On 5/21/12 7:47 AM, Tim wrote:
On May 21, 6:36 am, X ` Mandump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 5/21/12 7:29 AM, Tim wrote:









On May 21, 5:28 am, X ` Mandump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 5/20/12 11:06 PM, Tim wrote:

On May 20, 5:20 pm, X ` Man

And what could be more Mosaic than the 10
commandments?

the "10 Commandments" and the "Mosaic Law" are two different
objects, Harry.

The commandments were Gods benchmark, and the Law was how the
Israelite's were to be judged.

Of course, modern day Christians are *selective* in what they want to
impose on others.

As well as your *selective* scripture references.

Mosaic law includes the 10 Commandments. And the point is that those who
use "selected" passages in the bible to try to control others, as
fundies are wont to do, and ignore the passages they don't like, are
hypocritical control freaks and nothing more. The bible says a lot of
things and if you are going to cite it as *the* source of what is right
or wrong, you can't cherry pick.

Then why do you?

I don't use the bible to try to control people or as a device to
spread hatred and cruelty. That's a fundamentalist trait.

I don't either, but you seem to enjoy twisting the scripture to how
ever you feel comfortable.

Really Harry, you shouldn't do that.


I don't "twist" scripture at all. I'm simply pointing out the
hatefulness and hypocrisy of those who use it to "control" others, and
how they push certain passages they believe are in it and ignore others.
It's the same sort of nonsense I find in self-described conservative
christians who pay little attention to the serious teachings of their
savior.

On 5/20/2012 10:05 AM, Oscar wrote:





Uh, concubine, not concucumber.

Correct. Concucumber is Dr. 3Xs sex toy.

Harry is thinking about little boys again.... of course I should note I
didn't read Dr. Grear's **** anyway.

On 5/20/2012 9:23 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/20/12 9:15 AM, Tim wrote:
On May 20, 8:01 am, X ` Man

That's always been a bit confusing because Adam and Eve only had sons.

Genesis 5:4


This is a family newsgroup...I didn't want to mention the incest angle.

Sure you did, you are a cowardly sack of **** who is only here to hurt
and spread your own misery... sad thing Dr. Karen Grear or Catholic
University...

On 5/20/2012 10:08 AM, Oscar wrote:


And your point?

Virginity was highly overrated then...and now.

Spoken by a man who has never deflowered one.

OH wait, didn't you hear his story about the fat, pimple faced, redhead
that was so gross she couldn't get a boy her own age... so she did
harry? It was right between the story of Yale Graduation and super fast
sports cars....snerk

On 5/20/2012 6:00 PM, Tim wrote:
On May 20, 8:57 am, X ` Mandump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 5/20/12 9:46 AM, Tim wrote:









On May 20, 8:26 am, wrote:
In , dump-on-
says...

...revel in your heresy.

One of my relatives by marriage is a Southern Baptist bible thumper who
is always misquoting or misinterpreting the "old" testament in his
attempts to justify his bigotry. That in itself is funny, because the
"old" testament isn't even really his "big book of religion."

Anyway, he was on same rant about the defense of marriage bull**** the
far-right pushes and tried to quote some religious nonsense about how
the creator wanted marriage to be between one man and one woman.

That's always been a bit confusing because Adam and Eve only had sons.
It also conflicts with Deuteronomy 22:15, where the creator tells a man
with two wives how he should handle the matters that arise when you have
children with two different women. And remember Judges 8:30, in which
Gideon has 71 sons, many, many wives and a concumbine? Well, Gideon's
behavior, what do you expect from a horn player, eh?

Religion...why, it's whatever you want it to be!

Well, there's always this, too!

Deut. 22:13-21

"If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her,
14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and
says, ?I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a
virgin,? 15 then the girl?s father and her mother shall take and bring
out the evidence of the girl?s virginity to the elders of the city at
the gate. 16 "And the girl?s father shall say to the elders, ?I gave my
daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and
behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find
your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter?s
virginity.? And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the
city. 18 "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise
him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it
to the girl?s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel.
And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20
"But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21
then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father?s house,
and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has
committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her
father?s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you," (Deut.
22:13-21).

OT (mosaic) law.

And your point?

Virginity was highly overrated then...and now.

Why?

Don't you understand this is just more of harry and loogie hate speech?

On 5/20/2012 7:27 PM, Tim wrote:
On May 20, 5:22 pm, X ` Mandump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 5/20/12 6:00 PM, Tim wrote:

On May 20, 8:57 am, X ` Mandump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:

Virginity was highly overrated then...and now.

Why?

It's bit of a simple-minded way to judge the "purity" or "righteousness"
or whatever of a partner, among other things.


Very simple indeed Harry, I thought you were above that.

Really? Wow...

On 5/20/2012 7:42 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 5/20/12 7:27 PM, Tim wrote:
On May 20, 5:22 pm, X ` Mandump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 5/20/12 6:00 PM, Tim wrote:

On May 20, 8:57 am, X ` Mandump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:

Virginity was highly overrated then...and now.

Why?

It's bit of a simple-minded way to judge the "purity" or "righteousness"
or whatever of a partner, among other things.


Very simple indeed Harry, I thought you were above that.


I don't see the connection between virginity and anything but virginity
in most people over the age of 14.

But you said before you thought it was ok to rape a 10 year old and
spirit them over the state border for an abortion to avoid the legal
ramifications...

On 5/20/2012 6:01 PM, Tim wrote:
On May 20, 9:10 am, wrote:


If you take a wife and she's not a virgin, you're supposed to kill her.
Says so right in the Bible!


OT (mosaic) law.

And your point?

Nobody has been paying attention to him and harry, so now they are
attacking you personally with their hate speech...

On 5/20/2012 7:26 PM, Tim wrote:
On May 20, 5:20 pm, X ` Mandump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 5/20/12 6:01 PM, Tim wrote:

On May 20, 9:10 am, wrote:

If you take a wife and she's not a virgin, you're supposed to kill her.
Says so right in the Bible!

OT (mosaic) law.

And your point?

Christians are always citing Mosaic law, especially conservative fundie
christians, to state beliefs and standards of behavior. How do I know?
The bible tells me so. And what could be more Mosaic than the 10
commandments?

Of course, modern day christians are *selective* in what they want to
impose on others.

OK, so again, what's your point?

hate, hate, hate.... that's his point...

On 5/20/2012 10:38 PM, Tim wrote:
On May 20, 6:40 pm, X ` Man



The hypocrisy of religion, which I differentiate from a belief in a
creator.

OK, so why do you think it's worthy of discussion on a boating news
group?

Do you really feel it that necessary?

Nobody else will address them, so they have to come after you..