"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
===============
Now many "Christians" try to live, according to this noble clause,
and
noble indeed it is. But please understand that in so doing, they are
showing they do not have the foggiest idea about the New Testament
which Jesus spoke about.
=====================

OK, Tink, pardon my ignorance. I thought the OT was the boogeyman
stuff
and the NT was the cool, new-age stuff. Are you telling me it's the
other way around? If so, please give me a few, better-known examples.

frtzw906

Bingo! Some light are coming on!

We briefly have discussed that the high mark of the Old Testament was "
Thou shalt love your neighbor as your self." Actually this statement
was the second part of His summary, He preceded this statement in his
summary with the first part which said, "Thou shalt love the Lord your
God, with all your heart, soul, and strength!" Still all Old Testament!

He followed the summary of the Old Testament, with the Intro to the
New, " Thou shalt love one another, as I have loved you and given
myself for you."

Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs. New, and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament today, and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question, to check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the engine to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but you
have an idea of its condition.

I do not mean to say this to be mean, but do you understand then why I
suggested that some of your notions are a bit silly, in light of this
current Revelation? TnT

This isn't even funny now. It's like giving too much catnip to a tabby.

Tink opines:
==============
Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs. New, and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament today, and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question, to check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the engine to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but you
have an idea of its condition.
================

I'll ignore your "dipstick" comment GRIN.

Hey, when it comes to OT, NT, Koran, et al, I'm running on empty. So
now that you know the status, how about some of the better-known
examples of NT boogey-man stuff (or OT warm fuzzies). I say
better-known because I'd at least like to occasionally be able to say,
"Hey, I've heard of that!" You're going to have to relate to me at a
pretty simplistic level.

But, be forewarned, just as the JW's at my doorstep are forewarned, I'm
not coming over to your side so long as you've got a mythical deity on
your squad. OK?

frtzw906

KMAN:
================
This isn't even funny now. It's like giving too much catnip to a tabby.
==================

Here kitty, Kitty....

OK, I'm off to look at some sprayskirts. CU

frtzw906

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

It's not they, it's you that I judge to be evading.

Given your lack of evidence to support your bull****, evasion
seems to be your specialty.

I am using the term morphology correctly. It is about shape and
form, not size. You don't understand that and are using the
term incorrectly. When you discuss sizes, you are entering into
the realm of biometry. Something you would know nothing about,
since you know virtually nothing about science.

You want a reference - here's one from the first book I grabbed
off my bookshelves. It discusses the use of morphology and biometry
specifically in the context of paleoanthropology.

Johanson, Donald, and Edey, Maitland A., "Lucy, The Beginnings of
Humankind", Simon and Schuster, 1981, pp74-75. ISBN 0-671-25036-1

Now how about you providing the references to back up your ridiculous
claims? Here's the bull**** you're trying to avoid. Go ahead,
dickhead, put yout money where your mouth is. Prove your ridiculous
assertions. Cut the bull**** and post some facts for a change.


Galileo and Newton were considered fools by their peers - bogus.

Really? Have you personally interviewed all of their peers?

Have you? You made the claim - you have to back it up. You have not
been able to do so. I have studied a lot about the history of science
and can tell you that there is nothing that suggests that Galileo was
not well respected. Ditto Newton.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus.

Sorry, but that was the prevailing belief for a very long time.

By religious nut cases - yes. By the scientists - no. In fact is
is a myth that most people believed the earth was flat. If you can
prove otherwise, do so. Otherwise it remains a bogus claim on
your part.

H. sapiens didn't always walk upright - bogus.

Not a claim I ever made.

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.

And then there's the change to upright gait...

Bull**** again.

Your fantasy "theory of evolution" is an accepted scientific theory - bogus

You've yet to post anything which refutes it.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Not a claim I made.

Want me to quote you again? More bull**** on your part.

It's implicit in your statements

And you choose to ignore my _explicit_ statement. You are
still full of ****.

Mike

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Nah. I'm quite certain that my use falls squarely within the Fair Use
exception.

Evasion instead of proof. More bull**** from the weiner.

Mike

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And yet not one of them can actually cite an incident where enforcement of
the Patriot Act has unlawfully infringed on ANYONE'S civil rights.

Then there should not be any reason for a constitutional guarantee for
a right to bear arms. After all, it doesn't matter what the law is
as long as you aren't affected.

BTW dickhead, there are amerikans that have been held without resort to
legal counsel and without charge for years. Jose Padilla has been
detained in a military brig in South Carolina for three years. A federal
court judge just ordered the Bush administration to either charge or
release Padilla within 45 days.

There's a fact for you. Choke on it.

Mike

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And you know this because you personally listen in on every conversation in
Canada simultaneously?

He knows this because studies have been done on what Canadians' interests
are. Some of these studies have been used by demographers for decades.
David Foot's "Boom, Bust and Echo" is a simple example. You see,
dickhead, not everyone is as stupid as you are.

Mike

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I didn't suggest there was such a thing, so I need not define it, because
it's a rhetorical nullity that doesn't exist.

More evasion and bull****.

Mike

Michael says:
===================
He knows this because studies have been done on what Canadians'
interests
are. Some of these studies have been used by demographers for decades.
David Foot's "Boom, Bust and Echo" is a simple example. You see,
dickhead, not everyone is as stupid as you are.
==============

Or try "Fire and Ice" by Michael Adams which explore the many ways in
which Canada differs from the USA and, further, how those differences
are growing more pronounced with each year.

frtzw906

On 9-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

I'm going to acknowledge that there likely existed, some 2000
years ago, a fellow named JC, who had some pretty enlightened ideas
about how people ought to live their lives.

Just to throw gas on the fire - check into Rev. Tom Harpur's writings
on the New Testament. Much of what is written is simply copied from
older, pre-Christian religions. There is virtually no evidence that
JC actually existed.

Mike