents decide they don't like the sex or the color of its eyes?
>
> I'm sure you'll be showing evidence of such a thing any time now.
>
> Here's a clue: human beings, by and large, have consciences, and would
> not allow that to happen. Your device of referring to non-Catholics as
> "atheist/pagan" implies that only Catholics have such consciences --
> thankfully that is easily proved false.
Besides, we are quickly getting to the point where we can control this
ourselves and not leave it to chance.
>
>> How soon before euthanasia becomes mandatory?
>
> This doesn't even make any sense.
>
>> This is the slope we're
>> slipping down
Nope. If anything we expend great effort and money trying to save those
that are already nearly gone. Without an explicit order to the contrary, an
unlimited amount of resources will be expended to this.
[deletia]
> Just don't pretend that Christianity (including the RC church) is somehow
> "pure" from "pagan" influences. Because when you scratch the surface,
> you'll see that Christianity is a pretty close synthesis of Hellenistic
> and Jewish thought, and there is a _lot_ of weirdness in the early
> church's genesis.
A lot of Xianity is cribbed wholesale from Judiasm. This even includes
the Bible itself. Although Xians like to pick and choose which parts to take
seriously.
On the other hand, symbolic cannibalism is about as anti-Jewish as you
can get. I am not sure that even qualifies as Roman-Greek Pagan.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 04:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1c17r$d8b$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330714 |
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 13:27:35 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: > Also, meddling in matters of a citizen's body is fundementally > problematic > as a matter of governance in a modern democracy. It's the very essence > of unacceptably intrusive government. So murder -- so long as it's "within the person" is a-okay? So five minutes before a baby is born we can murder him, but five minutes after he's born we can't? What has changed (besides location)? -- Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 09:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1d69r$8g3$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330794 |
On 2015-11-04 12:02 AM, Snit wrote: > On 11/3/15, 9:23 PM, in article n1c17r$d8b$7@dont-email.me, "ronb" > <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 13:27:35 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> >>> Also, meddling in matters of a citizen's body is fundementally >>> problematic >>> as a matter of governance in a modern democracy. It's the very essence >>> of unacceptably intrusive government. >> >> So murder -- so long as it's "within the person" is a-okay? > > Murder within a person? What does that even mean? I thought it was pretty clear. In fact, it IS pretty clear. You're just baiting him, once again. >> So five minutes before a baby is born we can murder him, but five minutes >> after he's born we can't? What has changed (besides location)? > > The same thing that makes you want to control or not control the woman's > body. Five minutes before she cannot, five minutes later she can have a > hysterectomy and you would not care I bet. > > Amazing how once again you are anti-choice. He's not anti-choice, he's pointing out how immoral and inhuman abortion is by associating it with murder. No matter how you look at it, killing a baby is indeed murder. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 14:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn3kpsd.dek.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #330794 |
On 2015-11-04, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 13:27:35 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> Also, meddling in matters of a citizen's body is fundementally
>> problematic
>> as a matter of governance in a modern democracy. It's the very essence
>> of unacceptably intrusive government.
>
> So murder -- so long as it's "within the person" is a-okay? So five
> minutes before a baby is born we can murder him, but five minutes after
> he's born we can't? What has changed (besides location)?
>
Your ability to take responsibility for your meddling is what changed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 22:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1e13n$kis$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330890 |
On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:16:13 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-11-04, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 13:27:35 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> >>> Also, meddling in matters of a citizen's body is fundementally >>> problematic >>> as a matter of governance in a modern democracy. It's the very essence >>> of unacceptably intrusive government. >> >> So murder -- so long as it's "within the person" is a-okay? So five >> minutes before a baby is born we can murder him, but five minutes after >> he's born we can't? What has changed (besides location)? >> >> > Your ability to take responsibility for your meddling is what > changed. All laws (moral or legal) can be classified as "meddling" -- and often they are classified that way by those who want to break them. -- Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 19:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn3lcca.t41.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #330936 |
On 2015-11-04, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:16:13 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-04, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 13:27:35 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also, meddling in matters of a citizen's body is fundementally
>>>> problematic
>>>> as a matter of governance in a modern democracy. It's the very essence
>>>> of unacceptably intrusive government.
>>>
>>> So murder -- so long as it's "within the person" is a-okay? So five
>>> minutes before a baby is born we can murder him, but five minutes after
>>> he's born we can't? What has changed (besides location)?
>>>
>>>
>> Your ability to take responsibility for your meddling is what
>> changed.
>
> All laws (moral or legal) can be classified as "meddling" -- and often
> they are classified that way by those who want to break them.
