in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:16 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:49 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 1:40 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:23 PM:


snip...

I understand what you said! The rest of the world
understands
what you
said! The only one who will not accept what you meant,
and
modified,
and clarified 25 times, is rick, and he may never choose
to
acknowledge
your first apology,
========================
LOL What apology was that? I never saw anything nearing
an
apology.

That's because you are too busy being a supreme scumbag and
showing what a
coward you are for refusing to apologize for your
deliberate
false
accusations.
======================
No foll, it's because you weren't man enought o post it to
me,
liarman. You buried it in a post to TnT, and even then was
really only apologizing for your ignorant 'wording.'
You are the dishonest one here, liarman...

Sorry you didn't care for the apology.
==============
Because as I see it, it wasn't an apology to me.

Yes, it was.
=====================
LOL Only in your delusional, willfully ignorant brain, liarman.

You are the only one who is confused about it.

And it was not an apology for deliberate wrongdoing, it was an
apology
because that was what I offered as an outcome if you could meet
the burdern
of proof in response to a question.
==========================
See, you did not apologize as you promised.

Yes, I did.

snip tired old crap

You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false
accusation. You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never
said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to
insist that I
did.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you
have now admitted your lie has already been determined.

You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting for treatment"
which was a response to your babble about a particular group of people in
Newfoundland.

Even the most twisted interpretation could not see that quote as evidence
that I stated or believe that no one in Canada waits for treatment. It is
only your deliberate dishonesty as a liar and a scumbag that makes it
possible for you to insist upon what you know to be untrue.

snip tired old crap

Tinkerntom wrote:
BCITORGB wrote:
bearsbuddy says:
==============
Not if you accept the idea of the trinity.
==================

so.... if i accept the trinity, then timelines become irrelevant?
is
the trinity some kind of timemachine?

frtzw906

The Trinity is the manmade Doctrine that tries to explain the mystery
of the Godhood. The term Trinity is not found anywhere in the
scripture, though the term Godhood is found throughout, and usually
shortened to the term we refer to as God. The Godhood is a mystery
that
is hard to understand since He is beyond our capability to conceive
of
His totality or even a small part of His being, except as He showed
Himself to us. He has made himself known through various
pre-incarnation revelations known as theophanies, the carnate
revelation through Jesus, and the post-carnate in the person of the
Holy Spirit.

The Godhood is not some kind of a timemachine, for He exist outside
of
time, where there would be no need for a timemachine such as even
clocks. They would be meaningless. There would be no time to go back
in, or forward in, or jump around in. This would be impossible for us
to understand, since we are creatures of time, we would cease to
exist
as we know ourselves because everything we know about ourselves is
based on time.

Now obviously we got into deep water real fast, and that just from
talking about the simple question about the Death Penalty. So
evidently
there is no simple question, and more than likely the answers are
even
more difficult to ascertain. In fact when you deal with the Godhood,
you are dealing with some of the deepest questions, with which man
can
even conceive. The Godhood is beyond time, beyond all the mysteries
of
the whole universe, probably at the very edge of mans ability even to
ask questions.

This is indeed exciting! TnT


A slight correction, I meant Godhead, when I was saying Godhood. TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 9:26 PM:


Tinkerntom wrote:

A slight correction, I meant Godhead, when I was saying Godhood. TnT

Hm. Isn't Godhead big with the Mormons? The basic deal is that god the
father, his son jesus christ , and the holy spirit are three distinct
personages, with both the father and the son having physical bodies.

It seems to me a lot of time would be saved by all simply by acknowledging
that in dealing with mythology you just take the story as told and not worry
so much that it make perfect sense.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
We don't have cars yet, Tinkerntom. Geezus. Our countries are attached.
Why
is Canada such a big mystery?


Total lack of news coverage is the short answer. Every major news outlet
would rather talk 24 hours a day about M. Jackson or some other junk than to
gasp ever talk about anything that does not fit in 10 sec sound bite. I
grew up only vaguely aware of anything about either of our neighbors. It is
only now later in life and mostly due to getting more into the outdoors that
I am learning anything. Strangely enough I did learn about Europe up to
about WWII but absolutely nothing about much else in a more modern vein. The
schools that I have had contact with did a very bad job teaching anything
about the rest of the world --- very sad. I get 70+ channels on my TV and
yet not one is international - do ya see a problem here.

Ken

Tink says:
=============
And if this is so, and Jesus
is God, the same Holy God of the Old Testement, and even before the Old
Testement, the time of Cain and Abel, how could He not destroy us all?
=============

I had a funny feeling I ought not t have gotten into this. I wanted
JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it, in the
New Testament). I have no desire to hear from Moses, Cain, Abel, etc
and all those guys in the Old Testament. Can we not just hear from that
hippy-dude JC?

I have no desire to play back-to-the-future and other games that put
Genesis in the mouth of JC. I want to acknowledge an historical figu
JC. I want to examine HIS teachings (and his specific words ONLY). If
we can't do that, and if, somehow, this discussion has to go before
Christmas Day, all bets are off.

Anyway, with what you've said to date, on the capital punishment issue,
I'm happy to concede to you and fade off into the sunset with the
conclusion that this religion stuff is even creepier than I imagined.
Evil. Mean-spirited. Vengeful. YIKES! Get me out of here!

frtzw906

in article Q4PWd.91240$g16.69896@trndny08, No Spam at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:34 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
We don't have cars yet, Tinkerntom. Geezus. Our countries are attached.
Why
is Canada such a big mystery?


Total lack of news coverage is the short answer. Every major news outlet
would rather talk 24 hours a day about M. Jackson or some other junk than to
gasp ever talk about anything that does not fit in 10 sec sound bite. I
grew up only vaguely aware of anything about either of our neighbors. It is
only now later in life and mostly due to getting more into the outdoors that
I am learning anything. Strangely enough I did learn about Europe up to
about WWII but absolutely nothing about much else in a more modern vein. The
schools that I have had contact with did a very bad job teaching anything
about the rest of the world --- very sad. I get 70+ channels on my TV and
yet not one is international - do ya see a problem here.

Ken

Heh. Brings to mind the popular "Talking To Americans" segment on the faux
news show This Hour Has 22 Minutes. My favourite was when the host went to
the Harvard campus and had everyone from students to professors signing a
petition to stop the polar bear hunt in Toronto.

He also went after high profile US politicians. Here's a dude that collected
some of it in video, funny stuff...I particulary like the one about our
"capitol building" being made of ice.

http://home.comcast.net/~wwwstephen/americans/

in article , BCITORGB
at wrote on 3/6/05 9:38 PM:

Tink says:
=============
And if this is so, and Jesus
is God, the same Holy God of the Old Testement, and even before the Old
Testement, the time of Cain and Abel, how could He not destroy us all?
=============

I had a funny feeling I ought not t have gotten into this. I wanted
JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it, in the
New Testament). I have no desire to hear from Moses, Cain, Abel, etc
and all those guys in the Old Testament. Can we not just hear from that
hippy-dude JC?

I have no desire to play back-to-the-future and other games that put
Genesis in the mouth of JC. I want to acknowledge an historical figu
JC. I want to examine HIS teachings (and his specific words ONLY). If
we can't do that, and if, somehow, this discussion has to go before
Christmas Day, all bets are off.

Anyway, with what you've said to date, on the capital punishment issue,
I'm happy to concede to you and fade off into the sunset with the
conclusion that this religion stuff is even creepier than I imagined.
Evil. Mean-spirited. Vengeful. YIKES! Get me out of here!

frtzw906

I take it you haven't reviewed Leviticus lately?

Remember when Alex in Clockwork Orange found religion?

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 1:57 PM:


Michael Daly wrote:
On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning
homosexual
sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The
AIDS
epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in
the eyes
of those who make the laws.

The AIDS epidemic is overwhelmingly among heterosexuals. Any
reasonable
source for AIDS statistics will point that out. Blaming
homosexuals
for AIDS is nothing but the bias of the ignorant.

Anti-sodomy laws are based
in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity
between
adults and children.

The big difference is consent - adults can consent to behavior,
children are assumed to not be able to. Any law that assumes
that adults are not able to consent removes responsibility from
adults and puts it in the hands of the law. Hardly a description
of a free country.

(such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that
the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes
to
control.

Pedophilia or rape do not involve consent. Behavior that does
should
not
be controled by the state.

Mike

Just in passing, do you drive on the right side, or the left side
of
the street in Canada? TnT

We don't have cars yet, Tinkerntom. Geezus. Our countries are
attached. Why
is Canada such a big mystery?

The state controls all kinds of behavior, some of which is not
intrinsiclally good or bad, some which is definitely questionable. It
does not have to be a matter of legal consent, but for social order,
and the protection of life and property. Whether which side of the road
the State determines a driver should drive on, or whether certain
behavior is aceptable or not. TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 9:49 PM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 1:57 PM:


Michael Daly wrote:
On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning
homosexual
sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The
AIDS
epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in
the eyes
of those who make the laws.

The AIDS epidemic is overwhelmingly among heterosexuals. Any
reasonable
source for AIDS statistics will point that out. Blaming
homosexuals
for AIDS is nothing but the bias of the ignorant.

Anti-sodomy laws are based
in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity
between
adults and children.

The big difference is consent - adults can consent to behavior,
children are assumed to not be able to. Any law that assumes
that adults are not able to consent removes responsibility from
adults and puts it in the hands of the law. Hardly a description
of a free country.

(such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that
the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes
to
control.

Pedophilia or rape do not involve consent. Behavior that does
should
not
be controled by the state.

Mike

Just in passing, do you drive on the right side, or the left side
of
the street in Canada? TnT

We don't have cars yet, Tinkerntom. Geezus. Our countries are
attached. Why
is Canada such a big mystery?

The state controls all kinds of behavior, some of which is not
intrinsiclally good or bad, some which is definitely questionable. It
does not have to be a matter of legal consent, but for social order,
and the protection of life and property. Whether which side of the road
the State determines a driver should drive on, or whether certain
behavior is aceptable or not. TnT

Holy crap, I think you've advanced from reefer to LSD. What are you trippin
on dude?

KMAN says:
=============
I take it you haven't reviewed Leviticus lately?
==================

No, but the CBC program "Ideas" had an interesting feature on Wednesday
(to be finished this coming Wed) about Karl Polanyi. Since wednesday,
I've been reading some of his stuff (see Karl Polanyi Institute for
Political Economy at Concordia University). Useful in trying to
understand globalization.

Leviticus? I'm sure Tink can give me a precis. [Hey Tink, keep it to
precis length, OK?]

Cheers,
frtzw906