>
You can use that rationale to impose any sort of anti-democratic
law of your choosing, including Sharia Law or it's Catholic equivalent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 22:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1glt5$pcg$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #331001 |
On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 19:31:54 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: > You can use that rationale to impose any sort of anti-democratic > law of your choosing, including Sharia Law or it's Catholic equivalent. Murder is murder. If stopping murder is "anti-democratic," sign me up anyhow. -- Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 17:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1gmh9$t6d$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #331165 |
On 2015-11-05 5:40 PM, ronb wrote: > On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 19:31:54 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: > >> You can use that rationale to impose any sort of anti-democratic >> law of your choosing, including Sharia Law or it's Catholic equivalent. > > Murder is murder. If stopping murder is "anti-democratic," sign me up > anyhow. +1. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 04:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1c14u$d8b$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330602 |
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:37:24 +0000, vallor wrote: > Which is it -- Pagan or Atheist? Can't be both. Pagan and atheist society. One often paves the way for the other. > Here's a riddle-me-this: > > What would you say about a religion that personifies the "natural" order > of the Cosmos? Because from c. 500BCE, the term "Logos" referred to the > "divine order" -- but then, in early Christianity, _Jesus Christ_ was > considered the personification of Logos. (In the beginning was the Word > (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) > > Not "pagan" enough for you? What about deification of great heroes of a > religion? Hercules got this treatment -- and it could be argued, so did > Jesus. > > Then you have the curious fact that anyone who tries to describe the > Trinity in rational terms is considered heretical, and has been ever > since the idea first came about. It's the thing-that-shall-not-be- > defined. Don't believe me? Ask your priest some day how many minds God > has. > > And I can go on and on with this sort of discussion (and I have, in > other venues -- if it isn't obvious already). I don't begrudge you > being a Roman Catholic, and I'll admit there are factions within the RC > church that do a lot of good in this world. (Catholic Charities comes > to mind.) > > Just don't pretend that Christianity (including the RC church) is > somehow "pure" from "pagan" influences. Because when you scratch the > surface, you'll see that Christianity is a pretty close synthesis of > Hellenistic and Jewish thought, and there is a _lot_ of weirdness in the > early church's genesis. Unlike some Protestants, Catholics don't believe everything the pagans taught or believed was wrong. After all, St. Paul makes it clear that God can be discovered via nature (Romans 1). As for "Logos" what pagans believed (in the abstract) hundreds of years before Christ is immaterial. It's what Christ and the founders believed that matters to me. After the birth of Christ we no longer had to deal with only the abstract, we now had the reality. St. John, when speaking of the Logos, applied it to Christ. You may (or may not) want to accept that. Which is fine, make your own choice. I accept Christ's teaching and the words of the New Testament, written by His disciples. It should also be noted that some believe that part of what St. John was doing in writing his letters and Gospel was done so to oppose the Gnostics. The key to the passage, however, is this -- "And the Word (Logos) became flesh and dwelt amongst us." I have don't have to guess (or master the "secrets"), I know, because I've been told. You'll also find St. John recording Christ's words, "I am" -- the same "I am who Am" God spoke to Moses. As for abortion. No compromise on that. It's murder. Any premeditated killing of innocent life is, by definition, murder. I will admit, however, that a lot of mothers really don't understand what they are doing, but I don't see how the abortionist can ever plead ignorance. -- Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 09:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1d62f$8g3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330793 |
On 2015-11-03 11:21 PM, ronb wrote: > On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:37:24 +0000, vallor wrote: > >> Which is it -- Pagan or Atheist? Can't be both. > > Pagan and atheist society. One often paves the way for the other. > >> Here's a riddle-me-this: >> >> What would you say about a religion that personifies the "natural" order >> of the Cosmos? Because from c. 500BCE, the term "Logos" referred to the >> "divine order" -- but then, in early Christianity, _Jesus Christ_ was >> considered the personification of Logos. (In the beginning was the Word >> (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) >> >> Not "pagan" enough for you? What about deification of great heroes of a >> religion? Hercules got this treatment -- and it could be argued, so did >> Jesus. >> >> Then you have the curious fact that anyone who tries to describe the >> Trinity in rational terms is considered heretical, and has been ever >> since the idea first came about. It's the thing-that-shall-not-be- >> defined. Don't believe me? Ask your priest some day how many minds God >> has. >> >> And I can go on and on with this sort of discussion (and I have, in >> other venues -- if it isn't obvious already). I don't begrudge you >> being a Roman Catholic, and I'll admit there are factions within the RC >> church that do a lot of good in this world. (Catholic Charities comes >> to mind.) >> >> Just don't pretend that Christianity (including the RC church) is >> somehow "pure" from "pagan" influences. Because when you scratch the >> surface, you'll see that Christianity is a pretty close synthesis of >> Hellenistic and Jewish thought, and there is a _lot_ of weirdness in the >> early church's genesis. > > Unlike some Protestants, Catholics don't believe everything the pagans > taught or believed was wrong. After all, St. Paul makes it clear that God > can be discovered via nature (Romans 1). As for "Logos" what pagans > believed (in the abstract) hundreds of years before Christ is immaterial. > It's what Christ and the founders believed that matters to me. After the > birth of Christ we no longer had to deal with only the abstract, we now > had the reality. St. John, when speaking of the Logos, applied it to > Christ. You may (or may not) want to accept that. Which is fine, make > your own choice. I accept Christ's teaching and the words of the New > Testament, written by His disciples. It should also be noted that some > believe that part of what St. John was doing in writing his letters and > Gospel was done so to oppose the Gnostics. The key to the passage, > however, is this -- "And the Word (Logos) became flesh and dwelt amongst > us." I have don't have to guess (or master the "secrets"), I know, > because I've been told. You'll also find St. John recording Christ's > words, "I am" -- the same "I am who Am" God spoke to Moses. > > As for abortion. No compromise on that. It's murder. Any premeditated > killing of innocent life is, by definition, murder. I will admit, > however, that a lot of mothers really don't understand what they are > doing, but I don't see how the abortionist can ever plead ignorance. Agreed, good post. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 09:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <188915q12ezx0.177ce88de4t85.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #330828 |
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:54:15 -0500, Slimer wrote: > On 2015-11-03 11:21 PM, ronb wrote: >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:37:24 +0000, vallor wrote: >> >>> Which is it -- Pagan or Atheist? Can't be both. >> >> Pagan and atheist society. One often paves the way for the other. >> >>> Here's a riddle-me-this: >>> >>> What would you say about a religion that personifies the "natural" order >>> of the Cosmos? Because from c. 500BCE, the term "Logos" referred to the >>> "divine order" -- but then, in early Christianity, _Jesus Christ_ was >>> considered the personification of Logos. (In the beginning was the Word >>> (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) >>> >>> Not "pagan" enough for you? What about deification of great heroes of a >>> religion? Hercules got this treatment -- and it could be argued, so did >>> Jesus. >>> >>> Then you have the curious fact that anyone who tries to describe the >>> Trinity in rational terms is considered heretical, and has been ever >>> since the idea first came about. It's the thing-that-shall-not-be- >>> defined. Don't believe me? Ask your priest some day how many minds God >>> has. >>> >>> And I can go on and on with this sort of discussion (and I have, in >>> other venues -- if it isn't obvious already). I don't begrudge you >>> being a Roman Catholic, and I'll admit there are factions within the RC >>> church that do a lot of good in this world. (Catholic Charities comes >>> to mind.) >>> >>> Just don't pretend that Christianity (including the RC church) is >>> somehow "pure" from "pagan" influences. Because when you scratch the >>> surface, you'll see that Christianity is a pretty close synthesis of >>> Hellenistic and Jewish thought, and there is a _lot_ of weirdness in the >>> early church's genesis. >> >> Unlike some Protestants, Catholics don't believe everything the pagans >> taught or believed was wrong. After all, St. Paul makes it clear that God >> can be discovered via nature (Romans 1). As for "Logos" what pagans >> believed (in the abstract) hundreds of years before Christ is immaterial. >> It's what Christ and the founders believed that matters to me. After the >> birth of Christ we no longer had to deal with only the abstract, we now >> had the reality. St. John, when speaking of the Logos, applied it to >> Christ. You may (or may not) want to accept that. Which is fine, make >> your own choice. I accept Christ's teaching and the words of the New >> Testament, written by His disciples. It should also be noted that some >> believe that part of what St. John was doing in writing his letters and >> Gospel was done so to oppose the Gnostics. The key to the passage, >> however, is this -- "And the Word (Logos) became flesh and dwelt amongst >> us." I have don't have to guess (or master the "secrets"), I know, >> because I've been told. You'll also find St. John recording Christ's >> words, "I am" -- the same "I am who Am" God spoke to Moses. >> >> As for abortion. No compromise on that. It's murder. Any premeditated >> killing of innocent life is, by definition, murder. I will admit, >> however, that a lot of mothers really don't understand what they are >> doing, but I don't see how the abortionist can ever plead ignorance. > > Agreed, good post. +1000 Good post RonB. I'm enjoying both your's and Slimer's posts. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 07:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <353eb37c-245e-414c-872c-15a7a42cdf8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330793 |
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 10:06:31 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 11/3/15, 9:21 PM, in article n1c14u$d8b$6@dont-email.me, "ronb" > <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:37:24 +0000, vallor wrote: > > > >> Which is it -- Pagan or Atheist? Can't be both. > > > > Pagan and atheist society. One often paves the way for the other. > > > >> Here's a riddle-me-this: > >> > >> What would you say about a religion that personifies the "natural" order > >> of the Cosmos? Because from c. 500BCE, the term "Logos" referred to the > >> "divine order" -- but then, in early Christianity, _Jesus Christ_ was > >> considered the personification of Logos. (In the beginning was the Word > >> (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) > >> > >> Not "pagan" enough for you? What about deification of great heroes of a > >> religion? Hercules got this treatment -- and it could be argued, so did > >> Jesus. > >> > >> Then you have the curious fact that anyone who tries to describe the > >> Trinity in rational terms is considered heretical, and has been ever > >> since the idea first came about. It's the thing-that-shall-not-be- > >> defined. Don't believe me? Ask your priest some day how many minds God > >> has. > >> > >> And I can go on and on with this sort of discussion (and I have, in > >> other venues -- if it isn't obvious already). I don't begrudge you > >> being a Roman Catholic, and I'll admit there are factions within the RC > >> church that do a lot of good in this world. (Catholic Charities comes > >> to mind.) > >> > >> Just don't pretend that Christianity (including the RC church) is > >> somehow "pure" from "pagan" influences. Because when you scratch the > >> surface, you'll see that Christianity is a pretty close synthesis of > >> Hellenistic and Jewish thought, and there is a _lot_ of weirdness in the > >> early church's genesis. > > > > Unlike some Protestants, Catholics don't believe everything the pagans > > taught or believed was wrong. After all, St. Paul makes it clear that God > > can be discovered via nature (Romans 1). As for "Logos" what pagans > > believed (in the abstract) hundreds of years before Christ is immaterial. > > It's what Christ and the founders believed that matters to me. After the > > birth of Christ we no longer had to deal with only the abstract, we now > > had the reality. St. John, when speaking of the Logos, applied it to > > Christ. You may (or may not) want to accept that. Which is fine, make > > your own choice. > > Right: people should be able to make their own choices... even in the face > of people such as yourself who look to deny them that right. > > > I accept Christ's teaching and the words of the New > > Testament, written by His disciples. It should also be noted that some > > believe that part of what St. John was doing in writing his letters and > > Gospel was done so to oppose the Gnostics. The key to the passage, > > however, is this -- "And the Word (Logos) became flesh and dwelt amongst > > us." I have don't have to guess (or master the "secrets"), I know, > > because I've been told. You'll also find St. John recording Christ's > > words, "I am" -- the same "I am who Am" God spoke to Moses. > > > > As for abortion. No compromise on that. > > You are anti-choice. > > > It's murder. > > Do you accept it is OK in cases of rape or incest or the life of the mother? > If so then you are saying YOU back murder. > > Comes down to this: given the choice of my dropping a baby off a cliff or a > fertilized egg any reasonable person would have me drop the egg and not the > baby. No sane person cannot differentiate between the two. > > > Any premeditated killing of innocent life is, by definition, murder. > > Are you a vegetarian? Do you eat any root veggies? If so then by your > definition you condone murder. I love these little 'equivalencies' you come up with ;) > > I will admit, however, that a lot of mothers really don't understand what they > > are doing, but I don't see how the abortionist can ever plead ignorance. > > What the hell is an abortionist? Why are you even in this conversation, Snit? LOL! http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abortionist
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 14:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn3kppq.dek.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #330793 |
On 2015-11-04, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:37:24 +0000, vallor wrote:
>
>> Which is it -- Pagan or Atheist? Can't be both.
>
> Pagan and atheist society. One often paves the way for the other.
Actually, to be really honest a monotheist is much closer to an atheist
than a Pagan is. You are only denying one less god than any atheist. You are
deying all of those other gods just like any atheist is.
[deletia]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 22:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1e18n$kis$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330896 |
On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:14:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-11-04, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:37:24 +0000, vallor wrote: >> >>> Which is it -- Pagan or Atheist? Can't be both. >> >> Pagan and atheist society. One often paves the way for the other. > > Actually, to be really honest a monotheist is much closer to an > atheist > than a Pagan is. You are only denying one less god than any atheist. You > are deying all of those other gods just like any atheist is. > > [deletia] Both pagans and atheists are wrong -- and the void created by atheists is often filled by false religions, like paganism. -- Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 19:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn3lcdb.t41.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #330939 |
On 2015-11-04, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:14:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: > >> On 2015-11-04, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:37:24 +0000, vallor wrote: >>> >>>> Which is it -- Pagan or Atheist? Can't be both. >>> >>> Pagan and atheist society. One often paves the way for the other. >> >> Actually, to be really honest a monotheist is much closer to an >> atheist >> than a Pagan is. You are only denying one less god than any atheist. You >> are deying all of those other gods just like any atheist is. >> >> [deletia] > > Both pagans and atheists are wrong -- and the void created by atheists is > often filled by false religions, like paganism. > You're paranoid. You're really giving a small fringe far too much credit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web